FC: Responses to Center for Genetics and Society and ban on cloning

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Previous messages:

"Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03109.html

"Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03110.html

-Declan

---

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:14:05 -0800
From: Mike Alissi <malissi () reason com>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban
    cloning

Hi Declan -
Reason gathered some insightful views on this topic a couple of months ago.
They respond to many of the issues raised in the CGS letter:
Criminalizing Science
Leading thinkers and commentators respond to a left-right alliance to outlaw
"therapeutic
cloning" and stigmatize genetic research.
http://reason.com/bioresearch/bioresearch.shtml
Thanks,
Mike

---

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:58:41 -0500
From: Hiawatha Bray <watha () monitortan com>
To: declan () well com
Subject: RE: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning

If this is as close as you can get to a counter-argument, the
anti-cloners--like me--have nothing to worry about.

Seriously, though, human cloning is a lousy idea, perhaps the lousiest
ever.  The purpose of science, it seems to me, is the betterment of
human life, not its abolition.  And abolition is the likely result of
a policy that allows people to tailor new types of "humans" for
commercial or political ends.  This is a power that people have no
business exercising, even if it is within our grasp.  People, after
all, are not means to an end, but ends in themselves.  This is why
civilized societies have never tolerated involuntary experiments on
humans.  And that, of course, is exactly what cloning of people
amounts to.

Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe

---

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:14:23 -0500
From: Alan Cabal <a.cabal () att net>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on
    cloning

I have it on good authority that Bill Gates, Al Gore, George W. Bush, George
Soros, that mediocre idiot Bono, and pedophile poster child Britney Spears
are all clones harvested from the DNA of Richard M. Nixon.

What's the point of closing the barn door when the horses have already
galloped? Legalize everything, and free Charles Manson.

Alan Cabal
NY Press

---

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:26:48 -0800
From: Matthew Tarpy <tarpy () pobox com>
To: declan () well com
Subject: RE: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning

Declan--

I'm just a subscriber to your list, not anyone of note in this whole
cloning/bioethics area (just one of those 'soon to be a law student'
people), yet still feel compelled to write a few lines about this
message.

The clear implication of 'lizards' email is that somehow people who are
against cloning are those same people who are against all progress in
the scientific realm. I have no doubt that lizard believes that the
anti-cloning people are the same lot that forced Galileo to recant his
observations, or that would burn witches at the stake. That being said,
however, I feel compelled to confess that I am someone who is very much
against wholesale cloning at this point.

I am certainly not a technology hater...I work in Silicon Valley, went
to Carnegie Mellon for my undergrad degree, and am a human-factors
professional, and was the first TiVo user in my circle of friends; I
have a deep love of technology and the wonders it can bring us. However,
I have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to how we apply our
ability to create new technology and the unintended consequences of
those acts of creation.

Look at the atom bomb; no one can deny that the harnessing of the atom
was a great achievement of the human race, yet at the same time, our own
sense of ethics just barely kept pace with our ability to destroy not
only ourselves, but our entire world. I think the same could be said of
the nascent technology of cloning. I realize that I'm starting to sound
a lot like Mander does in the "Absence of the Sacred" here, but I'm
starting to see his point more and more. It's not that the technology
itself makes a value judgment; it's what we do with that technology.

After much thought I've come to the following conclusion: if we are
simply talking about the use of stem-cells/etc to learn how to clone
replacement organs, I am very comfortable with this line of research.
Furthermore, no one (save the Amish, Christian Scientists, and the
Luddites), I believe, would be against that technology. No one could
say, with a straight face, that a kidney has a soul or inherent
self-worth. It is, rather, when we turn to the issue of cloning human
beings and fetuses that the issue becomes hazy. I am extremely
uncomfortable with the thought of thousands of human fetuses being
created solely for a research project, and then being discarded. It
seems to me that this disregards the inherent 'worth' (or soul, if you
wish) of those fetuses. 

