SHERMER OP-ED ON CLONING
Today the Los Angeles Times published my Op-Ed piece on cloning, as part of a
"Perspectives on Cloning" that featured myself as "pro"
and Patrick Dixon as "con." We were each given 750 words but did
not see each other's piece first.
They posted it on the wire but here is a copy FYI.
Shermer
P.S. We have received dozens of orders for the God debate tape so I wanted to
let you know that they probably will not go out until next week with most of
our staff out this week for the holidays.
ONLY GOD CAN DO THAT?
By Michael Shermer
In the climactic scene of Robert Wise's 1951 science fiction film classic,
"The Day the Earth Stood Still," the space alien Klaatu (who goes
by the earthly name "Mr. Carpenter" in this Jesus allegory), is
killed by a fear-mongering government agency, then resurrected by his robot
charge Gort.
Astonished by the power of this foreign technology, Patricia Neal's Mary
Magdalene-like character inquires whether control over life and death is
possible. Klaatu assures her that such powers belong only to the
"Almighty Spirit," and that his life extension is good
only "for a limited period" the duration of which "no one
can tell." Telling indeed. In Edmund North's original script Gort
resurrects Klaatu without limitation. But the movie industry's Breen
Censorship Board told the producers: "Only God can do that."
This Promethean theme of limiting knowledge is a common one not only in
science fiction, but in science fact. For every mythic Icarus who flew too
close to the sun there are real life scientists who got their wings clipped
for daring to push their frontiers too far. Birth control? Only God can do
that. Life extension? Only God can do that. Euthanasia? Only God can do that.
We should not be surprised, then, that when a British government advisory
commission last week encouraged the legalization of research into cloning
human tissues and organs for therapeutic uses, they were met with fierce
opposition from both religious and secular groups. Cloning? Only God can do
that.
What precisely did this Human Genetics Advisory Commission recommend? From
the Luddite wails of doom and gloom we heard, one would think they suggested
a scheme of harvesting body parts from cloned adults, ala the film
"Coma." On the contrary. The recommendations could not have been
more cautiously worded: "we believe that it would not be right at this
stage to rule out limited research using such techniques, which could be
of great benefit to seriously ill people."
To technophobes who resist any venture into forbidden knowledge (while
simultaneously partaking of every medical breakthrough that benefits them
personally), such cautious forays into the future are the slippery slope into
the scientistic hell where vultures will peck at us for eternity. But let's
step back for a moment. What do we have to fear? The mass hysteria and moral
panic surrounding cloning is nothing more than the historically common
rejection of new technologies, coupled to the additional angst produced when
medical advances fly too close to religion's sun. "Only God can do
that" say the religious Luddites. "Only Nature can do that"
cry the secular Luddites.
In fact, nature is already cloning humans. They're called twins. Why aren't
moralists crying for legislation against twinning? Because it happens
naturally, and according to the Law of Ludditism, "Only God/Nature can
do that."
Nonsense! Most of us are alive because of medical technologies and social
hygiene practices that have doubled the average life span in this century.
What's Godly or natural about heart-lung transplants, triple bypass
surgeries, vaccinations, or radiation treatment? What's Godly or natural
about birth control and birth enhancement technologies? Absolutely nothing.
Yet we cheerfully accept these advances because we have grown accustomed
to them and, more importantly, we have benefited from them.
I propose that we lift the ban on all research into cloning--including
humans--and see what happens. My hypothesis is that nothing evil will befall
society. Most of the horror-laden scenarios proposed by moralists are already
addressed by the law: a clone, like a twin, is a human being, and you cannot
harvest the tissues or organs of a twin.
In 1818 Mary Shelley warned in her novel, "Frankenstein, or the Modern
Prometheus," that "supremely frightful would be the effect of any
human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the
world."
The censors took her words to heart in the final cut of James Whale's 1931
film version starring Boris Karloff. In the riveting laboratory scene when
the monster is brought to life, Dr. Frankenstein roars "It's alive. It's
alive. In the name of God . . ." At that moment his lips keep moving
but his voice disappears. The censors deleted the rest of the sentence --
the forbidden words that have frightened cultures from ancient Greece to
modern America: "now I know what it feels like to be God."
Scientists don't want to be God. They just want to solve scientific problems.
Only scientists can do that. Let them do it.
Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and
the author of Why People Believe Weird Things (W. H. Freeman, 1997).
Michael Shermer
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
--------------
A British Panel's Cloning Recommendation Tests the Moral Limits of Science
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.