Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company  
The Boston Globe
August 18, 2001, Saturday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A19

LENGTH: 934 words

HEADLINE: Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University.;
WE NEED A GREAT DEBATE ON CLONING

BYLINE: by CARYL RIVERS

BODY:
WHOM DO YOU WANT DECIDING THE FUTURE OF HUMANKIND: THE AYATOLLAHS OR DR. FRANKENSTEIN? DO YOU WANT THE THEOCRATS OR THE ZILLIONS OF THE CORPORATE STATE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON SUCH ISSUES AS STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CLONING?

George Bush pushed the issue into the limelight by calling for a ban on human cloning in his address to the nation on the stem cell debate. And already the issue of who owns the stem cell lines that Bush approved for federal research is being fought over, since most of these are already owned by private companies.

One problem is that the debate over complex scientific issues is being waged at such high decibels and in such a black-and white manner that the gray areas are getting lost. The stem cell issue is cast in terms of killing babies versus surefire cures for Altzheimer's and diabetes. Now that the right has seized on these issues as a way to gain another foothold in the abortion debate, the supporters of science have felt pressured to respond with the same ammunition.

   If some people fire off a shell with "babykiller" on it, you lob one back that says "grannykiller." They say your side is chopping up babies, so you say their side wants millions of people who now have diabetes or Altzheimer's or other diseases to die painful deaths.

This is not the way to resolve the painfully complicated questions raised by stem cell research and cloning. We should not make decisions in haste for which we may have to repent at leisure. The president has appointed a commission that will bring together scientists, ethicists, philosophers, politicians, journalists, academics, and thinkers of all stripes to hammer out a blueprint for how we should proceed.

But the commission should not just include the usual suspects. It should include a high percentage of women, since women are so greatly affected by reproductive issues of all kinds. It should have members from many races and ethnic groups, because in the past these groups have been either victimized by experimentation (such as the Tuskeegee experiments, in which black men were exposed to syphilis) or are denied access by poverty to high-tech medicine.

A major item on the table should be whether or not to allow human cloning. Cloning represents a radical departure from the natural process of procreation, in which the sperm of a human male is joined with the egg of a human female to create an entirely new individual. In the cloning process, the DNA of an egg cell can be removed, to be replaced by genetic material from another individual. The resulting embryo will grow into a genetic twin of the donor. This would allow, for example, a father or mother to parent an exact twin, a generation removed.

Perhaps the most ominous aspect of cloning is that the clone would always walk in the shadow of another life. One of the great gifts of the human species is our individuality. Every baby is a fresh start, a combination of genes that has never existed before. The cloned child would not have this gift. In some cases, parents may want to replace a dead child with its clone, giving the illusion that the dead child can live again. But the new child will not be the same child. What if his or her personality, or athletic ability, is not the same, despite genetic similarities? After all, identical twins often choose different careers and develop different traits. Will parents withdraw or put pressure - no matter how subtle - on the child to be more like its dead twin?

And whom will we clone? Who will have the resources to order up a replica? Mainly rich white guys - unless some company orders up a brace of Michael Jordans or Tiger Woodses.

Cloning people seems a bad idea. But what about cloning technology that might allow us to grow new organs for people? Imagine a specially tailored heart for a person with severe cardiovascular disease that could be implanted without the problem of rejection.

Can we do this? Should we? Do we know whether this technology is feasible? A recent report notes that almost all animal clones are abnormal, suffering from odd defects such as massive obesity. Would cloned organs be the same? Are there dangers down the road that we don't foresee? Henry Ford couldn't envision global warming and filthy air when the first Model T came off the assembly line, but they exist today, imperiling the planet itself.

And if cloned organs did indeed work, who would get them? Would your HMO pay for a new cloned heart? Would mine? And what about the 40 million Americans who don't have any health care at all? They can't get routine care, much less new organs. Would cloning technology simply accelerate the existing growth of a two-tier health system, in which the rich get great high-tech medicine and the poor are up the creek? Cloned organs could be the source of millions of dollars for drug and biotech companies, but would those funds be siphoned away from basic health care in this country, which is woefully lacking?

These are all questions the commission should examine, reporting back to us the best wisdom of people from all walks of life. That's the point at which we should begin to consider legislation - after a national debate that would be much broader than what is happening in the Congress right now, where the argument is cast as theology versus science.

This issue is too important for politics as usual. It demands nothing less than our full attention in listening to arguments from many points of view. It demands well-considered steps into the future, not just a wild leap into the unknown or a fearful retreat into the past.

LOAD-DATE: August 20, 2001