The Island of Doctor Moreau and Frankenstein are two popular examples of science fiction literature that have struck fear in the hearts of many of thousands of readers and movie goers alike. The man made monsters of both of these works were the creations of science gone wrong, and we all took comfort in knowing deep-down that they were just creations of wonderfully active imaginations rather than real, tangible products of some evil madman’s laboratory. Yet, these images and many others like them have given rise to many of the arcane reactions of fear and opposition to the valuable field of biotechnology.
Why arcane, you may ask? Because the opinions formed from misinformation or no information at all may be likened to the reactions of fear and antagonism that surrounded the practice of vivisection of human cadavers by early scientists and doctors, as well as the horror that originally accompanied the more contemporary announcement of organ transplantation. Yet are these fears entirely unfounded? Absolutely not, I would have to say. It is not at all unreasonable to think that genetic manipulation could lead to horrific results should proper precautionary measures not be taken, particularly in the field of cloning. However, if one were to research this field at any length, he/she would soon find that great lengths have been taken by the scientific community to self regulate the prevention of any such horrific results.
But just what is cloning and why does it frighten so many? Who, in particular, does it frighten and are their fears justified? And what measures have already been or should be taken to ensure the prevention of any abuses of this field of research? Let’s begin by looking at some of the history of cloning and the manipulation of genetic material and what the driving goals of such research are.
The dictionary defines a clone as "A group of genetically identical cells descended from a single common ancestor" (Microsoft). The term has been used more in recent debate to describe a duplicate human being made by artificial means. However, most people do not realize that identical twins are clones: far more so than anything produced in the laboratory to date (Gould 16)! In fact, although the cloning of human beings is theoretically possible, the timeline for such an accomplishment is still much greater than the community at large realizes. But, the possibility of cloning a human still exists and that possibility has been the topic of many debates in recent times.
Who, one may ask, is opposed to any near-future attempts at cloning people? The answer may be surprising, for not only does the list include religious representatives, ethicists, and common lay people, but also the lion’s share of the scientific community as well! In the eyes of scientists, the current risks involved in any such undertaking justify a ban on human cloning (Brown 5). However, if the risks are ever overcome, then some feel that in a limited number of scenarios human cloning could and should be morally acceptable (Kitcher 62).
Such opinions are the earmark of a responsible scientific community. Since the beginning of research into cellular manipulation, scientists have proceeded with great caution. The driving goals of genetic and cellular engineering have been geared toward increasing the quality of life, not creating a new form of life. Many advances in the production of medicines and the treatment of diseases are owed to the new and exciting field of biotechnology. Although the possibility of abuses certainly exist in this field, as in any field of research, let’s hope that the legislature weighs into account the caution that has been exercised by scientists to-date and the benefits that been attained, before passing any premature laws banning all research of this type. Perhaps the words for the day should be proceed, but proceed with caution.
Work Cited
Brown, Peter G. "Initial Conditions." The Sciences September/October 1997: 4-5.
Kitcher, Philip. "Whose Self Is It, Anyway?" The Sciences September/October 1997:
58-62.
Gould, Stephen J. "Individuality." The Sciences September/October 1997: 14-16.
Microsoft Bookshelf. 1996-1997 ed. CD-ROM. Microsoft Corp. 1997.
