It is worth noting that none of the studies included in this discussion explored attitudes to HRC as the sole focus of investigation. Pedagogical discourse overlaps significantly with both HRC and with biotechnology discourse in a number of studies in the UK and the US. An investigation of attitudes to genetics served as the context for other studies in the UK and Brazil.

The British study (1998) (which included youth who had already left high school) was part of a larger study of Brits to biotechnology, and funded by a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishers and Food. They valued a deepening understanding of the teenagers’ attitudes to biotechnology as “they represent emerging consumers – a primary market in their own right, with distinctive tastes and commodity preferences and disposable income over which they are gaining increasing personal control.” Valuing students as “tomorrow’s consumer market” is a stance reflected in Australian researchers’  (2005) comment that “it is vital that the scientific community continue to monitor the attitiude of the public to biotechnology.”

This consumerist approach is rejected by another Australian teacher/research team (2003) who comment that surveys of public understanding of biotechnology “tend to treat biotechnology issues as consumer, rather than as citizen questions”. They argue that “[given] the potential impact of biotechnology on human health, agriculture and the environment it is important that young people have sufficient scientific background on genetics and cell biology and an awareness of the associated risks and benefits so that they are able to make informed decisions.”

The approach of this team to try to improve the knowledge base of high school students has parallels in the work of others with high school students and teachers, and in an investigation of Spanish science text books. Australian research discovered differences in science topic preferences between students and teachers. While students indicated that human cloning (as well as other topics such as bioethics and birth control) should be included in the curriculum, teachers were “generally opposed” to including such topics. An investigation found the biology text books in used in Spanish schools to be inconsistent and, at times, inaccurate in their treatment of such topics as cloning, thus making it difficult for students to be able to make well-informed decisions about biotechnology.

Regardless of whether the study was conducted as a consumer survey, or an attempt to improve pedagogy, these studies together reveal something of teenager knowledge and attitudes to HRC:

1. Students have some basic knowledge of cloning and its implications. A wide range of variance is evident in the studies with 53% of surveyed students in the UK demonstrating familiarity with the term ‘cloning’ in 1998, but only 11% were aware of human cloning in an Australian survey in 2006. This difference may be the result of the media attention surrounding the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997.

2. Student knowledge of cloning increased with year at high school. This is as one would hope: that students in senior years at high school have a greater knowledge of cloning than students in junior years.

3. Students draw their knowledge of biotechnology applications from a variety of sources. In the UK it was reported that youth relied on television as their main source of biotechnology knowledge, though they did not consider it to be highly trustworthy. Newspapers were the second main source of knowledge, followed by science education at school or college. In Australia, research revealed scientists/universities as the most trusted sources of biotechnology knowledge among a high school student cohort (they did not offer school education as an option). The press (newspapers/TV/magazines) scored low in this survey. This is countered by a UK study in which Jurassic Park and the sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf were frequently mentioned as sources of technical knowledge.

4. Students generally, but not completely, express a negative attitude towards HRC While one Australian study could report that HRC was the technology with the highest disapproval rating, in Brazil, another study reported that some students in their focus groups defended HRC. Studying students in France, another researcher records a quotation from one student who took the role of protagonist in discussions: “Cloning people might be useful: it might interest the army, or for work”.

5. Students are suspicious that HRC is already taking place. Independent studies in Australia in 2003 and in Brazil in 2005 revealed the suspicion that cloning of people was already taking place. These suspicions were not explored, but it should be noted that international media attention was given to the announcements: that Dr Antinori, in late 2002, announced he had successfully made three women pregnant with cloned embryos; that the Raelian cult was claiming in 2003 to have cloned humans; and in 2004 Dr Hwang made a similar claim to having cloned humans.

Understanding how secondary students understanding and respond to HRC is important in considering how best to increase their knowledge and answer their questions, is instructive in projecting how future leaders, consumers and citizens might respond to HRC.

(I am interested in your feedback on these thoughts. Please feel free to leave comments.)

 Cloning in the laboratory is a range of techniques, but in general understanding, and certainly the focus of my research, is the cloning technique that resulted in Dolly the Sheep (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer).

This technique involves removing the nucleus (containing the individual’s DNA) from an adult cell and placing it in an oocyte (egg cell) which has had its nucleus removed. This newly formed embryo can then be implanted in a uterus and, all going well, nine months later a baby is born – an exact genetic copy of the original.  This is human reproductive cloning – cloning people to produce more people. I will refer to it simply as HRC. (For a simple, illustrated explanation use the Resources link to “Public Understanding of Biotechnology”)

When asked to express my research topic in a single sentence, my response is: “it’s a study of ethical and human rights issues surrounding human cloning.”

