ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 2, 1997 TAG: 9702280039
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: The Back Pew
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
When the news broke that British researchers had successfully cloned a sheep, the shock wave quickly circled the globe.
My first reaction was involuntary salivation thinking about uniform, perfect legs of lamb.
OK, so that wasn't my first reaction, but it did eventually cross my mind.
But no one could seriously consider the news without at least a bit of worry.
Most human beings, I suspect, had a strong visceral reaction. We become a bit queasy at the very idea. We may not be able to articulate our concern very clearly, but we know there is something about the idea of being able to Xerox a human being that strikes us as not quite right.
From a purely scientific point of view, the idea of cloning a human being isn't that startling any more.
We live in an age when human genes have been implanted in other animals. Such a sheep in Scotland reportedly produces milk that includes some human substances, which can be used for research and medical treatments for humans.
There reportedly are cabbages with scorpion genes to kill caterpillars that try to eat them. Gene implantation and manipulation are just a part of the modern world.
Scientific discovery itself doesn't pose particular ethical or moral dilemmas, it seems to me.
Only by putting it to use do we have questions to answer.
There are those who take "the sky is falling approach" to the issue.
They worry that the movie scenario from "The Boys From Brazil" - cloning a Hitler to repeat his campaign to create a race of supermen and women - is about to come true.
They worry that megalomaniacs will attempt to create hundreds of themselves to attain their dreams of power and wealth.
They worry that the prospect of human cloning calls into question not only the existence of humankind, but of God.
Part of those worries are simply premature. While the cloned sheep may be evidence that human cloning is possible, it doesn't mean it is around the corner.
We also must remember that the process - as it now exists - is extremely expensive and still requires the use of a female animal in which the clone may gestate.
The result of such a process - the clone - would still be a product not only of his or her genes, but also of the environment in which he or she is raised. And, while genetically identical, still a distinct - and I would contend unique - individual.
We also must remember that cloning involves the manipulation of Mother Nature, not becoming Mother Nature - not the creation of life from lifelessness.
Therefore the question of whether God is present in a cloned creation - whether a human clone would have a soul, for instance - becomes moot. If the creation is human - whether the creation of the loins of two distinctly different human beings or the clone of a single human being - Christian theology, at least, would seem to clearly teach that it would be inhabited by a soul.
The tough question, then, becomes is such a creation "human"?
Where critics of the current experimentation have it exactly right is in their contention that the debate on the implications of cloning - particularly the cloning of humans - must begin long before scientists present us with the finished product, as was the case with the sheep.
British author Patrick Dixon properly points out that, "The time to debate these matters is not a year or more after an experiment, but before the process begins."
The technology is here. We cannot put it back in a bottle, or pretend it exists only in last year's science fiction.
The presumptuousness - and the danger - rests with companies and scientists who, to protect the huge potential profits of genetic manipulation, are content to do their experiments in secret. That means no cultural debate, and the increased possibility that evil rather than good will result from the use of technology.
Our responsibility is to face that and be bold enough to consider the implications of its use.
What science fiction has done is prepare us for the worst-case scenarios. Now we must be willing to consider the best-case scenarios as well.
And we must come to some international consensus on those potential uses.
Certainly there exists a potential for misuse, for grossly abusive misuse.
Would cloning create not a race of of superhumans, but a race of subhuman slaves?
Is the idea simply too dangerous to allow any sanctioned implementation?
Is the process of perfecting a reliable method of cloning humans too risky to allow?
Do enough of us believe cloning would be an unacceptable usurpation of God's role to impose a ban?
It's not time to get hysterical yet on the subject of the cloning of human beings.
It is time, however, to get serious.
LENGTH: Medium: 94 linesby CNB