Cloning? Get used to it

Human genetic engineering is coming - and it will be good for us, writes Colin Tudge

Share
Related Topics
IN 1984 the excellent American embryologist Davor Solter declared that to clone a mammal from an adult cell was "biologically impossible". Twelve years later we have Dolly the cloned sheep from the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, and, from Wisconsin, an alleged procession of cloned calves already claimed to be too numerous to be named individually.

Richard Seed of Chicago did no one any favours earlier this month when he announced his plans to clone humans, but Princeton geneticist Lee Silver was surely right to suggest in a lecture last week at the London School of Economics that human cloning will happen - alongside the already established but once astonishing technologies of in vitro fertilisation (IVF), genetic engineering, and the rest. The new technologies of reproduction and genetics are almost unmeasurably powerful, or will be, with another few decades' refinement. As Nature has suggested, they could "change the nature of our species".

We should face reality. There are no "biological laws", apart from the underlying laws of physics, and technology might achieve anything that does not break those bedrock laws. We should also recognise, as Dr Silver points out, that the potent new biotechnologies are already outside humanity's present control. Individual countries may have their laws, mores and customs, and influence technology up to a point through the flow of research funds. But the US in particular is driven by market forces, and while most Americans are known to deplore the idea of human cloning, that same majority supports a Constitution which defends the rights of minorities effectively to do as they please. If 1 per cent of Americans want cloning, and it's known that they do, then most of the other 99 per cent will not gainsay them.

The first stirrings of embryo selection are with us, too, and are potentially far more influential than cloning. It is becoming possible through the technique of PCR (the polymerase chain reaction - the same technology that underpins "genetic fingerprinting") to identify embryos that contain damaging genes, and reject them in favour of healthy embryos; all this being carried out in vitro. More and more genes will become identifiable, and the selection more rigorous. In addition, bright and beautiful young men and women are already offering themselves through Californian agencies as donors of sperm or eggs, inviting people worldwide to wonder why they should settle for the dubious genetic endowment of their here-and-now partners. It's happening, and will happen more.

Genetic engineering for human beings will surely be with us within a few more decades. Physicians even now plan to treat cystic fibrosis by correcting damaged genes in the cells of the lungs. Such genetic changes, made ad hoc to body tissues, are not passed to subsequent generations. But someday they will alter the genes of the "germ-line". Embryos will be fitted with new genes that will appear in the eggs and sperm and will be passed on, altering the lineage for all time. US surveys again show that most people are appalled by such a prospect - but that they think again when it is pointed out that embryos might in principle be fitted with stretches of DNA (genes) that would protect permanently against Aids.

Similar technology might provide the only realistic wide-scale defence against malaria. Who would deny their children such advantages if the threat is significant and the technology is affordable and safe? As Dr Silver says, what rational people at the present time deny their children the polio vaccine? What is the difference? But if we accept permanently installed genes to defend against Aids or malaria, why not seek to snuff out genes that predispose to heart disease, say, or obesity? Put the new reproductive and genetic technologies together and we will indeed enter the age of "designer babies".

So what are we going to do about it? In the early 1970s one of the first of the "genetic engineers", Paul Berg, called for a moratorium on his own line of research, and it is always good to take time to think. But Bill Clinton will surely be obliged to withdraw or conveniently forget his knee-jerk condemnation of cloning. People grow used to new technologies quickly. IVF was condemned in the late Seventies at least as roundly as cloning is today, but now there are 150,000 "test-tube" babies in scores of countries. Good medicine pulls the technology along: the proper desire of clinicians is to help their patients. But the market is driving it along too. The US test-tube babies cost their parents an average of $50,000 apiece, while the scientists who do the work earn an annual average of $200,000.

Dr Silver said he deplored the power of the market - but could offer nothing convincing in its place. So far, as he points out, there is nothing convincing. The objections tend to be expressed in arguments that easily collapse: over-stretched theology, misconstrued biology, flimsy rhetoric.

We need, then, to think more clearly and more deeply. We might begin by acknowledging that in reality, ethical objections to technologies have three separate components: humanitarian, aesthetic and religious. The three are commonly conflated, which leads to confusion and deadlock; but for starters, they need to be teased apart.

In practice, humanitarian arguments alone can carry us a long way. They should be concerned both with outcome (which is traditional utilitarianism, in the spirit of Jeremy Bentham and J S Mill) and with motive (which traditional utilitarians ignore). Thus cloning might sometimes provide the only means by which infertile couples could produce the child they desperately want; adoption is becoming less and less of an option as abortion is tolerated and single parenthood becomes common. If a couple can give their child - however created - a stable loving home, why should they be denied?

The point is to define the principle that will enable us to recognise when a potent technology might reasonably be deployed, and when it should not. It seems that even the heavy-duty technologies of cloning and genetic engineering can comfortably be contained by humanitarian criteria, applied with sense, as they are already applied in many other contexts already.

Aesthetics is crucial. For example, cosmetic plastic surgery has not caught on in Britain as it has in California, not because the British can't afford it but because we find it vulgar. This is as it should be: technologies in the end should be controlled by gut feeling. But we have to be careful. Thus, in the 1970s, Enoch Powell and medical ethicists such as Ian Kennedy at King's College, London, greeted IVF with what both called the "Yuk!" response. Well, changing a baby's nappy is yukky, too, yet it's a good thing. Bowel surgery can be disgusting but it saves lives. Thus aesthetics is a rough guide only. Revulsion may alert us that something is amiss but we still have to think it through.