But now I need to be a little more specific – it is a study to investigate how researchers, at the cutting edge of medical science, and in fields closely aligned to human reproductive cloning, make sense of their work within this field of public, moral tension.  It’s important to note that there is, technically, no reproductive cloning happening anywhere in the world at present – that is, world wide condemnation of cloning to produce babies is such that we should expect there are no cloned babies being born.  However, there are fields of medico-scientific endeavour which could easily begin producing babies by cloning if legislation was changed.

This post is a brief introduction to a small part of what my search of the literature is revealing.

Firstly, I will provide a very brief historical overview of the context of the study of attitudes to HRC. Following this, and applying Foucault’s concepts of archaeology and genealogy, I will introduce some of the discourses shaping this field, and comment on some of the technologies employed in the area of HRC discourse.

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE SITUATES A STUDY OF ATTITUDES TO HRC WITHIN A SUCCESSION OF DISCOURSES

HRC, and the subsequent scientific, moral and legal discourses, did not arise spontaneously in February 1997 when Dolly the Sheep was announced to the world, but emerged from a succession of discourses.

a.      Firstly, moving forward in time from Dolly:

When Dolly was announced, the world spoke of ‘cloning’. This expressed the concept of applying the technique of Wilmut and his team to producing human beings, and renewed debate sprang up about the ethical implications of cloning to produce human beings.

However, stem cell researchers recognized the potential of this cloning technique and sought to apply it to produce cloned embryos. This was not taken as a means to produce a baby, but as a source of stem cells, and specifically, stem cells for any individual requiring them for medical interventions: for example, to treat spinal injury or Parkinson’s disease.

This resulted in a branching in the discourse. Cloning became defined as either cloning to produce stem cells – therapeutic cloning, or cloning to produce babies, reproductive cloning.  While mindful of this divergence, my research is specifically about HRC, producing a baby by cloning, and focuses on the attitudes of frontline researchers and how they make sense of their work. (For a far-from-exhaustive-yet-developing timeline go to the page: Cloning Timeline)

 b.     Moving back through time from Dolly

Dolly’s creation was not an exercise in cloning, per se, it was more about uncovering processes of embryonic development in an effort to quickly multiply the results of genetic engineering to produce pharmaceutical products in an application called ‘pharming’.

While I find it helpful to see a timeline of scientific endeavour, my interest lies more in uncovering the influences that position people in relation to the specific area of HRC.  To this end, I turn from a structuralist view of scientific development to a review of the discourses shaping the attitudes of people towards HRC.

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE REVEALS A NUMBER OF INFLUENCING DISCOURSES UPON ATTITUDES TO HRC

Within the studies of people’s attitudes to HRC, a number of themes can be identified which reflect various discourses converging with HRC discourse.

Foucault (a French philosopher, 1926 – 1984) developed, what he called, an archaeological approach to his study of knowledge comparing, for example, approaches to knowledge in the 17^th and 18^th centuries with the 19^th century in his book, The Order of Things. Investigation of the HRC literature offers the possibility of studying how the discourses, and the language inherent in those discourses, position people in relation to HRC, to each other and to relevant institutions. The advantage of taking this approach to the literature is that, having identified significant discourses, Foucault’s concept of genealogy can then also be applied. In this way, the discourses are identified and the approach of genealogy is employed to identify controls over subjects (more on genealogy, below).

Firstly, to identify discourses influencing people’s attitudes to HRC a critical review of literature, which reported on peoples’ attitudes to HRC, was carried out. Literature since the announcement of dolly in 1997 was assembled and assessed according to the dominant discourses being represented. Within the literature, both qualitative and quantitative studies are reported. Additionally, a search of hansard from the Australian Parliament’s House of Representatives since 1997 has yielded further insight, into personal attitudes to HRC.

I have grouped the results of the review of the available literature into the following discursive themes – again, this list is not exhaustive.

