"CLONING IS MORALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE
TRANSFER OF GENETIC INFORMATION FROM ONLY ONE PARENT TO
OFFSPRING. THIS IS A NEW TECHNIQUE ONLY IN THAT THE
CHILD WOULD BE BORN OF ONLY ONE GENETIC PARENT, CHANGING
THE IDEA OF A PARENT AND THE IDEA OF A CHILD FOR A
FAMILY AND FOR A COMMUNITY."
GLENN MCGEE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF BIOETHICS AT THE
CENTER FOR BIOETHICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
AT THE RECENT ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, HE WEIGHED IN ON THE
CURRENT HOT TOPIC IN BIOLOGY -- WHETHER IT'S MORALLY
ACCEPTABLE TO CLONE PEOPLE.
IT WAS ALMOST 14 MONTHS AGO THAT RESEARCHERS IN SCOTLAND
ANNOUNCED THEY HAD MADE AN IDENTICAL GENETIC COPY OF AN
ADULT SHEEP -- DOLLY -- USING A SINGLE CELL NUCLEUS FROM
THE ADULT'S MAMMARY GLAND AS THE BUILDING BLOCK. THIS
WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT AN ADULT MAMMAL -- A CREATURE
FAIRLY CLOSE TO US ON THE TREE OF LIFE -- HAD BEEN
PRODUCED IN THIS WAY.
EARLY THIS YEAR, RICHARD SEED -- A CHICAGO-AREA
PHYSICIST -- ANNOUNCED PLANS TO SET UP A LAB TO PURSUE
HUMAN CLONING FOR PROFIT. THE FACT THAT HE LACKED
EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA, HAD NO TECHNOLOGICAL OR
FINANCIAL BACKING AND WAS HIMSELF FIGHTING BANKRUPTCY
DID LITTLE TO ALLAY PEOPLE'S FEARS OF AN IMPENDING BRAVE
NEW WORLD. MOST PEOPLE CONTINUE TO SHARE THE VIEW OF
DOLLY'S CREATOR, IAN WILMUT OF THE ROSLIN INSTITUTE IN
EDINBURGH -- THAT THERE IS NO ETHICALLY-ACCEPTABLE
REASON TO CLONE WHOLE HUMANS:
"IF WE'RE THINKING OF COPYING A PERSON -- SOMETIMES
KNOWN AS 'REPRODUCTIVE CLONING' -- THEN IT IS STILL THE
CASE THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD A REASON FOR DOING
REPRODUCTIVE CLONING THAT I WOULD FIND ETHICALLY
ACCEPTABLE. PUT VERY SIMPLY, THIS IS BECAUSE I THINK WE
SHOULD TREAT EACH CHILD AS AN INDIVIDUAL. AND IF YOU
DELIBERATELY SET OUT TO MAKE A COPY OF SOMEBODY THEN YOU
ARE NO LONGER TREATING THE CHILD AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
"I ALSO THINK THAT AS WE GET INTO MORE DETAIL OF
THINKING ABOUT THESE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS THAT PEOPLE
WOULD REALIZE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHILD
AND THE PARENTS WOULD BE BOUND TO BE DIFFERENT AND
DISTURBED BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL SITUATION."
CURRENTLY A PRESIDENTIALLY-DECLARED MORATORIUM IS IN
PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES PROHIBITING THE USE OF
FEDERAL FUNDS FOR HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH. THE
SHORT-TERM RATIONALE FOR THE MORATORIUM IS THAT OF
SAFETY -- SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE
TECHNIQUE TO ENSURE THAT A CLONE DOESN'T DIE OR BECOME
DEFORMED. OTHER COUNTRIES -- INCLUDING THE UNITED
KINGDOM AND GERMANY -- HAVE LEGISLATIVELY BANNED HUMAN
CLONING OUTRIGHT. BIOETHICIST GLENN MCGEE SAYS WE'D
BETTER START THINKING -- AND QUICKLY -- ABOUT HOW WE AS
A SOCIETY WILL APPROACH THIS ISSUE ON A PERMANENT BASIS:
"FOR NOW, SAFETY IS THE PRIMARY ISSUE. BUT MY PROJECT
IS TO THINK ABOUT THE LONG TERM -- WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A
FIVE-YEAR MORATORIUM EXPIRES? HOW DO WE DEVELOP ANY
KIND OF REASONABLE OR RESPONSIBLE POLICY SO THAT HUMAN
CLONING DOESN'T COME INTO BEING EITHER IN THE FREE
MARKET OR UNDER THE AEGIS OF AN IRRESPONSIBLE
RESEARCHER? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A POLICY
FOR THINKING ABOUT CLONING AND OTHER EQUALLY INTERESTING
AND UNORTHODOX NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES."