But when we have discussed the humanitarian aspects and scrutinised our aesthetic aversions, the new biotechnologies still leave us with misgivings; and these residual fears are difficult to put into words because they are, in reality, religious. In our society we are hoist on our own secular petard: we retain the concepts of religion, and feel their resonance, but have lost the accompanying vocabulary. When the time comes to legislate we find ourselves inarticulate. We feel that "something should be done" but cannot clearly express the nature of our feelings.

The elusive concepts are those of hubris and blasphemy. Hubris is a Greek idea: usurping the power of the Gods. Blasphemy is Jewish, offence against God. All of us - pantheist, Jew, atheist or whatever - feel deep down that it is not in our gift, our right, to treat the Universe and the creatures it contains simply as raw material. The Universe should be revered; and its living and sentient creatures must be respected.

This is why, however much presidents protest and ethical committees pronounce, we feel that the new technologies are out of our control, and why, in fact, they are. Our deepest misgivings are religious in nature, but the religions that gave rise to them have been marginalised and their concepts have no meaning or force in secular law. Yet we cannot simply ask the traditional religions to provide directives off the shelf. All the great religions were conceived in a different age, with different problems, and their precepts do not fit comfortably with modern knowledge. The Catholic notion, for example, that life begins with conception, is at best arbitrary (and not simply because "conception" itself is not a clean and discrete phenomenon).

Yet the power and value of religion does not lie in particular icons or liturgies, and still less in any preoccupation with the supernatural. The central task of all religions, the essence that unites them, is to cultivate emotional response. Aesthetics can be refined. Cultivate rev- erence for the Universe as a whole and respect for the sentient members of it, and even the most potent technologies will fall into place. They really will.

Colin Tudge is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy of the London School of Economics.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Business Manager

£32000 - £40000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Business Manager is required ...

Recruitment Genius: Operations Manager

£45000 - £55000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an exciting opportunity...

Recruitment Genius: Panel & Cabinet Wireman

£20000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Panel Wireman required for small electro...

Recruitment Genius: Electronics Test Engineer

£25000 - £27000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An SME based in East Cheshire, ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Newspaper stands have been criticised by the Child Eyes campaign  

There were more reader complaints this year – but, then again, there were more readers

Will Gore
 

People drink to shut out pain and stress. Arresting them won’t help

Deborah Coughlin
A timely reminder of the bloody anniversary we all forgot

A timely reminder of the bloody anniversary we all forgot

Who remembers that this week we enter the 150th anniversary year of the end of the American Civil War, asks Robert Fisk
Downfall of Dustin 'Screech' Diamond, the 'Saved By The Bell' star charged with bar stabbing

Scarred by the bell

The downfall of the TV star charged with bar stabbing
Why 2014 was a year of technological let-downs

Why 2014 was a year of technological let-downs

Security breaches and overhyped start-ups dominated a year in which very little changed (save the size of your phone)
Cuba's golf revolution: But will the revolutionary nation take 'bourgeois' game to its heart?

Will revolutionary Cuba take 'bourgeois' golf to its heart?

Fidel Castro ridiculed the game – but now investment in leisure resort projects is welcome
Ed Richards: Parting view of Ofcom chief. . . we hate jokes on the disabled

Parting view of Ofcom chief. . . we hate jokes on the disabled

Bad language once got TV viewers irate, inciting calls to broadcasting switchboards. But now there is a worse offender, says retiring head of the media watchdog, Ed Richards
War with Isis: The West needs more than a White Knight

The West needs more than a White Knight

Despite billions spent on weapons, the US has not been able to counter Isis's gruesome tactics, says Patrick Cockburn
Return to Helmand: Private Davey Graham recalls the day he was shot by the Taliban

'The day I was shot by the Taliban'

Private Davey Graham was shot five times during an ambush in 2007 - it was the first, controversial photograph to show the dangers our soldiers faced in Helmand province
Revealed: the best and worst airlines for delays

Revealed: the best and worst airlines for delays

Many flyers are failing to claim compensation to which they are entitled, a new survey has found
The stories that defined 2014: From the Scottish independence referendum to the Ice Bucket Challenge, our writers voice their opinions

The stories that defined 2014

From the Scottish independence referendum to the Ice Bucket Challenge, our writers voice their opinions
Stoke-on-Trent becomes first British city to be classified as 'disaster resilient' by the United Nations

Disaster looming? Now you know where to head...

Which British city has become the first to be awarded special 'resilience' status by the UN?
Finally, a diet that works: Californian pastor's wildly popular Daniel Plan has seen his congregation greatly reduced

Finally, a diet that works

Californian pastor's wildly popular Daniel Plan has seen his congregation greatly reduced
Say it with... lyrics: The power of song was never greater, according to our internet searches

Say it with... lyrics

The power of song was never greater, according to our internet searches
Professor Danielle George: On a mission to bring back the art of 'thinkering'

The joys of 'thinkering'

Professor Danielle George on why we have to nurture tomorrow's scientists today
Monique Roffey: The author on father figures, the nation's narcissism and New Year reflections

Monique Roffey interview

The author on father figures, the nation's narcissism and New Year reflections
Introducing my anti-heroes of 2014

Introducing my anti-heroes of 2014

Their outrageousness and originality makes the world a bit more interesting, says Ellen E Jones