Thursday, January 15, 1998
Pfeffer’s article fraught with misinformation
CLONING: Views expressed propagate inaccurate depiction of
potential within legitimate science
By Micah Sittig
President Clinton’s call for a ban of human-cloning research
should be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a scientific breakthrough
that, as a politician, he can only attempt to grasp.
In the same way, Stephanie Pfeffer’s Viewpoint column ("Imagine
the possibilities of human cloning," Jan. 13) is both
poorly-informed and hasty in its judgement. The article
characterizes scientists like Richard Seed as cold and uncaring
when it comes to considering human life. The article’s use of
sarcasm betrays a lack of thought on the author’s behalf. It paints
the picture of an unrestrained maniac who would clone people with
indiscretion: super-models for their good looks, politicians for
their leadership qualities and sports superstars for their
outstanding athletic abilities.
The reader should recall, however, that cloning is far less
"Xerox"-like than the article would have us believe. External
circumstances and random variables affect a person’s character and
skills just as much, if not more, than their genetic make-up.
Imagine a Michael Jordan clone that is brought up under the
conditions that would make him a basketball superstar, just like
his genetic father. Imagine all the circumstances that could veer
his interests and skills as he grows. Also, keep in mind that a
clone would not grow any faster than a person with two parents.
Cloning means being able to create a one-parented person, not
being able to mess with genes to speed up growth or create
supermen/women. The field of human genetic engineering is still in
its infancy and is altogether a completely different debate.
On the contrary, I feel that those who oppose human cloning
research are cold and inconsiderate. The pictures they paint of
human armies of clones, human sex toys or human organ-harvesting
from clones shows just how unfeeling they can be.
I would ask, did the same debate arise when the Louise Brown,
the world’s first "test-tube" baby, was born? Yes. And what has
come of it today? What seemed once to be a radical and dangerous
new experiment, paralleling today’s cloning procedures, turned into
a very successful means of helping infertile couples have children
for themselves.
But in a way, I should be glad that people like Pfeffer are
against human cloning. Why? Because it leaves cloning in the hands
of people who are more restrained, and can make good decisions
about when it will be wise to clone and when it will be
foolish.