Cloning Ambitions
September 4th 2006 13:21
Cloning Ambition
The Cloning debate has resurfaced but who gives a Dolly about the science? Instead we have a debate that is driven by partisan politics, utopian dreams and fear. Before the private members bill has hit the parliament for debate many people have already chosen a side. Even before the Lockhart Review into the Prohibition of Human Cloning had started their review sides had been chosen. Even before the Australia's Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 was debated sides were chosen.
Not that choosing a side in any debate is a bad thing, but the reasons for choosing a side is the crucial matter. Simply accusing one side of being irrational because of their roots and work history, adds nothing to a rational debate. This puts the central question of a debate well and truly outside the reason for choosing to support the issue or not. (Remember the “…Rosaries off my Ovaries…” tee-shirt during the RU486 debate.) How can any debate progress in a rational manner if we cannot even address each other in a dignified way? It is like saying that you are a fool for opposing my argument because only fools oppose my arguments. Swap fool for whatever social group you like and we have the basis of the media debate over Stem Cell research.
The issues over Cloning go beyond whether you like of dislike an individual; a political party, a particular religion or scientist. It goes to the central questions of: what is a human being and what rights does it have? The question of humanity is still being debated in science and society. I could write a whole page on how eminent scientists disagree on the some of the most fundamental questions but I will save that for another time.
The question of what is a human also determines your reaction to further questions of how biotechnology can be used. As far back as the 1930’s Huxley touched on this question in his book Brave New World. His vivid depiction of a biotech nightmare was influenced by his own brother’s research into Embryology. Rightly he forced us to ask the tough questions about something close to his own family. In modern times these issues are still with us. Rather than hide behind recommendations of expert panels we should be asking the tough questions. Are the recommendations of the committee as independent as they claim to be or were they biased in some manner? Was the hope of gaining access to government research grants an influence? Are the recommendations based upon new evidence and scientific breakthroughs or are they just a reinterpretation of previously existing evidence? What was the presumption of what a human is? Did they presume human embryos were not human or did they presume they were human? Is there any evidence that would support the argument that embryonic stem cells have helped anyone or is it just another popular theory? What more would another panel recommend in another few years? If an unscrupulous person was to have access to this technology, would it still be considered positive?
Mythical creatures are not easy to dismiss at when animal hybrids do exist today. It is possible to create an animal that is half goat and half sheep whose cell structure is 50/50 of each. Would we be comfortable with something that is part human and part animal? Genetic engineering is already a reality. In a few years we may be asking the same questions about this research. After we set a precedent it will affect future recommendations.
The Cloning debate has resurfaced but who gives a Dolly about the science? Instead we have a debate that is driven by partisan politics, utopian dreams and fear. Before the private members bill has hit the parliament for debate many people have already chosen a side. Even before the Lockhart Review into the Prohibition of Human Cloning had started their review sides had been chosen. Even before the Australia's Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 was debated sides were chosen.
Not that choosing a side in any debate is a bad thing, but the reasons for choosing a side is the crucial matter. Simply accusing one side of being irrational because of their roots and work history, adds nothing to a rational debate. This puts the central question of a debate well and truly outside the reason for choosing to support the issue or not. (Remember the “…Rosaries off my Ovaries…” tee-shirt during the RU486 debate.) How can any debate progress in a rational manner if we cannot even address each other in a dignified way? It is like saying that you are a fool for opposing my argument because only fools oppose my arguments. Swap fool for whatever social group you like and we have the basis of the media debate over Stem Cell research.
The issues over Cloning go beyond whether you like of dislike an individual; a political party, a particular religion or scientist. It goes to the central questions of: what is a human being and what rights does it have? The question of humanity is still being debated in science and society. I could write a whole page on how eminent scientists disagree on the some of the most fundamental questions but I will save that for another time.
The question of what is a human also determines your reaction to further questions of how biotechnology can be used. As far back as the 1930’s Huxley touched on this question in his book Brave New World. His vivid depiction of a biotech nightmare was influenced by his own brother’s research into Embryology. Rightly he forced us to ask the tough questions about something close to his own family. In modern times these issues are still with us. Rather than hide behind recommendations of expert panels we should be asking the tough questions. Are the recommendations of the committee as independent as they claim to be or were they biased in some manner? Was the hope of gaining access to government research grants an influence? Are the recommendations based upon new evidence and scientific breakthroughs or are they just a reinterpretation of previously existing evidence? What was the presumption of what a human is? Did they presume human embryos were not human or did they presume they were human? Is there any evidence that would support the argument that embryonic stem cells have helped anyone or is it just another popular theory? What more would another panel recommend in another few years? If an unscrupulous person was to have access to this technology, would it still be considered positive?
Mythical creatures are not easy to dismiss at when animal hybrids do exist today. It is possible to create an animal that is half goat and half sheep whose cell structure is 50/50 of each. Would we be comfortable with something that is part human and part animal? Genetic engineering is already a reality. In a few years we may be asking the same questions about this research. After we set a precedent it will affect future recommendations.
| 76 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
