In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ANXIETY AND GENETIC MANIPULATION: A SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW HOWARD L. KAYE* As many commentators have noted, the news of the successful cloning of a sheep, and the prospect of human cloning which it appeared to open up, has been met with widespread "panic," "instinctive distrust," and "nearly universal anxiety," not only in this country but throughout the world [1-3]. However remarkable such a consensus would appear to be in an age of multiculturalism and moral relativity, it is curious that so littìe effort has been made to understand and respect the nature of these fears. Instead the tendency has been to treat this "overwhelming public concern" as the evanescent, emotional response of a public still mired in ignorance and superstition. For example, to the Humanist Laureates of the International Academy of Humanism, which includes such scientific luminaries as Sir Francis Crick and E.O. Wilson, as well as renowned philosophers Sir Isaiah Berlin, Antony Flew, and W.V. Quine, the fear that human cloning may prove dehumanizing and therefore ought to be banned is simply the hysterical reaction of modern-day "Luddites" held in thrall by "ancient theological scruples" which must be swept aside so that scientific progress and human liberation may proceed [4] . To noted biologist Richard Lewontin , a long-time critic ofthe misuses ofscience, the pervasive anxieties experienced over human "hubris" in manipulating life and the loss of individuality through human cloning are merely the products of "deep cultural prejudice" and sheer ignorance of biology [3]. Cloning, he insists, offers no greater threat to human autonomy than does twinning; no greater assault on the family than artificial insemination with donor semen, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy; and no greater risk of objectifying human beings than hiring a plumber. Only the grossest genetic determinism of the sort "propagated by the press and by vulgarizers ofscience" could mislead This paper was presented at The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York, on December 11, 1997, as part of a meeting on "Anxiety and/or Insight? Encountering New Technologies." *119 Deepdale Road, Wayne, PA 19087.© 1998 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0031-5982/98/4104-1066$01.00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 4 ¦ Summer 1998 | 483 a gullible public into thinking that identical genes make identical people [3]. To alleviate such anxieties, what is needed, he argues, is not a permanent ban on cloning but rather better science education. Of greater significance, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission appears to agree on this point. Despite its efforts "to investigate and articulate the widespread intuitive disapproval of cloning human beings in this manner ," the NBAC asserts that "much of the perceived fear" is really rooted in science fiction and "gross misunderstandings of human biology and psychology " [2]. This presumption—that it is largely ignorance rather than insight which underlies much of the public's opposition—seems to serve as a decisive justification for the Commission's curious insistence on what it terms the "absolute" necessity of a temporary ban on cloning (three to five years) rather than an enduring one [2]. For once "unthinking disgust" and ignorant opposition are subtracted from the overwhelming weight of the public's apprehension, the remaining more reasonable concerns about potential psychological and social harm appear to be counterbalanced by other values supporting individual choice and the freedom of scientific inquiry. With moraljudgment thereby blocked, in spite ofthe public's overwhelming moral opposition, the Commission can only offer an expedient "politicaljudgment" in its place. A short-term ban will give scientists and educators enough time to correct public "misconceptions" with the appropriate "facts" and information, while researchers work to minimize the potential safety risks associated with cloning. In the interim, public alarm will no doubt dwindle—as it has in the earlier uses of artificial insemination , in vitro fertilization, recombinant DNA, surrogacy, and gene therapy —to the point where scientists may be given the go-ahead to proceed, without requiring active public support [2]. Then, when the first human clones are successfully produced, this new technology, like those controversial reproductive innovations which preceded it, will, as Alun M. Ajiderson of the New Scientist notes, "quickly . . . win hearts and grass-roots ethical approval" by helping...

pdf

Share