Scientists
in the West have been stunned by the claim two weeks ago that a human
being had been duplicated by a process known as cloning. Although frogs
have been cloned, babies made to order was a prospect thought to be a
1984 Orwellian dream.
Suresh Jain
May 15, 1978 |
Scientists
in the West have been stunned by the claim two weeks ago that a human
being had been duplicated by a process known as cloning. Although frogs
have been cloned, babies made to order was a prospect thought to be a
1984 Orwellian dream.
The great debate follows publicity over the forthcoming book In His Image: The Cloning Of A Man by science writer David Rorvik, who claims that a childless 68-year-old multimillionaire financed the cloning project because he wanted an heir and felt no woman was worthy enough. According to the author the baby is now 14-month-old and an exact duplicate of the millionaire, right down to brains, fingerprints and habits.
Volunteers: Two New York women have volunteered to carry and give birth to human clones, after Vermont obstetrician Dr Landrum B. Shettles announced that he was "ready to go" with the first official cloning of a man.
He, however, warned that there were still many unknowns about what the future held for children born by the revolutionary genetic engineering process. "When you consider that the health of a normal baby can be affected by what its mother eats during pregnancy, there must be many unknowns in the case of cloning," he said.
Nightmare: Whether Rorvik's claim to be an eye-witness of how unidentified scientists succeeded in cloning is a hoax or reality, to most scientists and laymen the prospects are too frightening to contemplate.
An alarmed medical world has called for an immediate investigation by the United States Government and the United Nations into cloning. "Cloning is a nightmare," declared Dr George Wald, a Harvard University biologist and winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize for physiology.
"What we call reproduction is an exciting process, because we are always creating a new individual and separate personality. Cloning is making copies of people just as we would manufacture record albums. We need a principle in law right away to protect human life," Dr Wald added.
Gene Pool: The first step has been taken when three scientists filed a suit to force the US Government to disclose details of studies it has funded on cloning and genetic engineering.
"These technological developments have come about without the consent or participation of the public, which is to suffer the consequences," says one of the three scientists, Dr Jonathan Beckwith, professor of genetics at Harvard. "It is time that scientific and medical advances which allow meddling in the human gene pool be explained to the US population."
Moral and Ethics: Another of the scientists, Dr Ethan Signer, professor of genetics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says: "The cloning of humans has profound and extensive implications for society as a whole because of the questions it raises." He seeks answers to such questions as to "What are the rights of cloned individuals? What are the moral and ethical aspects of cloning humans? Who has the right to clone?"
The third scientist, Dr Liebe Cavalieri, a molecular biologist at a Cancer Research Institute, decries cloning as "the most appalling, dangerous medical experiment in history". He shudders at the prospects and exclaims: "It's worse than Hitler a million times over. It's horrible. It's something that should be prevented violently, if necessary."
Noted anthropologist, Dr Ashley Montague says: "The ethical and moral implications of human cloning would be debasing for society. Many people see cloning as a positive point because a genius like Einstein could be recreated. But by the ordinary process of random genetic selection we have a far better way in which to create a genius."
Biologists: But pitched against the opponents of cloning are many other eminent personalities from the world of science. For instance, Dr Robert Sinsheimer, chairman of the biology department of California Institute of Technology believes that "cloning would permit the perpetuation and preservation of the finest types of human species".
Some others see cloning not just as an experimental technology but as the future means of reproduction. Dr Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Laureate, says: "Leave sexual reproduction for experimental purposes. If a superior individual is identified, why not copy it directly rather than suffer all the risks, including those of sex determination?"
Other scientists have come up with a number of suggestions ranging from making a clone of a young person and keeping it, to supply the original with spare parts when needed; duplicating someone, maybe a child dying of a non-hereditary disease, so that the person can be replaced at death; bringing back well embalmed historical figures from the dead and try to clone cells scrapped from the mummy.
There are, however, a large number of people who believe that cloning may be a good idea, the misuse of the technique could raise frightening possibilities. They contend that military leaders would create an army of strong, fearless and ruthless monsters. Dictators would try to create legions of docile, obedient and subservient workers.
Blending: According to a professor at the New York University, in theory cloning can also combine the characteristics of two people to create a person with the qualities of both. Thus a beautiful woman, like Hema Malini, could arrange to have a daughter with her looks and the brains of Henry Kissinger.
This could be done by blending the cells of both "parent-donors" in a laboratory and then implanting it in a womb. The problem, however, seems to be that the clone might have the looks of the father and talents of the mother. "Already the existing sperm banks - used for artificial insemination - are a step in that direction," he said.
Patent: Cloning is only one of the many fields in which geneticists are trying to improve on nature's method of procreation. They are even trying to create life itself and in the United States the doctors have reached advanced stages in programming human embryos.
The artificial creation of life is being taken so seriously that one corporation has already secured legal ruling on patenting such life. The new ruling, by the court of customs and patent appeals, has been proclaimed as a victory for the genetic engineers.