THE PRESIDENTIAL MORATORIUM APPLIES ONLY TO FEDERAL
FUNDING. THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO NATIONAL LAWS
PROHIBITING THE PURSUIT OF HUMAN CLONING WITH PRIVATE
FUNDS. BUT THERE ARE PROPOSALS BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS
AND NO FEWER THAN 20 STATE LEGISLATURES THAT WOULD
EITHER BAN OR SEVERELY RESTRICT HUMAN CLONING AND
RELATED RESEARCH, REGARDLESS OF FUNDING SOURCE. LORI
ANDREWS TEACHES COURSES IN REPRODUCTIVE LAW AND GENETICS
AT THE CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW. SHE SAYS
THE CURRENT SITUATION OF PROLIFERATING LEGISLATION
COULD LEAD TO A CRAZY QUILT OF CONFLICTING STATE
POLICIES:
"CALIFORNIA HAS A LEGAL BAN ON CREATING HUMANS THROUGH
CLONING. HOWEVER EVEN THAT BAN IS LIMITED. (IN
JANUARY) NEAL FIRST, A RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN, ANNOUNCED THAT YOU COULD USE COW EGGS AS A
UNIVERSAL INCUBATOR FOR OTHER TYPES OF MAMMALIAN CLONES.
AND SINCE THE CALIFORNIA LAW ONLY BANS THE CREATION OF
HUMAN CLONES USING HUMAN EGGS AS THE INCUBATOR, IF YOU
WANTED TO GET AROUND IT BY USING COW EGGS, THAT WOULD
NOT PREVENT YOU FROM DOING CLONING. FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE
BILLS PENDING IN 20 STATES, 11 OF THEM WOULD NOT COVER
THIS TYPE OF CLONING IN WHICH A COW EGG IS USED.
"THERE ARE OTHER LOOPHOLES. OF THE 20 LAWS PENDING IN
VARIOUS STATES, EIGHT BAN THE CREATION OF A GENETICALLY
IDENTICAL INDIVIDUAL THROUGH HUMAN CLONING. HOWEVER
WHEN YOU PUT THE NUCLEIC DNA INTO A DONOR EGG IN WHICH
THE NUCLEUS HAS BEEN REMOVED, THERE IS NONETHELESS SOME
MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. SO YOU'RE NOT CREATING AN ENTIRELY
GENETICALLY IDENTICAL INDIVIDUAL, AND THOSE LAWS
ARGUABLY WOULD NOT APPLY."
PROFESSOR ANDREWS ADDS THAT THE U.S.
APPROACH TO HUMAN CLONING UP TO NOW -- THE RELATIVE
DEARTH OF REGULATION -- HAS PARALLELED OUR EXPERIENCE
WITH IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION -- THE CONCEPTION IN A PETRI
DISH THAT BEGAN IN THE LATE '70'S WITH "BABY LOUISE,"
THE FIRST "TEST TUBE" BABY:
"SO THE QUESTION MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ME IS IS IT LEGAL
TO CLONE IN THE UNITED STATES? FOR EXAMPLE, IF BILL
GATES WANTED TO CLONE HIMSELF AND MAKE 'BILL GATES 5.0,
5.1, 6.0,' WOULD IT BE LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE? WE ALL KNOW
THERE IS A PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT PROHIBITS
THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN HUMAN CLONING. HOWEVER WE
PROHIBIT THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN IN-VITRO
FERTILIZATION AND THERE ARE 281 CLINICS THAT DO THE
PROCESS SO WE CAN SEE THAT DOESN'T GET IN THE WAY OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE PRIVATE FUNDING TO DO IT."
ARTHUR CAPLAN, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR BIOETHICS AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM, SAYS THE
SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES WITH REGARD TO
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY IS A KIND OF "WILD WEST" WHERE
ANYONE WHO HAS THE MONEY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE
TECHNOLOGY.
