Copyright 2001 The Washington Post
The
Washington Post
August 07, 2001, Tuesday, Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 755 words
HEADLINE:
The Mad Scientist Bogeyman
BYLINE: Richard Cohen
BODY: I am a twin. I am not an identical
twin, but even identical twins are not really identical. They may look alike,
but they have different experiences and, ultimately, different personalities. It
would be the same with clones -- the dreaded human clones that Congress is
threatening to outlaw. Maybe just to be safe they should outlaw twins.
Pardon my sarcasm, but no one who has followed the recent debate in
Congress regarding
human cloning and stem cell research -- they
are intertwined -- could help being impressed by the sheer stupidity of the
rhetoric, as well as the outcome. By a lopsided vote of 265 to 162, the House
banned all
human cloning, having decided the matter after less
than a day of debate. Propelled largely by religious conviction, the leadership
-- now, there's a reason to ban cloning -- was ecstatic. "This House should not
be giving the green light to mad scientists to tinker with the gift of life,"
said Rep. J. C. Watts, fourth in the GOP House leadership.
Congress then
went on its summer recess, enabling us all to entertain the (probably vain) hope
that, as the members sit on their respective front porches, they will reflect on
their impetuousness and be overcome with shame. As they sip their iced teas,
they may also come to wonder why they moved with such alacrity to forbid
something that -- along with time-travel and hair restoration -- does not yet
exist.
For all the talk, human cloning is not quite around the corner.
Cloning has famously been accomplished in sheep (Hello, Dolly) but not yet in
dogs or higher mammals. The experts I've consulted say we're talking 30 years
down the road and overcoming daunting difficulties. Fusing new DNA with old DNA
is not as easy as banning the process.
And even then what are we talking
about? Why do legislators like Watts employ the language of grade B science
fiction flicks to talk about what, someday, may just be another reproductive
choice? But he is not alone. In a recent essay in the New Republic, the
ethicists Leon R. Kass and Daniel Callahan -- both of whom were consulted by
President Bush -- call human cloning "unethical." Maybe so, but they never say
why.
I grant you the prospect is scary, and no doubt it ought to be
regulated. But at the moment, babies are being produced by in vitro
fertilization. I know of a child produced by once-frozen sperm and carried in
the womb of a surrogate mother. This, to say the least, is not traditional. I am
not at all sure what God thinks of it. Nor does the so-called miracle of
conception always involve something warm and wonderful. Think of two drunks in
the backroom of some frat house. If God approves of that, then who's to say He
frowns upon a childless couple producing a clone of one of them? I don't see the
ethical problem here. Taste? Propriety? Difficulties? Yes to them all. Among
other things, the clone would know its genetic destiny, and it would be saddled,
as are identical twins, with a lifetime of stupid remarks -- "How do you know
who you are?" -- but these are inconveniences, not momentous moral issues.
Had the House opted for a moratorium on human cloning, it would have
been praised for its sagacity. Instead, it leaped into the debate on stem cell
research. After all, if stem cells have the capacity to reverse or cure diseases
such as Parkinson's, think of what could be done with cells produced not by a
stranger, but by the recipient himself.
Back in 1969, Kevin Phillips
published "The Emerging Republican Majority." Now he might want to write "The
Emerging Republican Theocracy." It is led in the House by Tom DeLay, Dick Armey
and the aforementioned Watts. They substitute faith for thought. For a minister,
that's okay. For a legislator, it's a sin.
The stakes are enormous. If
the government doesn't fund stem cell research and also forbids human cloning,
this sort of medical exploration will be stopped dead. No one else is going to
do it, because (1) the payoff for private firms is too far down the road to
justify the investment, and (2) if the United States doesn't lead, the rest of
the world is not going to do much either.
This is a complicated subject
-- a peek into a frightening and unknowable future. Congress should move slowly
and not be spooked by silly language about "mad scientists." If moral questions
are what concern our politicians, then they ought to consider this: If they
continue on their present course, people will die -- that's all there is to it.
Tell me the morality of that.
LOAD-DATE: August
07, 2001