It's not so much that we shouldn't be playing god, it's that we
shouldn't be playing God when our ethics and moral structures aren't
advanced enough to deal with the issues that we are going to encounter
if we go down this path without a careful examination of where we're
going. These issues of life and death and medicine are very complicated
and not at all clear cut. Right now out here in California, there's a
big brouhaha over the fact that a convicted felon was given a free heart
transplant
(http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/8011/345384.html)
while other, perhaps, more deserving people on the transplant list did
not receive the same level of care. Should the convict receive the
heart? I don't know, he wasn't on death row, he wasn't serving a life
term, I can honestly see both points of view. If we can't even answer
this, a certainly 'easier' question than the whole issue of the ethics
of cloning a human being, shouldn't that tell us something?

Matthew

---

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:41:56 -0700
From: James J. Lippard <lippard () discord org>
To: tsimoncelli () genetics-and-society org
Cc: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban
    cloning

Tania:

Do you have a version of the letter or any accompanying documentation
somewhere that actually gives an argument for this position?  I can't
find one in the text, apart from "lack of an unmet need," which seems
to me a rather poor reason for banning something--it certainly would
set a bad precedent.  What are the harmful consequences feared here?
I realize it is not possible to describe "a future more horrific than
any we might imagine," but are there any horrific futures you CAN
imagine that are considered likely, or possible consequences of use of
these technologies?

This talk of "the risk that a human clone might be born" makes no
sense to me.  Why is that any more inherently threatening than "the
risk that a human twin might be born"?  A twin is just a natural
clone, isn't it?  Should we have a ban on twins, and a moratorium on
fertility drugs that increase the likelihood of twins?

Is the problem that a clone can be made from other cells of human
beings, and thus the twins may be temporally separated in development,
rather than reared together. time-wise?

Or is the problem human control over reproduction, that an element
of chance can be removed?

Is the fear "The Boys from Brazil"?  That the worst of humanity will
be reproduced?  Doesn't that already happen via natural methods?

Or is the fear "Gattaca"--that genetically engineered humans will
have fewer diseases and problems, and put those of us who aren't
so engineered at a disadvantage, and justify discrimination against
us?  Doesn't that already happen via natural methods, and accidents
of birth (like nation of origin)?

Or is the fear "Brave New World"--that genetically engineered humans
will be used as slaves, or harvested for body parts?  (It seems to me
that existing laws should already suffice to preclude this
possibility, unless individual organs could be grown, in which case
I'm not sure I see what the objection is--what better place for
getting a compatible heart than from the individual whose heart needs
replacing.)

I'd just like to get some specifics on what your group finds
objectionable about cloning.

---

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:50:02 -0500
From: George M. Ellenburg <gme () ellenburg org>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. SENATORS ON HUMAN CLONING AND EUGENIC ENGINEERING

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott
Members of the Senate
cc:    President George W. Bush
         Members of the House of Representatives

February, 2002:

Dear Senators,

The United States Senate will soon be considering legislation on human
cloning. Your decisions will
have profound implications for the future of humanity.

Religous and ethical groups are crawling out of the woodwork to try to
presuade your opinion one way or
another regarding this issue.  Usually the opinion being expressed is one
that cloning and eugenics is not
good for our Country, or our World.

Harken if you will with me, back to the 14th and 15th centuries.  European
scholars and theologians
steadfastly believed that the Earth was flat.  He that went against the
church was guilty of heresy.

Brave explorers like Lief Erickson, some unmentionable Frenchmen; oh, and a
certain Spaniard named
Christopher Columbus proved to all mankind that the Earth was not-flat, and
this was a Good Thing[tm].

Let's go back even futher.  Copernicus was all but banshed from society for
his theories that (gasp!) the
Earth rotates around the Sun, when doctrine back then taught that the Earth
was the center of the Universe.

In modern times; were it not for the brave souls of many others who spent
(and gave) their lives pursuing
eternal truth, our World would not be what it is today.

No one -- not you, I, or "the Center for Genetics and Society" -- are
soothsayers.  Who's to say that if this
amazing work is stifled then amazing cures and discoveries may be forever
hindered.

After all, it was unethical, at the time, for Copernicus to think, and
preach, that the Earth was not the center
of the Universe; that it did, in fact, rotate around the Sun.

It was also unethical, at the time, for Galileo Galilei to hypothesize that
our Solar System is a part of a vast
system of stars, galaxies, and planets.

People thought Leonardo DiVinci was nuts for dreaming that one day mankind
will fly.

Charles Darwin was all but damned to Hell for hypothesizing that mankind
evolved from lower-ordered
species.