PROFESSOR CAPLAN SAYS THAT, IN DISCUSSING CLONING, WE
FOCUS FAR TOO HEAVILY ON BIZARRE, "SCI-FI" SCENARIOS,
SUCH AS CREATING BRAINLESS HUMAN CLONES FOR ORGAN PARTS,
OR ON AN ECCENTRIC BILLIONAIRE CLONING HIMSELF TO
ACHIEVE IMMORTALITY. HE ADDS THAT THIS IS NOT WHERE THE
MAJOR MORAL ISSUE IS:
"CLONING ACTUALLY IS ABOUT -- IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE
RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF IT -- IS IT GOOD FOR THE CLONE?
THAT IS WHERE THE ARGUMENT HAS TO BE FOCUSED. IT'S NOT
THE SAME AS WHAT HAPPENS IF A NUT DECIDES TO MAKE CLONES
IN CHICAGO OR BIMINI OR WHEREVER THEY WANT TO GO. THE
FOCUS MUST BE IN THIS DEBATE ON IS IT IN THE INTEREST OF
ANOTHER PERSON TO BE MADE IN THIS WAY? AND THAT'S VERY
HARD FOR AMERICANS BECAUSE OUR FOCUS IN THE ETHICS OF
REPRODUCTION IS ALMOST ALWAYS ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
TO PROCREATE. AND IF YOU STAND UP CONCERNS ABOUT
CHILDREN OR WHETHER IT'S RIGHT TO BE MADE IN THIS WAY
AGAINST THE OBSESSION WE HAVE WITH THE AUTONOMY OF
INDIVIDUALS TO BE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, KIDS ALWAYS
LOSE."
PROFESSOR CAPLAN SAYS THAT ONE REASON FULL HUMAN CLONING
MIGHT NOT BE GOOD -- FROM THE CLONE'S POINT OF VIEW --
IS THAT THE CLONE'S BIOLOGICAL DESTINY WILL ALWAYS BE
PREVIEWED IN THE PARENT, A SITUATION THAT WOULD CREATE
NUMEROUS ETHICAL PROBLEMS OF ITS OWN:
"YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKING THE GREATEST GENETIC TEST
EVER FOISTED ON AN INDIVIDUAL. YOU WILL SEE
BIOLOGICALLY WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU IN YOUR PARENT. AS
THEY GO THROUGH LIFE YOU WILL KNOW THAT YOU WILL BECOME
BALD AT 40, DEPRESSED AT 50, PAUNCHY AT 55 AND DEAD OF
STOMACH CANCER AT 62. IF WE WORRY ABOUT IS IT RIGHT TO
RELEASE THE RESULTS OF ALZHEIMER'S TESTS OR BREAST
CANCER TESTS OF PEOPLE -- WOULD THEY WANT TO KNOW? --
THE CLONE INVOLUNTARILY KNOWS A LOT MORE BECAUSE THEY'RE
GOING TO HAVE ALL THIS BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION THRUST
UPON THEM. IS THAT A REASON NOT TO DO IT AT ALL? I'M
NOT SURE, BUT THAT KIND OF QUESTION NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT
ABOUT."
IN ADDITION TO KNOWING WHAT ONE'S LIFE IS GOING TO BE
BEFORE ONE LIVES IT, THE CLONE WOULD ALSO SUFFER THROUGH
THE AGONY OF LIVING UP TO OTHER PEOPLES' EXPECTATIONS,
BASED ON THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON FROM WHICH HE WAS
CLONED. HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP HIS OWN
IDENTITY -- DRAWING, AS WE ALL DO, UPON HIS OWN
EXPERIENCES AND PREFERENCES. AS LAW PROFESSOR LORI
ANDREWS EXPLAINS, THIS COULD BE ESPECIALLY DAMAGING IF
THE CLONE'S PREDECESSOR WAS A CELEBRITY OF SOME SORT:
"IF MICHAEL JORDAN WAS CLONED AND THE 10 YEAR OLD CLONE
BROKE HIS KNEE AT AGE TEN, WOULD WE CONSIDER HIM
WORTHLESS? WOULD WE PUT PRESSURE ON THAT CLONE -- A
CLONE OF A FAMOUS BASKETBALL PLAYER -- TO PLAY
BASKETBALL AND NOT PLAY THE PIANO AND ENGAGE IN OTHER
ACTIVITIES? IN ADDITION, IF THE ORIGINAL MICHAEL JORDAN
HAD DEVELOPED A GENETIC DISEASE AND DIED YOUNG, WOULD
HIS CHILD, THE CLONE, BE UNINSURABLE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW
WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION BASED ON KNOWLEDGE
OF PEOPLES GENOTYPES?
