What is the attitude of the scientific community toward cloning? What do we really know about what we are doing? Can you imagine the psychological burden of being Einstein's clone? How much of who we are is determined genetically? How can we predetermine the beneficial aspects of any technological development? Are clones real human beings? What are real human beings? What is our current cultural stance on the moral issues involved with determining what constitutes human life and how it should be treated? Can that change? Is the pursuit of the ability to clone solely about power? Is technology collective acquisition and application of power? Is that what we are all about? Do we pursue power as opposed to other things? What would it be like to have your clone as your child? Would you want to (or be able to) live with yourself?

 
Highlights from the last meeting. . .

 
    Apparently Dolly was just a "fluke;" the scientists do not know why the process worked this time out of the approximately 200 other tries. But if they did it once, the process can be perfected.

    The attitude of the scientific community toward the phenomenon of cloning seems to be that there are many potential benefits in it for humanity. The scientist who cloned Dolly was interviewed and said that they wanted to clone a sheep that produces a protein in the blood that would help hemophiliacs. This would (theoretically) take away the danger of transfusions and we could make an unlimited supply of it.

    Cloning is progress if and only if we define progress as the freedom and ability to manipulate our world toward our own gain and goals. Is that how we really want to define progress? The question of personhood cannot be determined materially, so in order to determine the answer we must progress in other areas; spiritual, moral, or intellectual. In the modem world we think that we have progress because we see it in terms of material advancement; we sacrifice dimensionality. Would we like to stay where we are right now in terms of material existence? We cannot move backwards, but is it possible to be content with what we have?

    Is a twin a natural clone? There is a strong correlation between the events in the lives of twins, which implies a degree of genetic determination of life events. For example, twins separated at birth have been known to have the same number of children with the same names. Are some abilities, tendencies, and interests built into the genetic code? Are there innate tendencies built into our DNA? Your memories are not built into DNA; if they were we would not be able to clone because the DNA would change over time.

    If we could clone Einstein, he would not be the same person. Environment and experience affect personality and character. They may have the same abilities or potentials, but not the same identities. Does your identity affect your abilities? Further, can we just clone the people who we want to be a part of our society? People who we think would be beneficial to us? It may be theoretically possible in the future, but would we really want that? What are some of the issues brought up by approaching progress in this manner?

 Do we know what we are doing?

    We have no trouble dealing with technology, but we have trouble dealing with morality. Why? Hitler was trying to manipulate DNA and genes at the macrocosmic level, but he needed the rest of the country to cooperate with him in order to succeed. We are building the power to do it on the microcosmic level, but we need only the work of a few and for the rest to simply turn their heads.

    You cannot separate the good and the bad effects of any development. Some may say that we should not do it, but can we stop even if we want to? The equipment necessary for cloning is not that complicated or expensive (In fact, you can get a beginner's kit through Invitrogen on the Web!). Cloning research is funded by businesses who see economic gain in making the technology possible. The pharmaceuticals are the first industry to show an interest.

     Just because we think that we know what we are doing does not mean that we are able to predict the consequences. Accidents are unavoidable in complex systems. For example, bottle necking could be a problem. If the gene pool shrinks, a virus could come along to which that particular DNA structure is highly susceptible; that whole race of clones could be wiped out. Perhaps the scientists will see such hazards and find a way to circumvent them. But can they foresee all potential catastrophes? Or are they not really catastrophes because we are only talking about clones; our experiment, our property? Would clones be real human beings?

    When we produce something we claim ownership of that object. There may be a difference in that this is a living organism, but already there are companies who own synthetically created life. If big industry is investing, they expect a return. Therefore they will think that they own whatever is created. They are not putting money into this freely and solely for fun.

    It may be asked whether there is enough humanity in people to say "that is a person!" (Sure. Just as we always have in the past and do in the present. We would never mistreat another human being.) What will happen when we get good enough to alter the genetic code and we are able to create clones with specific characteristics? For example, we could produce pre-lobotomized people who could be used for transplants or for repeated process labor. (Why were lobotomies stopped? It seems that it is more efficient to do it with chemicals. It was never illegal, so it was never deemed immoral.) If the human has no brain, what is the problem with us using that organism?

