by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 2, 2001
All Rights Reserved.

verreactions, mass hysteria and widespread misconceptions leave people blinded about medical advances in the science of cloning. Pushing the outer limits of medicine, the technology of cloning continues its unrelenting march of evolution, despite unfounded vociferous opposition. With advances in fetal and stem cell research offering cures for Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal cord and brain injuries, and, yes, even congenital blindness, human cloning promises exciting breakthroughs. Only 32 years after James Watson won the Nobel prize for discovering the structure of DNA, Dolly the sheep was successfully cloned by University of Wisconsin’s Neal First in 1994. Cloning Dolly let the genie out of the bottle, opening the door for eventual human cloning. As zoologists and vegetarians remind us: mammals are mammals and meat is meat. Since Dolly, animal cloning has moved forward at a brisk pace. Whipping up evil images of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, “designer children, organ farms, and a growing disregard for the sanctity of human life. This is a brave new world we must not enter, “ said Republican majority leader Dick Armey (R-Tx.). Aldous Huxley would gyrate in his grave exploiting his Brave New World to impede scientific research.

       Where cloning is concerned, there’s no limit to incendiary rhetoric and grisly images. “Subhuman clone armies,” preached the late New York cardinal John O’Connor, “you could just keep producing and say, 'they are expendable. Give ‘em a gun and send ‘em out,'” distorting the truth about human cloning. Even former President Clinton got into the act proposing the Cloning Prohibition Act, supporting the United Nations' view that cloning human beings is “contrary to human dignity.” But how degrading is it for man to intrude into God’s heavens with America’s space program? Or, for that matter, invading nature by daring to cure dreaded diseases or reverse infertility? Without going over the deep end, cloning—human or otherwise—is just another method to correct natural defects in the reproductive cycle, giving infertile couples a better chance. Critics condemned in-vitro fertilization [IVF] as violating God’s law. Now the same voices of doom and gloom are hard-pressed to pinpoint their misguided opposition to human cloning.

       Thanks to IVF, infertile women are given the gift of life, despite its lack of perfection. Now in the headlines, cloning should gain acceptability when the hype subsides. “When some new techniques come out, people always panic,” counsels John Zhang, a New York-based IVF researcher and clinician. “Then everybody loves it . . . Cloning will be the same thing. Eventually people will accept it, if it proves successful and safe.” While nuclear transfer technology—the process in cloning analogous to fertilization—is not yet perfected, animal cloning companies like Infigen in Madison Wisconsin are busy at work. Like the early days of IVF, so far only 5% of transferred nuclei actually take hold and grow into embryos, still leaving cloning a hit or miss enterprise. As technology improves, cloning will become another reliable reproductive method. Mired in science fiction, cloning raises disturbing possibilities of abuse, including creating legions of human slaves or killers by maniacal Nazi-like scientists. Like developing nuclear energy, science can’t handcuff itself with endless 'what ifs.'

       Like other reproductive techniques, why would laws be different for cloned individuals? When British scientists Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe produced the first 'test-tube baby,' the same alarm sounded—somehow laboratory-made human beings weren’t exploited for evil purposes. No, modern science was harnessed to correct nature’s imperfections. While pro-life groups rant about abortion, anti-cloning groups rail against future generations of cloned babies. Today’s discrimination against cloning stems from the colossal misconception that cloned humans would differ from other types of artificial reproduction. Once cells divide, develop into embryos and eventually grow into human beings, many factors affect normal development—including the mother’s health, nutrition and care-giving skills. Even identical twins—sharing the same fertilized egg and womb—have different appearances and temperaments. Contrary to popular misconceptions, clones are less alike than identical twins. Scientists know, in fact, that no two living things are exactly alike.

       Popular fallacies about clones developing into automatons, easily manipulated into goose-stepping armies of sub-humans have no basis in reality. Like other infertility techniques, offspring aren’t cognizant of the special circumstances under which their fertilization and embryonic states occurred. Some people fear harvesting clones for fetal tissue and body parts. Like aborted fetuses or adult organ donors, clones that don’t survive can be used for medical purposes. Unlike stem cell research that promises to grow specific organs, mature clones are whole human beings, subject to the same constitutional protections as any other person. Lobbying for the unborn child, pro-life groups argue that even embryos and fetuses are entitled to certain inalienable rights. Why should it be any different for cloned human beings? Infertility specialists and sterile couples view cloning as another opportunity to achieve their elusive dream.

       Cloning won’t create immortality or return a lost loved one any more than it creates Frankenstein-like zombies. It’s a new scientific reproductive method that promises sterile couples another technique like in-vitro fertilization. At best, it offers greater genetic continuity, but doesn’t, as some would have you believe, create exact genetic duplicates. Many factors—including caregiver health, genetics and the environment—affect individual differences in human beings. By all accounts, human clones—like their animal counterparts—are less alike than identical twins. All the current hype and misinformation prevents science from making key breakthroughs to help all humankind. Political or religious ideology shouldn’t trample on dedicated scientists boldly exploring biology’s new frontier. Flogging scientists and courageous entrepreneurs is a giant step backward.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic public relations. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.