Friday, February 13, 2004
Human Cloning
South Korean scientists have reported that they successfully harvested stem cells from cloned human fetuses. This is important because stem cells are the "cell template" that can be used to build ANY cell in the body. Most cells in the body are already "specialized." You can't turn a heart cell into a brain cell, or a skin cell into a liver cell, or more important to superman (a.k.a. Christopher Reeves), into nerve cells that could reattach a broken spinal chord. These cells have already decided what they will be, and no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise, they won't change their minds.
Stem cells are GUARANTEED to be compatible with the cells of the person from which they were cloned. Extended to everyone, this means anybody could produce their own stem cells for use in repairing damaged livers, spinal chords, brain injuries, etc, without fear of their body rejecting the new tissue.
The question of whether to use such technology, however, is dependent on when human life begins. If you accept that abortion should be legal (even if only with limitations, as I do), then harvesting stem cells from a fetus composed of, at most, 100 individual cells, poses no ethical issues. If you take the position championed by Ameica's pro-life movement, however, which states that human life begins at conception, then those 100 cells are as deserving of legal protection as the millions of cells sitting here typing this blog post. Within this context, harvesting stem cells could rank alongside human medical experimentation in concentration camps, depending on the degree to which you believe those 100 cells are deserving of protection.
It's pretty hard to convince someone to change their mind regarding when human life begins, because it's one of those mysteries that no amount of scientific inquiry is ever going to resolve. Obviously, a 100 cell fetus isn't the same thing as newborn baby, at least from a MATERIAL and FUNCTIONAL standpoint, but whether or not those 100 cells are "human" in the fullest sense of the word comes down to faith. None of us remembers being composed of only 100 cells. Believing it is human life is equally valid, from a logical standpoint, as believing that it isn't.
Consider, however, that different societies will come to different conclusions regarding human cloning, and the harvesting of stem cells from fetuses. America may well succeed in banning cloning within America, as the Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania clearly wants:
"Cloning human beings is wrong. It is unethical to tinker with human life," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. A ban must be passed, he said, "before this unethical science comes to our shores."
I find the last part to be particularly important. America might ban human cloning, as America is shaped by its christian heritage, and that guides to a certain extent American policy. Most of Asia, however (at least the non-Islamic parts), won't. Many parts of Europe won't, either, which explains why some of the leading research centers for stem cell research are based in places like Sweden.
In other words, America's decision to ban cloning won't have much effect on whether that technology gets developed by the rest of the world. What it WILL do, however, is guarantee that no American company will lead in this important area of new technology. Imagine what America would be like today if, for some reason, we took issue with "artificial logic machines," and banned the use or development of computers.
The "winners" in human history have often been those who haven't been held back by religious principles in the use of a new "technology." If you consider capitalism to be a technology, it's pretty clear that religious barriers to the full expression of capitalism have held back most of the Arab world in its competition with the west. Spain was held back, from a technology standpoint, during the golden age of exploration in its quest for Catholic purity. Knowledge from outside Spain was viewed as suspect, and much scientific inquiry at universities was banned due to conflict with religious dogma.
To some, this argument might seem crass, as it sounds like I'm saying that economic considerations should trump ethical considerations. I'm not, though it's worth understanding the ramifications of a decision before making it.
Ethical decisions, however, at least in areas where there isn't a broad and universal consensus, should be left to individuals. Most people in America wouldn't want abortion to be banned, even if many would prefer more restrictions upon how it is practiced. In that light, it makes sense to leave individuals free to make a PERSONAL decision upon the issue.
Legalization does not force the technology upon those who disagree with it from an ethical standpoint. If people don't agree with stem cell-related technology, then they shouldn't use it. They won't be FORCED to create 100-cell clones of themselves from which to harvest stem cells.
Too often, America decides that something is morally wrong and then tries to force EVERYONE to follow that principle by making it illegal. Drugs are illegal for that reason.
It is my opinion, however, that morality is based on having the OPTION to perform an action and then CHOOSING not to do it, rather than being prevented from performing that action by legal restrictions.
America should allow cloning for the purpose of stem cell research and technology, simply because not everyone agrees that cloning is in and of itself a bad thing. It is a technology that, obviously, could be abused, which is why it's a good idea to think carefully about regulations that cover this area of research. However, let those who want to use this technology use it. Just as today's society wouldn't pass laws banning homosexuality (at least, it shouldn't), today's society shouldn't ban technology built upon the ability to clone humans.