    Are we putting limitations on technology and technological development by saying that we cannot clone humans? Should we put limitations on technological development? Clinton has imposed limitations by banning human cloning, but that is only effective while he is in office. Most people are against human cloning (for now) but they seem to have no problem with the cloning of animals.

 
Endangered Species: We could save them. . .

     One of the things that we might think of as a good application of cloning would be our ability to rescue species which are becoming extinct. But why are they endangered in the first place? If they are going extinct, then there is a reason, perhaps natural or perhaps imposed by man. If it is because of us, then this may just be a way of avoiding responsibility by saying that we can replace whatever we destroy. Why then should we be concerned about what we destroy? On what sense of value, then, do we decide that we want to replace those species? Can we just go back and correct our mistakes, leaving us with no sense of accountability?

    Also, how would we select what is to be cloned? What species will we save? What is the appropriate number of an animal to have on the planet? We don't even know what endangered means, really; the disappearance of one species could be a part of a cycle that we can neither see nor comprehend. What might we disrupt through our intervention? And we would not save all of the species. By what standards will we judge which lives are worthy of our saving power and  which are not? We will ultimately appeal to some artificial anthropocentric standard predicated on aesthetic, symbolic, or useful grounds--something for us and for our own gain.

 
Can public opinion be altered?

     Eighty percent of the population may be against human cloning today, but what about in the future? With the advent of the possibility of test-tube babies a similar reaction was manifest, but today the idea is widely accepted.

    In seeing the issue dealt with in entertainment (television, movies, comic books, novels, etc.), we become more and more accepting of the possibility. Fiction and science seem to drive each other in a reciprocal relation. Is there a clone story that has a happy ending? Even though the issue may be presented in a negative light, the mere existence of the stories works like a gripe session. We may feel as though something were really going wrong, but it looks like there is someone else out there who is aware of the problem. However, it has the reverse effect; it provides an illusory comfort. We are convinced that someone is working on the problem, that the scientists are aware of the dangers and will be careful.

 
What is "Human"?

     What constitutes being a person? Shouldn't we settle this issue first before we start making persons? The issue in abortion is also about what constitutes being a person; with the added issue of cloning, the problem will become progressively more convoluted.

    Can the question of what makes us human be answered? If it can not, what follows? That we have no standards by which to define progress; we must know what a human is before we can know what a better human is. Although the question is a gray area, we operate on the assumption that we do know. We must have some implicit answer in our culture. Is what is a human being possibly different from what we perceive or believe it to be? Does this answer change over time and space?

    Is a clone human life? We can only know on the basis of human characteristics. One of these is that it is natural and spontaneous. The new notion in cloning is that we are talking about making life artificially. If we understand life as natural then clones will be seen as property and slaves. If we do not understand life as natural, then we have to challenge our notion of human life. We are not looking for an absolute answer to what defines humanity, but we are looking for some cultural understanding.

    Is it our curiosity that defines us? Should we refrain from exploring things that we do not understand because there is a chance that they might be dangerous? There will always be people who say that progress is bad or evil, but there are good things that can come out of it as well. Is there a distinct division between people who are working for the progression of technology and the people who are trying to sort out the moral issues? Do morality and science compliment each other? Or is curiosity the primary drive while morality remains benched? Is it morally possible to say that we should stifle curiosity? Assuming that progress is real, curiosity is necessary to achieve it.

    Should we be cloning just because we are curious? We can not predict the outcome of what we do. If the clones do survive, what will happen to them? We are overpopulated already- we could clone ourselves into extinction.

My Clone, My Own
By Carol Linskey

Who are you more like myself than
        my own child,
Yet containing different memories?
An usurption of the need for both
        Mother and Father,
I have become both (save for
        Objective Science).

