Cloning debate spawns greater concern

Cluefon
    By Dan Dudis

Ever since Scottish scientists successfully cloned a sheep and named her Dolly, American politicians and ethicists have been convulsed in histrionics. These displays, worthy of a Greek tragedy, are just the sort of pronouncements of moral outrage and puritanical disapproval that we have come to expect from the Christian Coalition. But this time, it's not just the religious right that's worked up. President Clinton, LAW '73, again biting on his well-masticated lower lip, declared human cloning to be against American values. Accordingly, legislators have rushed to outlaw human cloning on U.S. soil.

Not so fast. The recent disclosure of the President's own moral shortcomings begs the question: whose values? It is readily obvious that human cloning is a complex issue about which there is little consensus (except among the lily-livered and self-important ethicist and political communities), as opposed to, say, murder.

I will not completely dismiss the objections that have been raised about human cloning, chief among which is that it is dangerous and unproven. True, but then again, so were all forms of life-saving surgeries in their experimental stages. The simple fact is that in a society where abortion is legal, there is no danger of any cloning "chimeras" ever being carried to term. Dolly was only one success in 277--the other 276 embryos either never developed or were spontaneously aborted. See? Now Ralph Reed and John Paul II can sleep a little easier at night; cloning isn't the brainchild of Kate Michelman and the National Abortion Rights Action League.

The other common objection raised to human cloning is that it is immoral and will lead to abuse of clones. Please. Once born, the clones would be human beings with rights like any other. Cloning produces twins--cross-generational twins. And as much as we all may fear the prospect of cloning as applied to Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen and the accompanying revival of Full House, there is no reason to suspect that cross-generational twins would be the subject of abuse. Somehow the myth of clones as slaves to their genetic master copy has been promulgated by the popular press. It simply isn't a reality. And I'm not even going to dignify the silly "What if they cloned Hitler?" red herring with a response.

I've used these pages to argue the civil libertarian point of view more times than I care to remember. Human cloning is just another issue. If people want to clone themselves, what is it to the rest of us? Like abortion, incest, and drug use, it just is not our business. Who are we to question someone else's life choices? So I say bring on the clones. Why don't we clone Jimmy Carter, and give him a second chance someday when the economy is decent and we've finally switched over to nuclear power? At least Jimmy only lusted with his mind.

Speaking of cloning the famous, I recently saw the new film adaptation of Great Expectations, starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke. I would imagine that there are quite a few people who would be thrilled if there were a few more Gwyneths and Ethans to go around. And as benign as the prospect of a world of Gwyneths and Ethans sounds, there is a dark cloud on the bioethical horizon. Before starring in Great Expectations, Hawke starred in a thriller called Gattaca.

Gattaca takes place in the not-too-distant future. The wealthy and powerful have all been genetically engineered to be a superior "race" of humans. They then procreate a dynasty of the perfect. This is one medical miracle that the poor cannot afford. As such, they have become permanently relegated to the underclass. Class mobility has, like a limit from some bizarre Victorian form of calculus, gone to zero. The mutton-fed political and ethical frenzy surrounding Dolly and human cloning has obscured a far more pressing, and equally scientifically imminent issue: that of genetic engineering.

I don't think anyone really understands the consequences of genetic engineering. For the first time in the history of life, we would be in the driver's seat; we would be both the force behind and the recipient of "natural" selection. Genetic engineering would make cloning look like a pleasant diversion. The truth about cloning is that it's unlikely many people will ever take advantage of the science of narcissism. The world will never blonde by means of a thousand Gwyneth Paltrows. The blonding of our earth, and the accompanying Aryan nightmare, could only happen by means of genetic engineering.

While a world without disease, vices, stupidity, and non-existent cheekbones might, at first glance, seem like a pleasant place, a closer look reveals a more frightening picture. What about overpopulation? And will a world full of beautiful, smart people with great cheekbones be nearly as interesting and variant as the world we live in today?

I'm not saying that all genetic engineering research should be halted, but rather that our leaders should stop and think about the consequences of a genetically engineered population. Personally, I feel that, as disturbing a picture as Gattaca paints, there is no way to legislate what is really up to parents to decide. Even so, this issue is far more complicated than human cloning, and I would be far more receptive to intelligent arguments against genetically engineering than I am to any arguments against cloning.

Recent Herald Columns by this Columnist:
NOTE: SITE WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BROWSER WINDOW

• Entitlement Theory Hits Hollywood, 1/16/98

Respond to this article in Speak Your Mind.