We believe that there should be no laws that ban research into, or production of, human clones. A human clone would be like an identical twin to the adult whose cell was used to create it, but it would of course be much younger. It would be like a delayed twin. The Catholic Church has declared that cloning humans is "repugnant". What is so repugnant about it? Is it repugnant to have an identical twin brother or sister? If not, what is the difference? Well, if you have an identical twin it happened by accident. No one made it happen. So how is it perfectly fine and acceptable for something to happen by accident and "repugnant" to have it happen on purpose?

     Banning outright even fundamental research for cloning humans, as our U.S. Congress has naively proposed, would be like banning automobiles because they can kill people. There are dangers of course, but like any other technological discovery cloning can be subjected to intelligent controls. An excellent reason for keeping human cloning legal is that a law banning it would be unenforceable. Cloning will take place whether such a law is passed or not. If cloning is banned in the United States, it will be done in other countries. In the unlikely event that a worldwide ban were enacted it would be easy to do the cloning illegally in the countries that pretend they have the means to control each of their citizens, or even legally aboard ships in international waters. Having the ability to clone people, together with the associated technologies of genetics, has such immense potential advantages that any country which might ban this technology would be resigning itself to second class citizenship in the scientific world. If the United States fails to lead, many other nations have enough knowledge and resources to develop this new resource.

The U.S. Congress's attempts to ban cloning can be compared to an ostrich burying its head in the sand at the approach of a tiger, thinking that if it cannot see the tiger, the tiger is not there. We know the tiger is there.

     Cloning adds a burden of responsibility. Remember all the stories about the genie in the bottle? We have a new genie and we must think of the right wishes. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle is not an intelligent course of action. It is also impossible.

     Those who find human cloning abhorrent argue that we are "playing God" like Mickey Mouse in "The Sorceror's Apprentice." We find this a most curious if not outright ridiculous notion. When I was a child, my elders warned me not to "tamper" with things such as old clocks that no longer ran. They didn't notice that I could disassemble the clock, clean it, reassemble it, and it would run! The Royal Navy discouraged innovation in the building of ships in the early 1800's, one result being that French ships were often of superior construction.

     My favorite historical novelist, Patrick O'Brian, tells us in his Aubrey-Maturin novels that there was an aphorism in the Spanish Navy that said, "May nothing new arise!" Ever since the discovery of fire and the wheel there have been those who predicted dire consequences from new discoveries. The Greeks thought that if their ships sailed too far from shore, the gods would be angered and would punish them with storms. It was considered "hubris" to go too far out to sea! Surely we have learned by now that although new knowledge always has risks, the benefits are worth it. The idea of Pandora's box, which if we open it will release the Furies upon us is an old one, and many "furies" have indeed been released. But the lesson of history is that we are better off to make discoveries and then cope with them. The atomic bomb is sometimes mentioned here. But the harm done at Hiroshima and Nagasiki is insignificant when compared to the benefits of an early end to the war in the Pacific and all the technologies that have flowed from our understanding of atomic energy. People who oppose new ideas often put the word "progress" in quotes as though real progress is a delusion. But the same people drive cars, fly in jet planes, use telephones, surf the Net, watch TV, live in air conditioned houses, and cook with microwave ovens. To be consistent, people opposed to scientific progress should join the Amish!

Another belief expressed by people from traditional religious backgrounds is that our bodies are not our own but "belong to God". There are, indeed, passages in "scripture" that can be interpreted to imply as much. What a ridiculous idea! How preposterous!

Believing such a thing encourages dereliction of responsibility for ourselves and our health. Perhaps using penicillin is playing God, and eating a balanced diet and having an exercise program is usurping God's ownership of our bodies.

     In the short term, cloning will provide unique insights into the role of the environment in the development of human abilities and personality. It will make it possible, in a very real sense, for parents who have lost a child to bring him or her back to life. And what a tribute it would be to a person to be selected for cloning! It would be like a request for an encore! And in the long term, cloning and other advances in genetics offer the option of having unusually happy, healthy, friendly, intelligent, and creative people. These scientific advances are likely to turn out to be the most important in history. We may one day control our evolution as a species, as Teilhard de Chardin predicted early in the last century. Such an outcome will eclipse all previous progress in medicine and will offer the promise of eradicating hundreds of diseases and improving resistance to hundreds of others. The ultimate benefit is probably unimaginable to most of us. Consider the information revolution for a moment. How many of us foresaw the enormous and all pervading benefits which that revolution would bestow? Even Bill Gates once said that computers and telephones didn't have anything to do with each other! This simply shows that it is very difficult to foresee the implications of new scientific advances, even for someone actively engaged in those advances.