South Korean scientists have reported that they successfully harvested stem cells from cloned human fetuses. This is important because stem cells are the "cell template" that can be used to build ANY cell in the body. Most cells in the body are already "specialized." You can't turn a heart cell into a brain cell, or a skin cell into a liver cell, or more important to superman (a.k.a. Christopher Reeves), into nerve cells that could reattach a broken spinal chord. These cells have already decided what they will be, and no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise, they won't change their minds.
Stem cells are GUARANTEED to be compatible with the cells of the person from which they were cloned. Extended to everyone, this means anybody could produce their own stem cells for use in repairing damaged livers, spinal chords, brain injuries, etc, without fear of their body rejecting the new tissue.
The question of whether to use such technology, however, is dependent on when human life begins. If you accept that abortion should be legal (even if only with limitations, as I do), then harvesting stem cells from a fetus composed of, at most, 100 individual cells, poses no ethical issues. If you take the position championed by Ameica's pro-life movement, however, which states that human life begins at conception, then those 100 cells are as deserving of legal protection as the millions of cells sitting here typing this blog post. Within this context, harvesting stem cells could rank alongside human medical experimentation in concentration camps, depending on the degree to which you believe those 100 cells are deserving of protection.
It's pretty hard to convince someone to change their mind regarding when human life begins, because it's one of those mysteries that no amount of scientific inquiry is ever going to resolve. Obviously, a 100 cell fetus isn't the same thing as newborn baby, at least from a MATERIAL and FUNCTIONAL standpoint, but whether or not those 100 cells are "human" in the fullest sense of the word comes down to faith. None of us remembers being composed of only 100 cells. Believing it is human life is equally valid, from a logical standpoint, as believing that it isn't.
Consider, however, that different societies will come to different conclusions regarding human cloning, and the harvesting of stem cells from fetuses. America may well succeed in banning cloning within America, as the Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania clearly wants:
"Cloning human beings is wrong. It is unethical to tinker with human life," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. A ban must be passed, he said, "before this unethical science comes to our shores."
I find the last part to be particularly important. America might ban human cloning, as America is shaped by its christian heritage, and that guides to a certain extent American policy. Most of Asia, however (at least the non-Islamic parts), won't. Many parts of Europe won't, either, which explains why some of the leading research centers for stem cell research are based in places like Sweden.
In other words, America's decision to ban cloning won't have much effect on whether that technology gets developed by the rest of the world. What it WILL do, however, is guarantee that no American company will lead in this important area of new technology. Imagine what America would be like today if, for some reason, we took issue with "artificial logic machines," and banned the use or development of computers.
The "winners" in human history have often been those who haven't been held back by religious principles in the use of a new "technology." If you consider capitalism to be a technology, it's pretty clear that religious barriers to the full expression of capitalism have held back most of the Arab world in its competition with the west. Spain was held back, from a technology standpoint, during the golden age of exploration in its quest for Catholic purity. Knowledge from outside Spain was viewed as suspect, and much scientific inquiry at universities was banned due to conflict with religious dogma.
To some, this argument might seem crass, as it sounds like I'm saying that economic considerations should trump ethical considerations. I'm not, though it's worth understanding the ramifications of a decision before making it.
Ethical decisions, however, at least in areas where there isn't a broad and universal consensus, should be left to individuals. Most people in America wouldn't want abortion to be banned, even if many would prefer more restrictions upon how it is practiced. In that light, it makes sense to leave individuals free to make a PERSONAL decision upon the issue.
Legalization does not force the technology upon those who disagree with it from an ethical standpoint. If people don't agree with stem cell-related technology, then they shouldn't use it. They won't be FORCED to create 100-cell clones of themselves from which to harvest stem cells.
Too often, America decides that something is morally wrong and then tries to force EVERYONE to follow that principle by making it illegal. Drugs are illegal for that reason.
It is my opinion, however, that morality is based on having the OPTION to perform an action and then CHOOSING not to do it, rather than being prevented from performing that action by legal restrictions.
America should allow cloning for the purpose of stem cell research and technology, simply because not everyone agrees that cloning is in and of itself a bad thing. It is a technology that, obviously, could be abused, which is why it's a good idea to think carefully about regulations that cover this area of research. However, let those who want to use this technology use it. Just as today's society wouldn't pass laws banning homosexuality (at least, it shouldn't), today's society shouldn't ban technology built upon the ability to clone humans.