"THAT ISSUE OCCURS NOT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO
HUMAN CLONING, BUT WITH RESPECT TO A DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGY OF EMBRYO SPLITTING. RIGHT NOW YOU CAN TAKE
AN EIGHT-CELL EMBRYO AND BREAK IT INTO EIGHT INDIVIDUAL
PARTS AND PLANT THEM AND GET IDENTICAL TWINS. IN FACT,
WHEN I FIRST MET (CHICAGO PHYSICIST) DR. RICHARD SEED
IN 1980 AT A CONFERENCE IN WEST GERMANY, HIS IDEA AT
THAT TIME WAS TO SPLIT EMBRYOS IN HALF, AND HE SAID:
'GROW UP THE FIRST HALF, SEE IF IT GOT INTO HARVARD, AND
THEN DEFROST THE OTHER HALF AND GROW THAT UP TOO.'"
AND PROFESSOR ANDREWS SEES ANOTHER PROBLEM FROM A LEGAL
STANDPOINT -- THE QUESTION OF THE CLONE'S PARENTAGE.
WHO A CLONE'S "PARENT" IS MIGHT SEEM OBVIOUS ENOUGH
BASED ON HEREDITY -- EVEN IF ITS GENES COME ONLY FROM
ONE INDIVIDUAL INSTEAD OF TWO. BUT IN THE LAW, THINGS
ARE RARELY SIMPLE -- AND THE PROPOSED STATE STATUTES
UNDER CONSIDERATION ACROSS THE U.S. ALL HAVE DIFFERING
INTERPRETATIONS OF WHOM THE BABY CLONE WOULD CALL "MAMA"
OR "DADDY":
"IF BILL GATES CLONED HIMSELF, HE MIGHT NOT BE
RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGAL PARENT. HIS PARENTS, UNDER DNA
TESTING, WOULD BE SEEN AS THE PARENTS BECAUSE HE IS
CREATING HIS BROTHER; OR IF HE USES A SURROGATE MOTHER,
IN AT LEAST TWO STATES THE SURROGATE AND HER HUSBAND
WOULD BE THE LEGAL PARENTS. THERE WOULD BE NO RELATION
TO THE GENETIC DONOR......SO WE'VE GOT.....13 DIFFERENT
PARENTAL COMBINATIONS WHERE YOU COULD HAVE BETWEEN ONE
AND TEN PARENTS FOR THE CLONE...."
THIS ISSUE OF WHO THE CLONE'S PARENTS MIGHT BE GOES TO
THE HEART OF MANY OF THE RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO
SO-CALLED "REPRODUCTIVE" CLONING -- THAT IS, MAKING
IDENTICAL COPIES OF ADULT HUMAN BEINGS. RONALD
COLE-TURNER OF THE PITTSBURGH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IS A
MINISTER IN THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST. AS HE PUT IT,
THE RANGE OF OPINION FROM AT LEAST THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCHES ON THE SUBJECT OF REPRODUCTIVE CLONING RANGES
FROM "NO, NOT EVER" TO "NO, NOT NOW AND PERHAPS NEVER:"
"REPRODUCTIVE CLONING WOULD BE AN INSULT TO THE DIGNITY
OF HUMAN LIFE THAT APPROPRIATELY PERTAINS TO US AS
CREATURES IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. AND TO BE IN THE IMAGE
OF GOD IS NOT SIMPLY TO BE RATIONAL AND HAVE THE POWERS
THAT LEAD US TO BE ABLE TO DO SUCH THINGS AS STUDY
GENETICS AND EVENTUALLY PERHAPS TO ATTAIN THE TECHNICAL
ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN CLONING; BUT IT ALSO MEANS TO BE IN
A RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PERSONS. IT MEANS TO BE IN
COMMUNITY WITH OTHER PERSONS.
"AMONG THOSE COMMUNITIES WOULD BE THE FAMILY. SO THE
SECOND BROAD CATEGORY OF OBJECTIONS WOULD BE THAT
REPRODUCTIVE CLONING WOULD BE AN INSULT TO THE
RELATIONSHIPS OF THE FAMILY. WHAT WOULD A CLONE BE
WITHIN THE ORDER OF FAMILY LIFE?