• Biotechnology (its applications and acceptability)
• Ethics (status of embryo, Risk/Benefit discourse)
• Genetics
• Human Rights
• Lifestyle discourse(includes socioeconomics, parity, level of education, and country vs suburban living.)
• National governance
• Pedagogy (this intersects with biotechnology discourses in the area of student understanding and acceptability)
• Religion/religiosity
• Reproductive medicine
• War and peace (includes reference to Nazism and possible, future applications)

 DISCIPLINES BROUGHT TO BEAR UPON THE FIELD OF HRC

By disciplines I am referring to systems of control, or at least, measures brought to bear upon the actors in the field of HRC to affect their behaviours. Alongside Foucault’s concept of archaeology, and its attempt to discern the discourses which position people within a field of knowledge, I seek to apply his concept of genealogy, which attempts to discern the disciplines, or controls, employed to create subjects.

 There is some discussion in the literature of Foucault’s work and how his usage of terms changed and developed, and whether or not the concepts of archaeology and genealogy are continuous or discontinuous. For this post I restrict myself to appropriating and using the terms rather than entering into further discussing (although an important debate – I leave that for another time). I am applying these terms, for this post, as discontinuous, though complementary.  Genealogy, then, as used in this blurb, is an identification of those disciplines and practices which are engaged by the state, or other institutions, to exert power over subjects. Genealogy is taken to mean a study of the way in which the discourses (identified by archaeology) are inscribed upon the bodies of subjects – put simply – how rules, expectations, laws, etc are employed to affect us/others.

 “… we should try to discover how it is that subjects are gradually, progressively, really and materially constituted, through a multiplicity or organisms, forces, energies, materials, desires, thoughts, etc. We should try to grasp subjection in its material instance as a constitution of subject.”  [Foucault,1980, Power/Knowledge p.97]

 Further, in reviewing the relevant literature, five subjects can be identified: the first is implied and the other three are explicitly identified, and the fifth is ‘in development’.

 1. The individual citizen.

The individual citizen, who would be cloned, if cloning was acceptable and possible, is all but absent from discussions of cloning regulation. Should cloning become part of reproductive technology on offer to the public, the individual citizen might then become a patient, or a donor, maybe a parent, or perhaps even an original. How the citizen will be made a subject in the HRC discourse is yet to be determined. 

For the present, there seems to be no regulatory responses to citizens in the literature. These are perhaps not yet required beyond what is already enacted in government and medical protocols for presently available reproductive medicine. Apart from the medico-scientific hurdles to HRC still to be overcome, the lack of discussion regarding regulatory practice for the individual suggests that the legislative and licensing controls over medico-scientific personnel, who would administer the cloning procedures, is sufficient.

2. The medico-scientific personnel.

Following the announcement of mammalian cloning, and amidst widespread, public apprehension, nation states moved to enact legislation to prevent HRC.  Further international concerns were raised by the Korean and also the Italian researchers:  Drs Wang and Antinori who were making claims about human cloning.  This brought about condemnation from the scientific community as well as further restrictions and investigations.

 In Australia, the Senate suggested a paragraph be inserted into the Gene Technology Bill 2001 which would legislate against HRC. However, it wasn’t until 2002 when the government’s proposed cloning bill was split into two that legislation, specifically addressing HRC, was enacted. This separation of the bill provided for distinct legislation to deal separately with reproductive and with therapeutic cloning. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 criminalises production of cloned embryos for implantation and the importing of cloned embryos for reproductive purposes.

Through the legal regulation of the personnel involved with research and potentially involved with administering HRC procedures, the medico-scientific personnel are subjected as either responsible scientists to be praised; renegade scientists to be de-registered; or criminals to be penalized.

3. Nation states

The UN Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, Article 11 (adopted 11 November 1997) was the first statement by the UN condemning HRC. This was further supported by the explicit UN Declaration on Human Cloning (5 March 2005). While non-binding, these statements set international standards for acceptable conduct in the field of reproductive medicine. They are a ‘call’ to all member states to conform to certain practices (or refrain from them) in response to stated ideals of human rights and human dignity.  Presumably, breaches of such ‘calls’ to prohibit HRC would mean that a nation would become a rogue state and sanctions would be considered – these details are still in discussion.

In September 2007 the United Nations University – Institute of Advanced Studies released a report: Is Human Reproductive Cloning Inevitable?. Future Options for UN Governance.  This report throws open the discussions again on HRC and how the UN might best apply its power in relation to nation states in the HRC discourse.