    Until recently, farmers have been limited to selective breeding to improve strains of cattle, sheep, grapes, or corn. Genetic engineering has opened up a stunning variety of methods to improve any plant or animal species. Attention here will center on the human species. The selective breeding of humans has been practiced since the beginning of recorded history. Noble classes or castes as well as religious, ethnic, and racial groups have attempted to outlaw out-group mating in an effort to maintain some kind of supposed "purity" and also to increase the numbers of the particular group. No one should really suppose that the idea of improving the human species is a new thing. Now, the options for achieving improvement have made a gigantic leap forward. We are no longer limited to the tedious process of selective breeding which requires many generations to achieve observable results. Techniques for modifying the genetic material within the gametes (sperm and egg cells) have unveiled previously inconceivable opportunities.

Genes associated with genetically caused diseases have been identified, and it may soon be possible to replace those genes with others in the zygote making the resulting child free of the defect. Also, genetic material can be imported from other species of animals to produce humans having, for example, the chimpanzee's resistance to HIV, or humans who make their own vitamin C as do the Pandas. Science fiction stories in which humans have evolved wings may be a little on the fanciful side, but perhaps teenagers with feathers would add spice to life!

"Gemini" a painting by Kagaya

     The possibilities are limitless, although the research and development will take time and require funding and public support (rather than fear and legal interference). Recently genetic material from a jelly fish was inserted into cloned monkeys, and some of them actually glowed in the dark!

     Opponents of genetic engineering are quick to point out that things can go wrong. Even without genetic engineering things frequently go wrong. Fetuses spontaneously abort because of a genetic defect. In in vitro fertilization many of the fertilized ova or germinal stage embryos have to be discarded because they begin to show evidence that all is not well. (This is somewhat off the subject, but I wonder what the people who want to make abortion illegal think about in vitro fertilization. They might want to protest the discarding of defective zygotes and embryos in in vitro fertilization labs!)

     As we learn more about the role of genes in personality, we may discover that we can prevent numerous kinds of criminality as well as personality types prone to depression or violence. Objecting to such research on the grounds that we might create a person who was too passive is unfair. X-rays can cause cancer, but we still use them because the benefits outweigh the liabilities. The same holds true of genetic engineering.

A common fear is that the government will force genetic engineering on people. We propose nothing more than a program of voluntary genetic counselling. The aim would be to help couples who want to be parents to have the very best child their genes can provide. Who would be opposed to that? Everyone has genes which are more or less undesirable in various ways. Having the ability to screen these genes out is a clear advantage. You could also import genes from a gene bank that would give your child "perfect pitch" or drawing ability, or a complexion free of acne, or athletic ability, or mathematical ability, or . . . the list will no doubt be a long one indeed when we know a great deal more. A successful voluntary program in time would be so obviously advantageous that everyone would want to participate in it!

Programs like the above are often derided as "eugenics" and then dismissed on the grounds that the Nazis practiced eugenics. Many people also avoid Wagnerian opera because Hitler liked it.  That is not a rational reason to deprive yourself of Wagner's marvelous music.

The Nazis conducted very bad research on live human subjects based on their racial theories.  But that doesn't mean that all research having to do with the genetic makeup of humans is doomed to be as disgusting and incompetent as that research was.

     Efforts have been made to get the United Nations to pass a ban on human reproductive cloning.  This is a ridiculous measure.  It has been said that human cloning would be destructive to human dignity.  Those that feel that way can simply resolve not to clone themselves.  They should not try to prevent others from following their own concept of human dignity.  Others point to the fact that when animals are cloned that some of the clones have birth defects.  Someone said that if humans are cloned "something could go terribly wrong."   Well, we shouldn't fly airplanes.  Every time an airplane takes off something could go terribly wrong.  Automobiles should be banned too, because accidents happen.  Excessive worrying and hand-wringing offends human dignity.  Those with courage think of what can be gained.

Dr. Antinori

Drs. Panos Zavos and Severino Antinori announced in early August, 2001 that they would begin actual human cloning within a matter of weeks. They had over two hundred couples who would provide biological material.  They said that the cloning would be attempted in "two secret locations" and that if efforts by governments were made to stop the experiment, they would move into international waters. There will always be enormous pressures to go ahead and produce human clones in spite of any laws against it.  Performing the task in international waters is one way it could be done, but if covert, it could be done anywhere, much as illegal drugs are manufactured in the United States despite the senseless drug war.

Making laws against human cloning offers no benefits, only harm.  Such laws foster a situation in which cloning procedures will be attempted by scientists before adequate research paves the way for safe and effective methods.  The very horrors feared by the U.S. Congress will, due to their interference, become a reality.

     An old term for genetic engineering is "eugenics". We have avoided that word because of its association with the excessive zeal (based on ignorance) of the "social Darwinism" movement. To gain more background into the subject, and for related links, click here for some Encyclopedia Britannica articles on eugenics. Don't miss the excellent article on Sir Francis Galton, an early genetic engineering proponent who influenced Charles Darwin.