Clone Wars

Posted on March 15, 2009 by Andrew Stuttaford

The notion that a bright line can be drawn between ‘Science’ and ‘Politics’ is as often used to mislead as to enlighten. The stem cell controversy was always about more than the science and it was typically disingenuous of President Obama to pretend otherwise. Quite how disingenuous is highlighted by this piece in the Economist, which notes the irony implicit in the fact that the president has also taken it upon himself to condemn human cloning for reproductive purposes as “profoundly wrong” (indeed he has said that it should be prohibited). Now Mr. Obama may or may not be right about this (the answer, I suspect, is that it rather depends…) but his own comments show that when it comes to this whole field, the debate will be anything but just-the-science. It would be a great deal healthier if everyone could just admit it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Clone Wars

  1. Steel Phoenix says:
    March 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    It bothers me a bit that political correctness has such a stranglehold on cloning. The mainstream view is that of course cloning is wrong, but stem cells can be used for good too.

    I don’t have anything against cloning. I think it would be a good thing on balance. what minuscule risks you add by the occasional loss of diversity, or crime solving, I think you regain severalfold in understanding of psychology and medicine, transplants, and multiplication of greatness.

    People seem to think we would have clone armies popping up overnight. They still have to have a willing mother and be born and raised etc. There is really very little difference between a clone and a twin. Shall we call twins an abomination?

  2. Gary McGath says:
    March 16, 2009 at 6:11 am

    With the present state of the art in human cloning, I agree that it’s wrong. The rate of defects is just too high. But Obama seems to think that reproduction through cloning is fundamentally wrong, not just currently unsafe. I have no clue why. Some people think that clones would have no “souls,” but I wouldn’t expect him to subscribe to that notion.

  3. Chris says:
    March 16, 2009 at 11:45 am

    As a politician, Obama might cater to the notion without subscribing to it. Or at least be unwilling to engage in arguments over it.

    I don’t think hatred of cloning is particularly defensible by reason, but then, it’s not hated for reasonable reasons. A reasonable politician could certainly anticipate the irrationality of others and pick his battles accordingly.

  4. Jeeves says:
    March 16, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    @Chris

    A reasonable politician could certainly anticipate the irrationality of others and pick his battles accordingly.

    Exactly so. No further proof is needed that Obama is a politician first (we need not wade into the sordid details). We also need no further proof that the Obama administration will not be “science friendly,” especially the dismal one.

  5. Steel Phoenix says:
    March 16, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    Excellent points Chris. In an issue like this however, I think the political correctness rules the reality. I don’t see human cloning becoming legal in the U.S. until the clones themselves start showing themselves to be charismatic and unique individuals in the mainstream media.

    Jeeves: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a politician that is science friendly enough for me, but Obama is a vast improvement over the last administrations aggressive clampdown on anything counter-evangelical. Another term of Bush and we would have textbooks telling us the earth is flat. I expect Obama to be compromising rather than faith based. WE don’t so much need the government to be pro science as we need it to just get out of the way.

  6. Jeeves says:
    March 16, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    @Steel Phoenix
    Another term of Bush and we would have textbooks telling us the earth is flat. I expect Obama to be compromising rather than faith based.

    Whoa! I hold no brief for the Bushies. Like Bradlaugh (I think), I find arguments about “ensoulment” tedious. So I have no dog in the fight over cloning or pluripotent embryonic stem cells. But to call Obama a compromiser is a real stretch. What’s the evidence for that?

  7. Steel Phoenix says:
    March 16, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Well, for one his removal of the stem cell ban while condemning human cloning.

  8. Steel Phoenix says:
    March 16, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    I don’t think he has shown an exceptional amount of compromise. I think it is more that he makes concessions to the opposition than that he meets them halfway. His predecessor had much less bend in him since he was driven by faith (whether his own or that of his supporters I don’t know) rather than reason.

    I didn’t vote for Obama, but I do always try to keep an eye on what the president is doing. I keep an Obama tally here with things I consider significant.

  9. Science in Society says:
    March 17, 2009 at 9:40 am

    But scientists — still more, scientists in Washington — are human. They can’t make themselves apolitical if they’re giving political advice.

    Rather, I think we need to keep in mind that to some extent, science has its own political and philosophical slant. I’m going to hypothesize a little bit here, so bear with me. An academic scientist has dedicated years of her life to the study of nature, often forgoing a more lucrative career in the private sector, and frequently collaborating with colleagues from around the world. This suggests that scientists would be likely to
    a.) be long-term thinkers
    b.) have a sympathy for preserving the natural world, especially the particular subject of their research
    c.) be inclined not to value financial ambition very highly
    d.) not be very nationalistic; inclined to identify as closely with foreigners as with Americans

    These are personal sympathies, or cognitive biases, that I think would make scientists favor different public policies than the average U.S. citizen.

  11. matoko_chan says:
    March 22, 2009 at 10:03 am

    Unless we have a totalitarian world order, someone will design (ed…and btw, clone) improved humans somewhere.
    –Stephen Hawking, Speech at the White House 1998

    And the other thing, because no one has the guts to say it. If we could make a better human being by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we do it? What’s wrong with it? Who is telling us not to do it?
    –James Watson, Engineering the Human Germline Symposium, UCLA March 20 1998

  12. matoko_chan says:
    March 22, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Scientists are members of tribe homo sapiens sapiens.
    You, obviously, are not.
    You are members of tribe America, or tribe conservative, or tribe liberal, or tribe christian, or tribe secular, or you have overlapping memberships in many exclusive tribes.
    That is the pure beauty of the upper right tail.
    The truth is obvious.

Comments are closed.