While no-one undermines the fact that more complex moral, legal and philosophical questions lie ahead for the genetic engineers, Dr Kimball Atwood, chairman of the Microbiology Department of Illinois University, views the production of an organism "that will combine the happy qualities of animals and plants, such as one with a large brain so that it can indulge in philosophy and also have a photosynthetic area on its back so that it would not have to eat".
The great debate follows publicity over the forthcoming book In His Image: The Cloning Of A Man by science writer David Rorvik, who claims that a childless 68-year-old multimillionaire financed the cloning project because he wanted an heir and felt no woman was worthy enough. According to the author the baby is now 14-month-old and an exact duplicate of the millionaire, right down to brains, fingerprints and habits.
Volunteers: Two New York women have volunteered to carry and give birth to human clones, after Vermont obstetrician Dr Landrum B. Shettles announced that he was "ready to go" with the first official cloning of a man.
He, however, warned that there were still many unknowns about what the future held for children born by the revolutionary genetic engineering process. "When you consider that the health of a normal baby can be affected by what its mother eats during pregnancy, there must be many unknowns in the case of cloning," he said.
Nightmare: Whether Rorvik's claim to be an eye-witness of how unidentified scientists succeeded in cloning is a hoax or reality, to most scientists and laymen the prospects are too frightening to contemplate.
An alarmed medical world has called for an immediate investigation by the United States Government and the United Nations into cloning. "Cloning is a nightmare," declared Dr George Wald, a Harvard University biologist and winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize for physiology.
"What we call reproduction is an exciting process, because we are always creating a new individual and separate personality. Cloning is making copies of people just as we would manufacture record albums. We need a principle in law right away to protect human life," Dr Wald added.
Gene Pool: The first step has been taken when three scientists filed a suit to force the US Government to disclose details of studies it has funded on cloning and genetic engineering.
"These technological developments have come about without the consent or participation of the public, which is to suffer the consequences," says one of the three scientists, Dr Jonathan Beckwith, professor of genetics at Harvard. "It is time that scientific and medical advances which allow meddling in the human gene pool be explained to the US population."
Moral and Ethics: Another of the scientists, Dr Ethan Signer, professor of genetics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says: "The cloning of humans has profound and extensive implications for society as a whole because of the questions it raises." He seeks answers to such questions as to "What are the rights of cloned individuals? What are the moral and ethical aspects of cloning humans? Who has the right to clone?"
The third scientist, Dr Liebe Cavalieri, a molecular biologist at a Cancer Research Institute, decries cloning as "the most appalling, dangerous medical experiment in history". He shudders at the prospects and exclaims: "It's worse than Hitler a million times over. It's horrible. It's something that should be prevented violently, if necessary."
Noted anthropologist, Dr Ashley Montague says: "The ethical and moral implications of human cloning would be debasing for society. Many people see cloning as a positive point because a genius like Einstein could be recreated. But by the ordinary process of random genetic selection we have a far better way in which to create a genius."
Biologists: But pitched against the opponents of cloning are many other eminent personalities from the world of science. For instance, Dr Robert Sinsheimer, chairman of the biology department of California Institute of Technology believes that "cloning would permit the perpetuation and preservation of the finest types of human species".
Some others see cloning not just as an experimental technology but as the future means of reproduction. Dr Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Laureate, says: "Leave sexual reproduction for experimental purposes. If a superior individual is identified, why not copy it directly rather than suffer all the risks, including those of sex determination?"
Other scientists have come up with a number of suggestions ranging from making a clone of a young person and keeping it, to supply the original with spare parts when needed; duplicating someone, maybe a child dying of a non-hereditary disease, so that the person can be replaced at death; bringing back well embalmed historical figures from the dead and try to clone cells scrapped from the mummy.
There are, however, a large number of people who believe that cloning may be a good idea, the misuse of the technique could raise frightening possibilities. They contend that military leaders would create an army of strong, fearless and ruthless monsters. Dictators would try to create legions of docile, obedient and subservient workers.
Blending: According to a professor at the New York University, in theory cloning can also combine the characteristics of two people to create a person with the qualities of both. Thus a beautiful woman, like Hema Malini, could arrange to have a daughter with her looks and the brains of Henry Kissinger.
This could be done by blending the cells of both "parent-donors" in a laboratory and then implanting it in a womb. The problem, however, seems to be that the clone might have the looks of the father and talents of the mother. "Already the existing sperm banks - used for artificial insemination - are a step in that direction," he said.
Patent: Cloning is only one of the many fields in which geneticists are trying to improve on nature's method of procreation. They are even trying to create life itself and in the United States the doctors have reached advanced stages in programming human embryos.
The artificial creation of life is being taken so seriously that one corporation has already secured legal ruling on patenting such life. The new ruling, by the court of customs and patent appeals, has been proclaimed as a victory for the genetic engineers.
While no-one undermines the fact that more complex moral, legal and philosophical questions lie ahead for the genetic engineers, Dr Kimball Atwood, chairman of the Microbiology Department of Illinois University, views the production of an organism "that will combine the happy qualities of animals and plants, such as one with a large brain so that it can indulge in philosophy and also have a photosynthetic area on its back so that it would not have to eat".
No comments:
Post a Comment