"THE THIRD BROAD CATEGORY OF OBJECTION IS
THAT CLONING WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO GREATER INJUSTICE AND
NOT TO GREATER JUSTICE. CLONING WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE
GOOD FOR WOMEN. IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR
CHILDREN. IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR THE POOR IN
RELATIONSHIP TO THE RICH. SO A NUMBER OF CHURCHES --
THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, FOR INSTANCE, AND
ESPECIALLY THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST -- HAS REGISTERED
THIS PARTICULAR CONCERN."
THE REVEREND COLE-TURNER SAYS THAT, WHILE SOME IN THE
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY FEEL CONFIDENT IN CALLING FOR A
PERMANENT BAN ON REPRODUCTIVE CLONING, MANY OTHERS WOULD
SAY A MORE TEMPORARY BAN -- ONE THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE
CURRENT MORATORIUM TO PERHAPS 10 OR 20 YEARS -- WOULD
GIVE PHILOSOPHERS AND THEOLOGIANS A CHANCE TO EVALUATE
THESE OBJECTIONS AND DETERMINE WHAT AN APPROPRIATE
ETHICAL STANCE SHOULD BE.
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS GENERALLY SUPPORTED THE
VIEW OF PROFESSOR WILMUT -- DOLLY'S CREATOR -- THAT THEY
SEE NO REASON FOR CLONING WHOLE HUMANS. BUT THEY'RE
CONCERNED THAT SOME OF THE ANTI-CLONING PROPOSALS NOW
BEFORE CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES MIGHT GO TOO FAR
-- STIFLING RESEARCH INTO HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY THAT COULD
LEAD TO NEW TREATMENTS FOR DISEASE. ONE OF THE BILLS
BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE WOULD, IN FACT, PROHIBIT
SO-CALLED "NON-REPRODUCTIVE" CLONING -- CLONING CELLS
FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH. FOR EXAMPLE, USING CLONING,
RESEARCHERS CAN MAKE COPIES OF THE SAME HUMAN EMBRYO
CELLS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND SEE HOW THEY RESPOND TO
VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, LIKE CHEMICAL MUTAGENS.
THIS MIGHT SHED LIGHT ON THE GENE-CHEMICAL INTERACTIONS
THAT GIVE RISE TO BIRTH DEFECTS. PROFESSOR WILMUT
RAISED THE PROSPECT THAT A PERSON WITH PARKINSON'S
DISEASE MIGHT GET A BRAIN TISSUE TRANSPLANT FROM AN
EMBRYO CLONED FROM HIS OWN CELLS:
"IDEALLY WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, OBVIOUSLY, IS TO TAKE
A CELL AND CAUSE IT TO DE-DIFFERENTIATE -- TO BECOME A
SIMPLER CELL -- DIRECTLY. THAT LIES SOME TIME IN THE
FUTURE. THERE IS THE BIOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY NOW OF
PRODUCING THOSE DEDIFFERENTIATED CELLS BY MAKING AN
EMBRYO. NOW THAT EMBRYO, OF COURSE, IS A POTENTIAL
PERSON. IT'S A DEEPLY OFFENSIVE IDEA TO SOME PEOPLE TO
THINK OF TAKING WHAT IS IN FACT A BALL OF CELLS --
PERHAPS 200 CELLS -- AND SEPARATING THOSE OUT IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE A MEANS OF TREATMENT OF DISEASES WHICH, AT
PRESENT, OFTEN DO NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS.
"AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE ETHICAL CHOICES WHICH
EACH SOCIETY SHOULD MAKE: IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO PRODUCE AN
EMBRYO SPECIFICALLY AS A SOURCE OF CELLS? WHEN PEOPLE
THINK OF EMBRYOS, I THINK THEY SOMETIMES THINK OF -- IF
YOU LIKE -- A VERY SMALL HUMAN BEING. AN EMBRYO IS
ABOUT ONE-TWO-HUNDREDTH OF AN INCH ACROSS -- A TENTH OF
A MILLIMETER. IT'S MINUTE (TINY). BUT IT IS JUST A
LITTLE BALL OF CELLS WHICH ARE NOT DIFFERENTIATED. AND
THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY AT THAT STAGE OF ANYTHING LIKE A
NERVOUS SYSTEM, OF CONSCIOUSNESS, OF AWARENESS. AND SO
I GUESS MANY PEOPLE WOULD JUDGE THAT THIS IS NOT YET A
HUMAN. BUT IT IS A VERY SENSITIVE ETHICAL ISSUE, WHICH
IS BEING DEBATED IN THIS COUNTRY (THE U.S.) AS WELL AS
IN MY OWN COUNTRY."
