One of the most interesting parts of running a website like The Niche is that reader’s questions can sometimes be so striking including recent ones on human cloning.
They got me thinking about cloning again.
Human cloning & loss of a loved one: things to consider
Several readers have recently asked about whether human cloning could be used to on some level to bring back a version of the person who died.
Losing a loved one can be a terrible shock and there’s a lot to deal with in the months and years that follow. I can understand why some folks might think about cloning as a possible option.
In writing back to the readers, I outlined some things to think about in my replies.
A clone would not be the same person who has been lost. They would be like an identical twin produced at a different time.
Other factors besides genetics can come into play including epigenetics, which controls gene activity.
The uterine environment can also have a big impact. If it was a child who died and then later the same mother carried the child’s clone to term, the uterine environment could be fairly similar to that when the first daughter or son was born. However, some years would have gone by so the mother’s health, diet, external environment, etc. could be different.
Also, just the mom being somewhat older could change the in utero conditions.
The uterine environment could be very different with a surrogate mother.
Another thing to think about is that the clone would be a baby at first so they wouldn’t look just like the person who had died until the clone grew up to be the same age. Still, parents may have memories of what their child looked like as a baby and the clone would likely look almost the same.
Cloning facts & more considerations
I’ve written about cloning numerous times so check that out for background. Also see my recent article: Human cloning is more likely now but would you take the big risks?
At this time, cloning of people would not be safe. The risks need some serious consideration.
Dangers could include developmental disorders facing the clones or even death after birth. I also think it’s likely that research into reproductive cloning of people would lead to a large number of miscarriages along the way.
Practically speaking to even begin to try to clone a human being you would need healthy living cells from them. When someone has died it is not always possible to get and preserve such cells. In the intensity of grief it is also possible that saving cells might not come to mind.
Technologies that could advance human cloning used for reproduction have advanced over the 12 or so years I’ve been writing The Niche.
Cloning of animals has also taken major steps forward as a technology, which could enable attempts at the human version.
Ethical and bigger picture considerations
This all raises another important consideration. Even cloning motivated by the understandable desire to replace a lost loved one could enable more dubious or even outright unethical uses of the same technologies by others.
For instance, if research advanced human cloning technologies for one effort specifically focused on producing a clone of a lost family member, someone else then could use that technology to make clones for an unethical reason.
It’s hard to keep technology in a bottle.
There could even be frivolous cloning such as of dead celebrities or attempts to bring back icons (e.g. see Imagine Cloning John Lennon From Old Molar and Justin Beiber or Einstein or you? Who gets cloned first?)
Cloning could also be extremely expensive and only available to certain people in society.
What about alternatives to cloning for those grieving?
I’m not sure any will be quite what families are looking for after deaths of loved ones.
As an update, note that a myth is floating around that covid tests will be used to clone people, which is total baloney.
Just a bit of science to rain on the parade: we are all DNA mosaics. During early embryonic development, DNA changes occur- sometimes drastic ones, like Trisomies (18, 21, etc). Throughout life, we acquire DNA changes in all cells that divide. That is why each iPSC clone from a reprogrammed culture is at least a bit different from the others, and sometimes very different.
So, even if you were able to pick a nucleus that is most typical of your whole body, the cells that arose from it would change during embryonic development, and could result in a quite different genetic individual than expected.
I would had done cloning if I could had years ago aswell. But there is no way that would be the same person. Your life makes you who you are. It would be a whole different person. I do understand the person that mentioned their baby. After a certain age though I think cloning would not be the answer. But maybe for a 12 months old and lower because They have yet to really shape/mold Who they are.
https://www.phoenixkarma.org/about is a community of parents who have lost young children and who wish to explore the possibility of cloning when the scientific and clinical advancements will make it possible to do so safely.
Hi. Cant you clone dead people from the dna of their living offsprings. I have lost both my parents and would love to have them back. An eternally young and healthy set of parents is my dream…🙏😇
Children are only 50% genetically the same as their parents and every child has a very different mix of the parents’ genomes. Chromosomes get kind of shuffled during reproduction. So one can’t clone a parent from the offspring. On another level, cloning technology more generally isn’t to the point of trying to even directly clone one person themself.
It literally would be the same human being, the same way a wound heals over, the scar is still part of the same person. A clone is a scar of the donor. The only thing that is missing are the memories that make them who they are. But the body isn’t a copy, it’s the same DNA, the same person. If a person has head trauma and all memory is wiped, are they still that person? Their body still is. And if new memories are made, they won’t act completely the same, but in many ways they will still act very similar as they did before. Much of our personality is inherent in our DNA.
I would like to propose an idea to enable those who are childless the chance to register their interest in having themselves cloned after they die. Not necessarily another DNA bank but a pledge to live again in a time more favourable towards infertility.
I would turn to human cloning without a second of hesitation. Actually, I’m hoping that in the following years, maybe two decades, it will become a normal and safe procedure, available to everyone, myself included.
As for taking a child death as an ‘ethical’ reason and other instances as ‘unethical’ – I can just say that this standpoint is unethical in its nature.
The medical technology, drugs, surgical procedures and such forth should be available to everyone. Or none. No “approval” (except in case of medical reasons), no artificial “ethical/unethical” classification, nothing.
I’m following this issue for over 20 years and reading voraciously everything even remotely connected. Each and every argument regarding “ethics” is very deep into grey zone – having monoclonal antibodies is ethical? Or not? What about the pets? And ultimately, humans?
There is very little difference between right to abort pregnancy, artificial insemination or using sperm banks, and cloning.
I categorically refuse to be dependent on “ethical” reasons which put cats and children over everything else. I’m fully accepting medical reasons, though. Also, the matter of personal choice and personal ethics.
Remember that no child actually asked to be born, and that there is no “ethical” committee which allows or disallows the birthright.
Cloning is an inalienable right of each person.
I would not turn to cloning if I lost a loved one…It would not be the same person
If you loose a baby, you will, you can’t imagine how it is difficult
I agree with you
I agree they wouldn’t be at all