A CLONE BY ANY OTHER NAME ... STILL MEOWS
By sonya hammond
Provoking the most heated debate on bioethical standards since Dan Quayle inexplicably elevated Murphy Brown's baby to physical existence, the possibility that human cloning could become reality has prompted practically every sector of society to register opinions based on whatever can be remotely construed to resemble fact.
Committees on the subject have proliferated too hastily for even the usual international obsession with acronyms to be observed. Commissions have been formed, moratoriums called, panels assembled, scientific pundits with dubious qualifications in everything from animal husbandry to zoological mating rites dragged out of dusty laboratories, and religious experts, sniffing unexpected opportunity to make pronouncements to which the general public might actually listen, are rushing to be first in a race to take the definitive stand.
Searches for remote Biblical passages that could possibly be misinterpreted to indicate the forbidding of biological tinkering were immediately instigated.
In the meantime concerned Pro-Humans made do with generic objections including the questionable argument that 'traditions' preclude replication of humans [the jury is still out on sheep whose traditions are not well documented], fear of tampering with human dignity [on the somewhat exaggerated assumption that our race is dripping with that trait], a charming pronouncement [Catholic] that cloning would rob people of their 'uniqueness', and the not unexpected complaint [Islamic] that the traditional 'role' of fathers in creating children would be eliminated.
On the other side of this volatile fence, scientists scramble for rationales that will enable research to continue, as they make conciliatory noises of assurance that science has equal concern for ethical and moral dilemmas [see production of the Atom Bomb]. The scientifically challenged, however, may be more concerned with practicality:
Regarding the elimination of 'fathering', this might not be all bad considering the numbers of men who, in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary, either refuse to admit their 'role' or having performed it, consider their participation in any future developments concluded.
No longer needed for sperm production, other useful male roles do exist ... Opening jars and shrink-wrapped packaging come to mind, as do lifting heavy furniture and providing some of the world's more amusing reasons for not attempting these and other tasks that don't involve remote controls or eating utensils.
Nevertheless, termination of male fertilization duties should not preclude their participation in related activities of a less productive [biologically speaking] nature. Woman does not live by jar-opening and furniture-lifting alone.
As far as our 'uniqueness' goes, how much would we really be replicating?
Raised by a family of Eskimos in the arctic circle, would an Elizabeth Taylor clone be forced to market 'White Blubber' perfume?
Brought up by British parents in the Cotswolds, would a Julia Childs clone ever learn to cook edible food?
Given a scholarship to study with the Royal Shakespearean Theater, would a Ronald Reagan clone become a better actor, thus saving the country from a repeat political performance?
The questions does arise: Is destiny part of our DNA?
Given a Supreme Court decision supporting Pro-Choice Cloning, new industries could spring up to take advantage of lucrative opportunities offered by Rent-a-Clone and Clones Are Us. Newspaper classifieds might offer Clones seeking Clones or Clone Adoption Agency categories. Humans with particularly desirable qualities could find career opportunities as professional Clone Donors. The possibilities for black market deals are endless.
Practically speaking, it is much too early for panic. It took 277 tries to result in a sheep named after Dolly Parton, apparently honoring the area of its mother's anatomy from which its DNA was obtained ['tit technology'?].
Of the 277 attempts, 13 pregnancies resulted, of which only Dolly was born alive. How many women are likely to voluntarily submit to any procedure that involves a Russian Roulette approach to childbirth, and the prospect of taking up labor as an avocation with extremely low odds of any successful result?
But let's face it, the issue is not going to go away. Few professionals are more determined than scientists on the verge of a major breakthrough, and they get particularly testy when forbidden to do something.
If, however, they insist on pursuing the human possibilities of cloning, the least they can do while they're at it is figure out a way to eliminate the labor portion of childbirth.
This would not only stop male grumbling about chauvinistic elimination of their 'roles', make religious objections to contraceptives obsolete since avoiding parenthood would no longer be relevant, and the rest of us could get on with the fun part.
© sonya hammond 1997