4. The human-as-embryo

Finally, a genealogy of the HRC discourse reveals the subjection of the human-as-embryo.  The status of the embryo has definitely been a contentious issue in reproductive medicine and ethical debate. However, the human-as-embryo has all but disappeared in HRC discussions. Deontological arguments, often based in religious discourse were deadlocked with pragmatic and teleological arguments, often based in medical discourse, and so the field of argumentation appears to have moved to discussion of such topics as risks/benefits over against ethics and morality.

 Of interest to this project is how the human-as-embryo is made not just subject, but object, for therapeutic cloning, then after a legally formalized criterion is met (in Australia – after day 14), it is constituted as human. This is an area which requires further investigation and discussion.

 5. The cloned human

How would the world treat and name clones? What regulations, if any, would be put in place to control their movements, activities, reproductive rights? These are questions which might one day need to be discussed in great detail.

 CONCLUSION:

This post is but a brief overview of the themes expressed in the literature addressing my field of interest. Applying the Foucaldian concepts of Archaeology and Genealogy provides a suitable framework for a critical review of the discourses and disciplines employed in the HRC field, and a framework for considering how medico-scientific personnel make sense of this morally contentious field of endeavour. For the researcher with the potential to be involved in HRC there is the issue of subjecting the citizen, and also the human-as-embryo to the power of the researcher. There is also the issue of the researcher as one who is made subject by national laws and international agreements. With little research being applied to understanding how medico-scientists navigate this terrain, and with no evidence of study of how they make sense of work related to HRC, this is unique research being carried out. Further, with the ongoing discussions at the UN in relation to future developments in HRC technology, this research is current and relevant to international cloning and reproductive discourse.

 I conclude with the statement from the International Bioethics Committee’s report on Human Cloning and International Governance (9 June 09)

 ”Finally, IBC considers that UNESCO could develop specific strategies and materials to promote international discourse on this topic and more actively encourage and support national research organizations/ academies and national bioethics committees in disseminating and debating cloning issues.”

 There is much to be done…

Rob

(If any of this is of interest/value to you and you would like to use it elsewhere, please contact me.)

I love him - but I couldn't copy him.

… that’s what the “Sunday Night” programme on Channel 7 presented last night in the story “Send in the clones”. The face of pet cloning is a cute puppy – now who can argue against that!

If you’ve got a passion for a pet and cash to burn, then you can get the pet cloned. Even if the pet is long dead, as long as you have stored up some of the DNA (usually as frozen skin/epithelial cells) you can revive the animal (at least, that was one of the views presented)

The Ottos – proud clone owners of Lancy the labrador - made an interesting comment that when they look at the clone-dog they see the original pet. Now I’m sure they love the new dog, but there was a hint that the love for the new pet was contingent upon it’s being like, and representing the previous pet. And when this is linked to the idea of cloning people to produce babies, then I find the idea disturbing – that the clone receives love, not wholly because of its own intrinsic worth, but because he/she is the representation of, or memorial to, the original.

When asked if they would clone champion horses again, the owners said they probably wouldn’t. They concluded, though the steeds were genetically identical and shared similar personality traits, that you can’t clone heart. The race horse needs passion, which they observe isn’t found in the clones in the same measure.

So the animals are genetic clones – but they are quite different in observable ways. But then again, we need to ask – are the clones really genetically identical? And no, they never will be genetically identical – but they can be really, really close.  If I was to go out tomorrow and get myself cloned, would the clone be identical to me? Absolutely identical? No – just really, really, close.

We seem to have reduced inheritance to mean the chromosomes we inherit from our two parents, and which are found in the nucleus of our body cells. But there are also these tiny things called mitochondria in each cell which also carry DNA (mitochondrial DNA). I liken these to little batteries in our cells which provide them with power. Mitochondria (and hence their DNA) are inherited from our mothers, and can be used to trace maternal lineages (more on that another time). So is the clone absolutely identical to the original – no, there will be small, measureable differences due to different mitochondria from a different maternal line expressed in each cell of the clone.

Also, I am not yet convinced that cloning, which involves a deprogramming of the original cell, is a perfected technique, and that there will be variations (?mutations?) in the clone which are not present in the original. So many embryos never make it to birth, or much beyond birth – and what is that to be put down to?

Dr Marcy Darnovsky, ethicist from the Centre for Genetics and Society, was presented, for counterpoint, raising the issue of animal suffering. Cute puppies come at the cost of egg harvesting from the female animals, and then the death and suffering of the animals who don’t survive the process. And I have to wonder if, spending $155,000US  is a good investment in the future of the planet?

(See the link to the TV show)

Thanks for you patience during this start up phase.

Rob