BIOETHICIST ART CAPLAN SAYS THAT IF EMBRYOS ARE TO BE
CONSIDERED POTENTIAL PERSONS, THE TECHNOLOGY OF CLONING
-- THE ABILITY TO CREATE AN EMBRYO FROM A SINGLE ADULT
CELL -- COULD RAISE SOME NOVEL AND PERPLEXING ISSUES:
"IF ANY ONE OF OUR CELLS CAN BE A POTENTIAL PERSON, DO
WE HAVE TO GUARD WHERE IT IS THAT WE SLEEP OR EAT
BECAUSE WE'RE SLOUGHING OFF POTENTIAL PERSONS ALL DAY
LONG LIKE SLIME MOLDS? IF ANYTHING IN A DISH HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO BE A PERSON IF IT IS INSERTED INTO A COW
EGG OR INTO A DISH IN SOMEBODY'S LABORATORY, ARE WE
READY TO DECLARE THAT AS A PERSON, OR DO WE HAVE TO WAIT
TO SEE IF IT'S IMPLANTED, IF IT CAN REALLY GO FURTHER?
I HAVE SKEPTICAL DOUBTS RIGHT NOW THAT WE MIGHT
RESTRAIN THE TECHNOLOGY ...AND FOREGO SOME OTHER
BENEFITS THAT MIGHT BE VERY USEFUL TO US IN TERMS OF
GROWING VALUABLE CELLS OR TISSUES, I'M NOT SURE (THAT)
IS THE WAY TO GO."
PROFESSOR CAPLAN BELIEVES THAT MUCH OF THE PUBLIC'S FEAR
OF CLONING -- EVEN OF FARM ANIMALS -- HAS A LOT TO DO
WITH MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CLONING CAN AND CANNOT DO.
HE ADDS THAT THERE'S ALSO AN ELEMENT OF
TECHNOPHOBIA:
"CLONING SUFFERS FROM THE LEGACY OF THE
20TH CENTURY AND THE FEAR THAT MANY LIVE WITH --
PARTICULARLY IN THE UNITED STATES -- OF THE NUCLEAR
REVOLUTION, THE ATOMIC REVOLUTION. PHYSICS PROMISED
AMERICANS ELECTRICITY THAT WAS GOING TO BE TOO CHEAP TO
METER. AND WHAT THEY THINK THEY GOT WAS DUCKING UNDER
THEIR DESKS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WOULDN'T BE
IMMOLATED IN A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST.
"IF YOU LOOK AT EITHER THE REACTION TO THE
FELICITOUSLY-NAMED DR. SEED, OR EARLIER SOME OF THE
REACTION TO DOCTOR WILMUT'S EXPERIMENTS YOU WILL FIND
BOTH IN THE MEDIA AND IN PUBLIC COMMENTARY LOTS OF
STATEMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE ONE DEPRESSED ABOUT THE
ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE GENETIC REVOLUTION THAT IS
UPON US. WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THEY ARE
GOING TO USE CLONING TO RESTORE A DEAD CHILD; WHEN
SOMEBODY SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO USE CLONING TO EXTEND
THEIR OWN LIVES -- TO BECOME IMMORTAL -- THIS TELLS ME
THAT NOT MUCH IS UNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE NATURE OF
GENETICS, THE NATURE OF PERSONAL IDENTITY, THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIOLOGY AND REPRODUCTION.
"YOU CAN'T USE CLONING FOR THOSE PURPOSES, YET WE'VE
SEEN LOTS AND LOTS OF SPECULATION ALONG THOSE LINES AND
I THINK WHAT THAT SAYS IS THAT UNLESS WE ACTUALLY AS A
SOCIETY CAN DEVOTE SOME ATTENTION TO NOT JUST ARE WE
GOING TO REGULATE IT, BUT ARE WE GOING TO EDUCATE ABOUT
IT..... WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN GOOD SHAPE RELATIVE TO
TRYING TO REGULATE IN THIS AREA."
HUMANITY, DIGNITY AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: WHAT ARE THEIR
DEFINITIONS AND LIMITS? AND WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW
ABOUT THE FUTURE POTENTIAL AND USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY?
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS -- BROUGHT SHARPLY INTO FOCUS BY THE
PROSPECT OF CLONING.
26-Mar-98
Source: Voice of America