And, people thought Orville and Wilbur Wright were nuts for trying to make
Leonardo DiVinci's dream come
true.

So I and countless others, ask of YOU, our elected Senators and
Representatives, to not be swayed by
emotion in this matter, and allow cloning and eugenic research to continue.

Sincerely,

George Ellenburg, Atlanta, GA, USA

---

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:47:21 -0500
From: Nat <nathaniel.echols () yale edu>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: politech () politechbot com, lizard () mrlizard com
Subject: Re: FC: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on
    cloning

This reply would fit in better on Slashdot or Usenet.  However, since it's
already been aired, I'll try to respond.  Disclaimer: I'm a biology major,
but I'm in no danger of being a "real scientist"- merely an informed
observer.

I agree a moratorium on "research cloning" is a bad idea- it's mainly
meant to cure debilitating illness in people with few other options.
Safety should be an issue, but most patients needing related therapies
probably are willing to take risks.  I'd guess most scientists would
probably agree that it should be fairly tightly regulated, perhaps for
reasons similar to the Center's.

On the other hand, reproductive cloning is extremely risky with no benefit
to already living, suffering individuals.  I have two objections to it:

1. It's unnecessary.  I'd love to hear if anyone has ideas about why we
_need_ reproductive cloning.  (The only good one I've heard is that cloned
individuals might serve as tissue donors, but this sounds very
hypothetical and opens up all sorts of ethical issues- even assuming that
any procedure done wouldn't harm the clone)

2. Figuring out how to clone humans will probably result in quite a few
"errors", some of which will probably not be caught until after birth.
I'd argue that this qualifies as experimentation on unwilling human
subjects.  Yeah, the risks have probably been overblown.  But Western
medical and scientific ethics seem to me to prohibit taking this sort of
risk, even if it were for a medically useful experiment.

I mentioned my concerns on this list some months ago and received a lot of
nasty replies from people, none of whom could supply a good reason why 
we need cloning.  I know many hate hearing "we know what's best for you"
from the scientific community, but every scientist I've heard voice an
opinion on reproductive cloning has been against it (plus, now, the
National Academy of Sciences), usually for reasons similar to mine.  Some
of these, by the way, are strongly in favor of stem-cell research etc.

Finally, the suggestion below that anyone against reproductive cloning is
a religious fanatic or luddite is offensive.  Forget this Center- do you
think the NAS is a right-wing think tank?

---

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:03:36 -0800
From: lizard <lizard () mrlizard com>
To: Nat <nathaniel.echols () yale edu>
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>, politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on
    cloning

The anti-genetics bandwagon is populated by a delightfully bipartisan 
mix of right-wing creationist/anti-abortion fanatics and left-wing 
Rifkinite 'science is a patriarchial capitalist plot to rape Mother 
Earth' fanatics. Both types, IMO, should be allowed to live their 
preferred lifestyle in some isolated, useless, wilderness, such as Canada.

The main problem I have with the 'moratorium' on reproductive human 
cloning (the ONLY part of the agenda which has even the slightest hint 
of a rational basis) is that the logic is "We don't know how to safely 
clone humans, therefore, we shouldn't do it." Uhm...hello? McFly? Unless 
we perform experiments, we'll never LEARN. Thus, the moratorium is a de 
facto ban. Which is, of course, what the people proposing it desire. "We 
don't know if X is safe, so we must not do X until we're sure" is an 
argument which doesn't hold up, when doing "X" is the only way to find out.

As to "why" should we clome humans...why NOT? Someone wants a clone of 
themself, let them have one..big friggin' deal. The clone won't BE them, 
any more than one identical twin "is" his brother. The clone will have 
identical DNA, but a different personality, outlook, values, etc.

Saying that human cloning should not be permitted to *bring a child to 
term* until there is a strong assurance of freedom from genetic defects 
makes some sense -- indeed, a similair moral logic should be applied to 
any pregnancy likely to result in a gene-damaged child. However, before 
we can safely create a human clone that can be born, we will need to 
perfect the process on embryos which will then need to be destroyed 
before birth (probably within a month or two of fertilization)

But if you need a 'why'...such research will lead to tremenous gains in 
understanding human reproduction, cell diffrentiation, and so on. It 
will also do a lot to settle 'nature vs. nurture' debates.

---



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------