FEW ISSUES HAVE EVER CREATED THE PUBLIC UPROAR LIKE THE ONE OVER THE RECENT ASTOUNDING NEWS THAT SCOTTISH SCIENTISTS HAVE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED A SHEEP FROM A CELL OF ANOTHER SHEEP. BECAUSE THE NOVEL CLONING TECHNIQUE RAISES THE POSSIBILITY IT COULD BE USED TO DUPLICATE HUMANS, SOCIETIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE GRIPPED BY DEBATE OVER THE ETHICS OF DOING SO. AT THE HEART OF THE DISCUSSION IS THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF BEING HUMAN? WOULD CLONING VIOLATE THAT?DOLLY THE SHEEP WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE MATING OF SPERM AND EGG, BUT RATHER OF THE MIXING OF GENES FROM THE CELL OF A SHEEP'S UDDER WITH THE REPRODUCTIVE MACHINERY OF A SHEEP'S EGG. THE EGG DEPOSITED IN A SHEEP'S WOMB GREW INTO A LAMB WITH NO MOTHER OR FATHER IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE.
WHILE THE TECHNIQUE IS CONSIDERED A BIOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH, IT HAS CAUSED A BACKLASH AROUND THE WORLD, WITH SEVERAL GOVERNMENTS TAKING STEPS TO PREVENT HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH -- OR AT LEAST GOVERNMENT SPONSORED RESEARCH -- UNTIL THE IMPLICATIONS CAN BE SORTED OUT.
THE OBJECTIONS ARE NOT GROUNDED SO MUCH IN THE FEAR OF THE ASSEMBLY LINE MANUFACTURE OF HUMAN SLAVES OR ARMIES, OR THAT DESPOTS MIGHT DUPLICATE THEMSELVES. INSTEAD, THE BROAD CONSENSUS IS THAT CLONING PEOPLE FOR LESS EXTREME PURPOSES VIOLATES SACRED VALUES.
AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN WASHINGTON, SCIENCE POLICY SPECIALIST MARCEL LAFOLLETTE ['LA-FO-'LAY] SUMMARIZES THE VIEWS OF MANY.
THERE'S A VERY GENUINE CONCERN ON THE PART OF REAL AMERICANS. YES, SOME OF THE FEAR IS UNFOUNDED. SOME OF IT, THOUGH, RELATES TO SOME OF THOSE DEEPER PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES OF, "DOES THIS PARTICULAR POTENTIAL TAKE US TO THE ESSENCE OF LIFE? DOES IT TAKE US TO THOSE ISSUES OF CREATION?"
SIMILAR FEARS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH EACH ADVANCE IN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY. ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION AND FERTILIZING EGGS IN TEST TUBES ALSO BROUGHT ABOUT CHILDREN WITHOUT SEX. THEIR USE WITH SURROGATE MOTHERS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR WOMEN TO DELIVER BABIES NOT GENETICALLY RELATED TO THEM.
BUT A BOSTON UNIVERSITY EXPERT ON HEALTH LAW -- GEORGE ANNAS -- TOLD A U-S SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT CLONING WOULD RADICALLY ALTER THE DEFINITION OF BEING HUMAN BY CROSSING A LINE THE EARLIER REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES DID NOT.
AS DIFFICULT AS THOSE THINGS ARE, THEY STILL HAVEN'T CROSSED A BASIC BOUNDARY THAT IT TAKES TWO HUMAN BEINGS TO REPRODUCE -- A MALE AND A FEMALE, EACH GIVING THEIR GENETIC COMPLEMENT TO THAT NEW, GENETICALLY UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS BEEN INNATELY PART OF BEING A HUMAN BEING FOREVER. IT STILL IS.
MR. ANNAS' SAYS THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR HUMAN CLONING. IN HIS VIEW, IT WOULD BE THE MANUFACTURE OF PEOPLE MADE TO ORDER, REPRESENTING THE LOSS OF INDIVIDUALITY.
WHILE MOST WHO HAVE SPOKEN ON THE TOPIC APPEAR TO AGREE, SOME ARGUE THERE MAY BE COMPASSIONATE AND ETHICAL REASONS TO ALLOW HUMAN CLONING. IN A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE, THE EDITOR OF THE WEEKLY BRITISH MAGAZINE "NEW SCIENTIST" -- ALUN ANDERSON -- IMAGINES SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
HE SAYS CLONING ONE PARENT MIGHT BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PRESENT COMPLICATED AND LIMITED MEDICAL PROCEDURES TO OVERCOME INFERTILITY. IN CASES WHERE BOTH PARENTS CARRY A RECESSIVE GENE FOR A DISEASE BUT DON'T HAVE THE DISEASE THEMSELVES, NORMAL CONCEPTION ALMOST GUARANTEES THE CHILD WILL HAVE THE AILMENT, BUT THE CLONING OF ONE PARENT WOULD AVOID THAT OUTCOME. IN MORE TRAGIC SITUATIONS, SAYS MR. ANDERSON, CLONING MIGHT RECREATE A DEAD BABY.
IN THE U-S SENATE, MINORITY DEMOCRAT TOM HARKIN OF IOWA DISAGREES WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE CLONING WOULD DEMEAN HUMAN NATURE. HE COMPARES PRESIDENT CLINTON'S BAN ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'S 17TH CENTURY EFFORT TO SUPPRESS ASTRONOMER GALILEO FOR ASSERTING THE EARTH IS NOT THE CENTER OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.
I DON'T THINK IT'S LEGITIMATE FOR US TO TRY TO STOP THIS INQUIRY. WHAT UTTER, UTTER NONSENSE TO THINK WE'RE GOING TO SOMEHOW HOLD UP OUR HAND AND SAY, "STOP." CLONING WILL CONTINUE, THE HUMAN MIND WILL CONTINUE TO INQUIRE INTO THIS. HUMAN CLONING WILL TAKE PLACE, AND IT WILL TAKE PLACE IN MY LIFETIME. I DON'T FEAR IT AT ALL.
NEVERTHELESS, SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE PROSPECT IS NOT IMMINENT. THEY HAVE THEREFORE ARGUED THAT U-S LAWMAKERS SHOULD NOT RUSH TO JUDGMENT AND LEGISLATE AGAINST ANY ASPECT OF CLONING BEFORE EXHAUSTING THE DEBATE OVER IT. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND LAW PROFESSOR KAREN ROTHENBERG -- AN EXPERT ON THE ETHICS OF REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES -- ASKED THIS QUESTION OF U-S SENATORS CONSIDERING WHAT TO DO ABOUT HUMAN CLONING.
WHAT REALLY IS APPROPRIATE? IS IT A CRIME OR NEED IT BE REGULATED SCIENTIFICALLY? WILL THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL SCIENTIST WHO CLONES WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE OR BE PUT IN JAIL? WHERE DO WE WANT TO PLACE OUR EMPHASIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD?
PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS ASKED HIS SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL TO STUDY SUCH QUESTIONS AND REPORT BACK TO HIM BY THE END OF MAY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROCEED.
13-Mar-97
Source: Voice of America