wfn.org | ELCA Division Produces Resource on Human Cloning

[news@ELCA.ORG]

ELCA NEWS SERVICE

March 13, 2001

ELCA DIVISION PRODUCES RESOURCE ON HUMAN CLONING
01-057-BW

     CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The Division for Church in Society (DCS) of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  (ELCA) has produced a new
resource on one of today's most debated topics.
     "Human Cloning: Papers from a Church Consultation" consists of 14
papers,  responses and a summary of conversations from an Oct. 13-15,
2000 consultation here.
     "The terms 'clone' and 'cloning' are often used in overlapping and
confusing ways, especially in the public domain.  A specific definition
of 'human cloning,' then, can serve as the natural way to begin
detailing the scope and structure of this publication," according to the
resources's introduction.  "Cloning, in general, denotes various
technological processes such as embryo splitting and nuclear transfer
used to create copies of biological material."
     In one of the papers, "Human Cloning: Law and Ethics," Susan R.
Martyn, professor of law, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, supported
the need for regulation of activity as it relates to cloning and genetic
testing.  "I prefer a moratorium on human cloning," she said.
     Martyn said her paper was intended to "explore and assess all
facets of human cloning in relation to Lutheran understanding."
     The consultation brought together men and women, lay people and
clergy, to think through the issues surrounding human cloning.
     "Left alone, scientific curiosity may produce valuable insight
but, when combined with a profit motive, may produce human misery and
death as well.  Scientists often pursue worthy  goals but may lack the
incentive or the wisdom to grasp the human or environmental harm that
can follow.  Even when regulated, the seduction of discovery intensified
by the power of profit has led to human tragedy," wrote Martyn.  "Nearly
everyone who discusses the subject of cloning favors some kind of
regulation if human cloning is developed."
     In her paper Martyn suggested:
     + Not encouraging human cloning -- meaning not funding its
development and not allowing patents on human clones or on the process
of developing them;
     + If some forms of cloning are allowed, extensive regulation will
become essential;
     + Any profit in cloning should be banned as is the practice with
organ donations.
     "Even if I could be convinced that the benefits of cloning
outweigh its risks to those immediately affected, I continue to worry
about justices on a broader scale," Martyn wrote.  "Who will benefit and
at what short- and long-term cost to others?"
     "I tend to agree with those who stress human fallibility,
misplaced self-confidence and the risks of arrogance.  For me the jury
is still out.  Until I see the benefits to more than a few, I prefer a
moratorium on human cloning," Martyn concluded.
     The Rev. Roger A. Willer, DCS associate for studies, edited the
resource,  a wide-ranging compilation of theories and studies offered by
individuals working in the fields of medicine, genetics, theology,
ethics and the law.
     In a section of the resource, "Threads from the Conversation"
Willer wrote: "Participants affirmed, in principle, the work of genetic
science as a realm of knowledge with potential for healing, societal
improvement and the care of creation.  It represents one gift of God's
loving intention for the human enterprise.
     "Participants lifted up with equal conviction a steady reminder
that human action is permeated by sin.  The dangers wrought by human
arrogance will be great in genetic science primarily because it
unleashes new powers," Willer wrote.
     "A general conviction seemed to be coalescing around the need for
a stronger moratorium on procreative cloning.  This position would
support a moratorium, not a ban, on all research or efforts intended for
procreative cloning," he wrote.
     Willer suggested that "rationale does not depend on a single
reason alone, but rather upon the combined weight of theological, moral
and scientific factors that surfaced in the papers and conversations"
during the consultation.
     "In short, so many unanswered questions exist that the exercise of
moral responsibility would deem a moratorium necessary," wrote Willer.
     "Members of this consultation believed they worked within a social
environment in which human cloning, including procreative, is a
contemporary possibility," Willer wrote.
     "The church could play a critical role in fostering social debate.
It remains a question whether it will do so," he wrote.
     The church could be involved by activating congregations as
communities of moral deliberation, bringing together diverse parties for
conversation within a framework of faith commitment, raising a strong
voice about justice questions, and articulating its vision of the good,
especially of the common good, wrote Willer.
     The resource "encourages and prepares readers to think carefully
and to enter into meaningful deliberation on human cloning," the Rev.
Charles S. Miller wrote in the preface of "Human Cloning."  Miller is
executive director of the ELCA Division for Church in Society.
     "The possibility of human cloning fascinates, bewilders and
repulses people in church and society today," he wrote.
-- -- --
     "Human Cloning: Papers from a Church Consultation" is available at
<http://www.elca.org/dcs/humancloning.html> on the ELCA Web site.  It is
distributed by Augsburg Fortress, publishing house of the ELCA.

For information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or NEWS@ELCA.ORG
http://listserv.elca.org/archives/elcanews.html