It's time to send in the clones

BY ADAM GIULIANO

Life at Yale can get pretty lonely at times. In our hour of need, we Yalies have been known to turn to everything from drinking to singing to even dating in order to reconnect with the living world around us. As far as I know, there have been very few Yalies who have filled that void in their lives with sheep. There are, however, some people in the world for whom the sheep is the ultimate in satisfaction.

No, not that kind of satisfaction. You'd better let me explain.

Last week in Scotland, a country hard up against the North Sea and consequentially even more lonely than Yale, a group of scientists with too much spare time and too many farm-boy fantasies announced the cloning of an adult female sheep named "Dolly." While to these scientists this was a historical achievement, world-wide reaction has instead been decidedly mixed.

Predictably, there have been those who voiced whole-hearted support for this great leap forward in cloning technology, arguing that scientific advancement in and of itself is good. Just as predictably, opposing arguments countered that cloning animals, and potentially humans, is inherently unnatural and immoral.

We need to separate the nuts and bolts of the science, any science, from the goods and evils that can be done with it. There is a difference between an understanding and knowledge of how things work, and the practical use of that knowledge.

Out of the current debate has arisen a school of thought that the exploration of cloning is itself immoral, equating it to a scientific Pandora's box. While I find it impossible to condemn scientists for exploring cloning (a practice which, I admit, may be misused), I would go even further and suggest that not pursuing the technology would be wrong.

The field of cloning has been partially taboo. I don't want to degrade the hard work and intelligence of the Scottish, but it seems significant that the current breakthrough in cloning occurred not in the United States, but in a relatively small nation not known as an international leader in research. There is, I believe, a void in this area that Yale and similar institutions could help fill.

As American media sifted through the fallout of last week's announcement, it became clear that cloning is a field to which few of our nation's scientists have dedicated much time. Yale is currently attempting to shore up the New Haven economy, in part with scientific research; an under-represented field like cloning offers a golden opportunity to the University. This research is going to continue. The question is whether we are going to be involved in it.

There are those who would argue that because genetic engineering, and specifically adult cloning, is immoral, we should not as an institution further the study of this field. In essence, such individuals believe that scientists should not give in to "peer pressure" regarding this particular issue. I cannot argue that cloning will always be used to good ends. Rather, I would suggest that there are specific, legitimate purposes for its study. From medical advances to agricultural applications, cloning does offer promise. And even if the act of cloning animals is deemed a "bad" thing, that does not mean that human understanding of the processes is wrong. While you may feel that humanity should avoid trying to harness nuclear fission, must this necessarily mean that the knowledge of how it occurs is the root of the evil--or only tangentially connected to it?

An academic institution such as Yale's central purpose is to expand knowledge, including knowledge of cloning. The threat that others might abuse what Yale may discover is indeed real; but, to paraphrase an overused expression, the world is and always will be a dangerous place, whether or not anyone further explores genetics. The door has been opened and it is the responsibility of places like Yale, who are best equipped, to lead the exploration into what may lie on the other side.

Adam Giuliano is a sophomore in Pierson

Back to Opinion...