 You are of my body, replicated.
I have drunk from the Fountain of
        Youth.
There, you have red hair like me,
        and good teeth. But I wish
You were taller.
There's better vision with height.
(Can we arrange that?)
And remove also the defect of
        speech, which I
Had when I was younger, eloquence
        is becoming in so
Bright a child.  Also this limp which
        characterizes my walk,
You should avoid this too. For I
        would be an Olympian
Athlete, would that I had perfect
        legs.
If I can ask so much of you, would
        you also be brave?
The Lily of my Heart is much to my
        demise, I would not wish
It on my perfect child.
With your head high, your firm step,
    and speech to grasp
Your world, forget not when you
        use your thoughts,
That there is a Higher Maker.
Lest you be more like me than you
        were made for,
And the worse becomes the better.

Next Meeting
Wed, April 23rd
8:30 pm, GI06

Our topic:
    The technology for efficient cloning is probably a long way in the future, but the philosophical issues are still the same. Once the technology is in place it will be too late to ask these questions; the time to ask them is while it is still in this infantile state. Or is that already too late? Why do we continue to work on this? Do we see a possibility for the extension of our own lives? What if we could live an extra 50 years? Would our attitude toward cloning become more favorable if we start to see personal gain in it? Do we want the benefits of cloning?

    We may have different individual opinions about cloning, but ultimately what will determine the course of "progress" will be what the culture wants as a whole. Who determines this? What drives our culture?

    Is it morally wrong to extend life at any expense? At the expense, for example, of creating a life that we made as a means to further our own sense of progress and quantity?

    Ethical consideration should occur now.

 
Technology: Outside of ethical issues?
By: Mike Zehr

     One of the issues raised in last Wednesday's meeting was the issue of technology, and how it relates to the world of ethical considerations. Technological advancement appears to advance outside of the world of morals, and is judged on moral and ethical basis only after it has come into existence. Rarely, if ever, does the issue of "should we be doing this" stop the development of a new technology.

    Over the last several thousand years, objections have been raised in regard to countless new forms of technology and technological advancements. King Thamus argued that writing was a "bad" technology, as it hampered man's use of his memory, allowing him to depend upon what was written instead of his own recollections of events.

    Technology is, and always has been, a two-edged sword. Many of the advancements throughout history had both positive and negative effects, but few of these effects where considered before or during the development of new technologies. In the cases where the development of a new technology has been considered, its development has not been halted, but merely questioned.

    Questions were raised during the development of the atomic bomb as to whether such a device should be developed, but the political and military pressure on the United States, and thus on the scientist designing the bomb, was overwhelming. Research in this field, however, helped lead to the development of nuclear power, as well medical and consumer uses for radiation-based devices, and expanded our knowledge of the universe, and the atom.

    Technological breakthroughs are rarely developed, or not developed, out of a moral basis, but out of a thirst, whether it be a thirst for knowledge, power, or money.

    Do ethical issues really affect the progress of technology, or does technology simply lumber on, a behemoth, contemptuous of the cries being raised all around it? Can an idea, once brought into the light, be once more plunged into darkness, regardless of the moral issues involved?

 
Speaking Frankly
By several anonymous participants

 Does Frank Clancy really exist? Several PDG members are wondering. There are rumors that his evil jogging clone has frightened him away from our meetings by saying that we might mock his ties. On the contrary, we are sure that he has ties to compliment any of our topics. Another rumor is that perhaps he has a tie of invisibility and, in spite of Gyges, has been attending our meetings in secret. This is much more plausible, for if Frank exists, and if Frank said that he would come to the meetings, and if what is Frank is frank, then surely he has been among us.

Philosophical Debate
Meeting Schedule
for Spring Quarter

(All meetings will be held in
Gamble 106 at 8:30 pm)

April 23, May 7, and May 21

Deadlines for submissions to
The Philosopher's Stone:

April 25, May 9, and May 23
 

Special Announcements
 

     If you would be interested in taking an introduction to classical Greek Language in Fall quarter, please contact Dr. Nordenhaug in the Philosophy Department.

 
    Don't Miss Dr. Baker's Faculty Lecture, "Battling Bards," on May 8th at 12:15 in Ashmore Auditorium.