The Constitutional Right to Clone
I have been warning anyone who will listen, that the intellectual foundation is being laid to create a constitutional right to conduct scientific research. A new book, Illegal Beings, is touted by its publisher as advocating something akin to that approach. Specifically, the book argues that there is a constitutional right to engage in reproductive cloning.
Science has entered upon a trajectory of anything goes. The primary question thus becomes: Does society have the will to properly regulate science? We had better. Otherwise, science will dominate society.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:02 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
I'm curious what you mean by "science will dominate society." Technological innovation has enormous impact on society, and I posit that your everyday life is in fact "dominated" by the scientific advancements of the last hundred years (how many things did you do today that you couldn't have done a hundred years ago?).
You paint a rather unflattering picture of scientists. Your language evokes the "mad scientist" from children's cartoons (crazy hair, bubbling flasks, bone-chilling cackle). Personally, I find this a bit silly. We are not depraved maniacs secretly plotting world domination- we are ordinary human beings looking for truth (lowercase t). We are products of this society as well, and I disdain the implication that we lack a moral compass! We generally agree on what is "right" and what is "wrong." When a grey area is encountered, we consult review boards, commission studies, and deliberate endlessly. Science is not impulsive- it moves slowly, and with an abundance of caution. I simply cannot picture this behemoth EVER adapting to the carefree "anything goes" mentality you fear.
Furthermore, to answer your question: "Does society have the will to properly regulate science?" The answer is: without a doubt. Don't forget that the government funds most research in this country. Last time I checked, the elected government represents the will of the people. If a majority of the public disaproves of the "trajectory" of scientific research, they will elect representatives to effect change. This is democracy in action.
Thanks for writing, Daniel. I like scientists. A lot.
I am not, however, that fond of the Science Elite because I don't agree with their general utilitarian values. I also worry that scientism is masking itself as science and seeking to impose a value system in the name of being the scientific way.
I don't think you are paying sufficient attention to recent events. The scientific prudence you describe is crumbling, at least in the life sciences. (See my piece on Ian Wilmut wanting to do ES cell research on dying people even though it hasn't been adequately tested for even Stage 1 human trials, for example.)
The American way is to impose democratic checks and balances on all powerful institutions. If there is a constitutional right to "do research," that would permit society from ensuring that scientific research stayed within ethical parameters with which it disagreed. That could result in society and its values dominated by a scientific materialistic view that might well refuse to value the intrinsic worth of human life.
Self regulation has its limits, particularly if the self regulators all tend to agree with each other. Check out some of the spectacular recent failures in the IRB system.
We already see science being corrupted by politicization in the cloning debates and its all out drive to get billions in public funding. When the people come to see science as a special interest and as a consequence, loses respect, those advocates of virtually unfettered research will only have themselves to blame.
Wesly: Have you had a chance to read MacIntosh's book about anti-cloning laws? I have. I have also read your own book "Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World." In MacIntosh's book "Illegal Beings," she argues that state and federal anti-cloning will be bad policy because they will send the parents of cloned children to prison for long sentences. Because of this, these children will be sent to live with relatives or foster care. She says that some foster care in the country can be described as scandelous. A friend of mine spent her early years in foster care, and she recently told me this is true. MacIntosh is talking, of course, of a future when cloning for reproductive is at least free from health risk as are natural conception and IV.
I know from your book that you are against ANY form of human cloning, "safe" or otherwise. What do you say to the possibility of such draconian tactics in the attempt to prevent the birth of cloned children?
By the way, I am Type 1 diabetic, and am interested in the stem cell debate. It might surprise you, however, to learn that I tend to agree with you that the "promises" of Embryonic stem cell cloning research tend to be overblown and used by politicians in order to slam the opposition to garner votes. I also read the article about "Cloning Trevor", and was deeply moved by it and angered at the Bush administration at the time--but later Idiscovered this seemed have indeed been severely slanted. This kind of thing goes on all the time. The media has touted cures for years, and still there has been nothing. I HAVE read Micheal Fumento's book however,and other things by him, and I beleive him to be relatively free of political bias. As you know, Mr. Fumento beleives Adult Stem Cells to be the most promising, and beleives in using them as a moral alternative to Embryonic Stem cells. HOWEVER, he also states that he does not worry about the birth of cloned children as some do.
It's when it comes to reproductive cloning arguments that I tend to find the reasons hollow, lacking in substance, overly philosophical, and detatched real-world suffering. The controversy over ESCs themselves doesn't really have much to do with it. We all know that whether one is opposed to all forms of NST (as you are), or reproductive cloning only, it is the latter that is the real boogy-man here. Frankly, I don't understand this. The arguments about the possible psychological damage to cloned kids (that they might suffer "identity confusion" becasue they are the near-identical twin of Mom or Dad,or by the victim of a mixed set of expectations, etc.)are both highly speculative, and do not seem serious enough to warrant harsh government laws that would land their folks in jail. From reading MacIntosh, anti-cloning laws would indeed cause far more trauma to such children. This is not really speculative by the way,unlike the usual arguments against cloned children, since we've had other examples in the past (children of meseganation, children born out of wedlock) which she mentions. Oh, and I've also read that the idea that we might someday harvest organs form adult clones (like in "the Island") is not sceintifically feasible, either now or in the future.
If you're reading this, please take time to respond.
Post a Comment
<< Home