Human Cloning: Why the Ethicists Are Concerned

What a world we live in today. The kinds of ethical questions being raised were unthinkably remote in years gone by. When Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1932, his setting was 600 years A.F. (After Ford.) One wonders what he’d be thinking were he alive today to see the fruit of the Human Genome Project or Dolly the cloned ewe.

Huxley’s book was not really about a future utopia. He was lifting the veil to see what an inhuman place the world can become when we permit an anything goes future with regard to ethics and morality.

While reading Michael Crichton’s last novel Next in November I wanted to comment more on a major current issue in ethics: Should cloning humans be allowed?

The issue raises so many unresolved questions.
Is it human? Would it be ethical to create clones to harvest organs for rich people who can afford it? Is it ethical to try to clone humans when scientists know that 98-99% die to make one? What about the future when we can’t tell who is human and who is clone? Would cloning open the doors to the creation of an army of psychopathic terror agents who live to kill without a second thought?

The trigger event for me was lunch with a friend last week who, when I raised the issue, said, “I think there should be no restrictions on science. We have to find out what we can do.”

This kind of amoral approach to knowledge is the basis for Mary Shelley’s exploration of the theme in Frankenstein. Should we be permitted to make monsters before we’ve evaluated the consequences?

There are plenty of places where decisions need to be made in the realm of genetic science. In fact, unless one is a serious student of the issues, my guess is that most of us are incapable of understanding any of the subtler, more complex issues bio-science is grappling with today.

One major problem in this arena is that not everyone cares about ethics. The U.S. can step in and outlaw certain kinds of research, and global international pharmaceutical firms can move their research to Singapore or Beijing. In point of fact, the leading institutes in this arena already have connections with research facilities overseas. And when ethical lines are drawn, only the ethical follow the rules. This is why prohibition did not work in the 20's, or the banning of handguns in England today. The bad guys will still get their guns.

Of Crichton’s book, LibraryThing.com writes that Next “is the latest in a series of Crichton works which are structured on the same premise: Take a current scientific/medical topic, explore it, explain it and then illustrate the dangers presented if the science is not properly regulated and/or controlled. This has been a constantly recurring theme with Crichton since his first novel, Andromeda Strain and its subject of killer viruses.”

Inklingmagazine.com summarizes Crichton’s conclusions as follows:

1. Stop patenting genes.

2. Establish clear guidelines for the use of human tissues.

3. Pass laws to ensure that data about gene testing is made public.

4. Avoid bans on research

5. Rescind the Bayh-Dole Act (which allows universities to patent and make money from their research).

Essentially, Crichton has pulled a fire alarm to waken us to the issues which have been raised by Human Genome research. Of course at the heart of it all, with regard to human cloning, is the issue, “What does it mean to be human?” If the abortion debate has failed to produce a conclusive answer to “When does life begin?” you can be sure debates on human cloning won't produce answers where there is universal agreement. Ultimately, decisions will be made by those who have the power to make the decisions.

From all I’ve read thus far, my gut tells me human cloning is wrong. I recommend you begin to read and think about these things because they're certain to be part of tomorrow’s discussions in the news and in our lives, possibly sooner than you think.

Next

“We all live every day in virtual environments, defined by our ideas.” ~ Michael Crichton

In case you've not heard, Michael Crichton passed away this month after a private battle with cancer. Born in 1942 he was only 66. As a writer, he accomplished a lot in his relatively short (these days) career. His fame and fortune enabled him to write about whatever he became interested in.

I remember in high school being impressed by his first novel Andromeda Strain. My grandmother, a sci fi buff, loaned it to me and I gobbled it up. I had no idea he was such a young man (27), or that this was his first book. The Hollywood flick based on the film struck a nerve with viewers, and was dramatic enough to probably pave Crichton's path to producers unto perpetuity.

West World, The Great Train Robbery, Jurassic Park and Twister all became household names and showed that he knew how to touch the masses with an idea. He also showed that he liked the research part of the game as much as the writing. The books became an excuse to delve into whatever subject he was curious about.

When the Internet came along, he predicted in a speech at the National Press Club that network television was a dinosaur that the new information highway would bring to its knees within ten years. The time line was off, but for sure all the mainstream media sources have seen an erosion of power and one wonders what the future really holds when Time magazine has to lay off 600 and city newspapers are being forced to slice payrolls.

His last book, which I am reading now, is called Next. It deals with bioengineering and genetic research. I have never seen a Crichton book with so many bad reviews on Amazon. One reviewer called it the worst book ever. "Wait for it at the dollar store." I've been getting into it, though. Like most of his books, he brings up issues that make for interesting mental fodder. Maybe it doesn't matter to me that much if it's not a great book. They will still probably make a movie based on it.

I especially liked the opening disclaimer. "Everything in this book is fiction, except the parts that are not."

One idea in the book that was discussed briefly was the notion that science has changed. It used to be that scientists defended their work based on good science, repeatable tests, etc. Today, many ideas are defended not by science but by consensus within the scientific community. “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had,” he writes.

I think here especially of the global warming debate, the theme in his 2004 bestseller State of Fear. I was recently reading predictions about the weather in the year 2100, which strikes me as strange because fifty percent of the time the weather forecast for the coming weekend is wrong. But that's a whole 'nuther topic...

Mr. Crichton, congratulations for having been able to live your dream as a writer. We've appreciated and enjoyed the fruit of your labors. Thank you for giving us so much to think about.