American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):W27-W28 (2005)

Jesse Steinberg
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Fritz Allhoff has recently offered an extremely compelling challenge to the morality of human cloning. He argues that a biological phenomenon, that of telomere shortening, undermines the moral permissibility of human cloning. Telomere shortening is caused by cell replication, and appears to be one of the central reasons that cells and organisms age and die. Allhoff considers a thirty-year-old woman who wishes to create a genetic clone. He notes that the DNA from her cell that would be used to create the clone would have shortened telomeres—as it would have gone through many generations of cell replication. As a result, the clone would begin its existence with shortened telomeres; the clone’s telomeres would be the same length as the woman’s telomeres at the time of cloning. The moral problem lies in the fact that because of shortened telomeres, the clone will senesce more rapidly as compared with noncloned organisms, and would have increased susceptibility to degenerative conditions and diseases. Allhoff then goes on to argue that earlier senescence and disease susceptibility constitute a moral ground for rejecting cloning because “the life of a clone would be worse than that of a non-clone”. This line of argument is rooted in Parfit’s The Same Number Quality Claim : “If in either of two outcomes the same number of people would ever live, it would be bad if those who live are worse off, or have a lower quality of life, than those who would have lived”. Applying Parfit’s Q principle to cases of cloning, it could be argued that parents ought to produce children that would be maximally well off, and since clones would be worse off than children produced “normally,” it follows that parents should avoid cloning. As Allhoff puts it, “obviously sexual reproduction would not transfer shortened telomeres to offspring so, all else being equal, sexual reproduction is better than cloning ”. For this sort of line to pack any moral punch, Q must be interpreted rather strongly.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/15265160590931250
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,177
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
Telomeres and the Ethics of Human Cloning.Fritz Allhoff - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):29 – 31.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Telomeres and the Ethics of Human Cloning.Fritz Allhoff - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):29 – 31.
Reply to Allhoff on Telomeres and the Ethics of Cloning.Jesse R. Steinberg - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):27-28.
New Technologies, Old Distinctions: What’s Wrong with Cloning.Max J. Latona - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:277-288.
A Clone by Any Other Name.Katherin A. Rogers - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):247-255.
Cloning and Identity.Nicholas Agar - 2003 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (1):9 – 26.
A Wolf in Sheep’s Cloning?Richard Hanley - 1999 - Monash Bioethics Review 18 (1):59-62.
Does the Non-Identity Problem Block a Class of Arguments Against Cloning?Richard Greene - 2004 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (1):95-101.


Added to PP index

Total views
6,429 ( #358 of 2,499,424 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #278,169 of 2,499,424 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes