Scientists Clone Rhesus Monkey to Produce Stem Cells - Essay Example

? Scientists Clone Rhesus Monkey to Produce Stem Cells Larry Buenafe Science & Culture LIB 332  Prof Elise Sweet 13Mar Scientists Clone Rhesus Monkey to Produce Stem Cells Scientific breakthroughs are at times considered both a boon and a bane at the same time. This is so because most such inventions are capable of both positive and negative outcomes depending on the way they are utilized. One among the most discussed inventions of the time is cloning. Recently, an Oregon Health and Science University team led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov successfully cloned a Rhesus Monkey and created stem cells. It is claimed that these cells could be used to avoid the present day problems associated with organ transplants. However, it becomes evident that this formal discovery has come into a society where such breakthroughs always require radical changes in the thinking pattern and cultural norms. As usual, the Judeo-Christian ethical concepts deep-rooted in the American society made it a difficult task to play with genes as genes are the very basis of the secrets of life to which only almighty has access. As everyone ranging from science popularizers, fiction writers, religious leaders, and politicians resorted to fantasizing instead of analyzing, cloning has become such a science that is beyond the reach of both natural and formal sciences. It is now a popular science that requires the government and the general public to take decisions. Admittedly, Shoukhrat Mitalipov is the brain behind the new achievement in cloning. He is an Assistant Scientist and Co-Director of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Embryonic Stem Cell Core Laboratory at the Oregon National Primate Research center, Oregon Health & Science University. According to Rowe (2007), from the very beginning, Dr. Mitalipov focused on human and monkey embryonic stem cells as such cells are the gateway to effective regenerative medicine. However, despite the obvious benefits associated with the natural science label, the decision to go ahead with cloning requires approval of the wider society. One can see that the modern day sciences like cloning and artificial intelligence have gone out of the concept of formal science. As Erickson (2005) comments, according to the tenets of Formal science, inventions take birth within the laboratory; and hence, their enactment and execution are done within the laboratory. And these scientific breakthroughs provide the wider society newer and newer insights into science and technology (p. 29). Admittedly, if this point of view is taken into consideration, one can see that the cloning of Rhesus Monkey provides the wider society with a new challenge to cope with as it radically changes the traditional norms the society cherished for quite some time. A look into history proves that the situation posed by cloning is nothing much different from the consequences arose nearly 140 years ago from Darwin’s Origin of Species. What one can see as common in both these cases is the need to reformulate the existing culture and thought pattern. To illustrate, The Roman Catholic Church has, since its inception, been opposed to changes in the existing patterns of beliefs; and hence, it has developed a history of continuous friction with science. Admittedly, a number of recent scientific and medical advances have had the same experience from the Church. Some examples are abortion and euthanasia. Thus, lately, medical field and genetic engineering have become the fields which receive the highest degree of scrutiny from various sections of the society. Admittedly, a look into the issue of cloning proves that the biggest enemy for cloning, at present, is God; in fact, Western concept of God. The underlying problem is that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is the only creator who possesses the exclusive right to give out new soul to a new individual. It is this soul that makes the man superior to other plants and animals. Hence, it is not right, according to them, to use such embryos for research. However, as other plants and animals are inherently ‘soulless’, it is right to clone them. However, the fact is that in nations like the United States where outward expressions are generally in secular terms, these underlying religious principles, over time, have emerged in the form of a fear to tamper with the rules of nature. Thus, the society tends to look into the negatives of every alteration. Admittedly, a formalistic view of science will prove that people like Shoukhrat Mitalipov have made such findings in their laboratories, which make the Western society to reframe its ethical and religious principles. For example, the society will be forced to give up its long cherished belief of human dignity and uniqueness of every human being. As stated in the article Cloning: Toward a new conception of humanity, giving up the traditional view of the uncertainty of human features and nature, he is now able to control his own features and nature. However, a look in to the American society proves that such debates are not surprising. This is so because the society; starting from the Constitution, is based on the firm belief that ‘all humans are made equal’. In such a society where human dignity is so valued, any movement that is likely to impinge on human dignity is highly likely to be criticized. Still, as cloning offers effective cure for presently incurable issues, it is likely that more and more people will start seeking the same once developed. In fact, the large number of questions that remain to be answered cannot be ignored. For example, it is pointed out that cloning technology will give birth to chimeras or animal-human hybrids. If a man-ape combination is created, the question arises as to whether it is necessary to give that animal all human rights. That means, if cloning becomes a reality in the case of humans, the concept of distinction between humans and animals will disappear. That means the existing concepts of human value will need to be rewritten, and in the new formula, human will not possess the ‘soul’ given by God, which so far distinguished him from animals. A look into the criticism put forward by the proponents of science like Kass (1997) proves that most of the allegations are just assumptions based on the existing social values. For example it is claimed that cloning will lead to a decline in familial relations. This is so because one who is cloned from another person will be the twin of the other; not son or daughter. That means the traditional family system will collapse. However, the mere fact is that with no cloned family observed so far, it is highly irrational to place such criticisms. Otherwise, at least, the scholar could have proved the same using families with adopted children. Another similar criticism is that the clones will face psychological distress as he or she is living a life already being lived. However, this argument is rather weak as it is known that sharing DNA has nothing to do with psychological replication. Admittedly, cloning is in its initial stage. However, criticisms, fears and fantasies surrounding the same have grown to such an alarming proportion that even governments are not ready to look into how cloning could be used. This is so because cloning means the demise of a number of existing taboos, and the society and government are fearful of such radical changes. To illustrate, it is feared that the concepts of marriage, childbirth and childrearing will disappear for good. While concentrating on this decline in familial relations, the scholars fail to look into how the chances of deciding the features of ones production will affect the degree of attachment towards it. Referring to the words of McLaren, it is only rational to claim that if one gives birth to a clone with the features one wants, one will have more attachment towards it than towards another son or daughter that naturally took birth but with unexpected features (p. 136). Admittedly, cloning provides the unique opportunity of making life in ones own image. That means, in religious terms, a direct confrontation with the exclusive power of God. According to religion, human life is exalted by the divine spark, and cloning takes this divine spark away from humans by showing that humans can give birth to life. A look into the history of science proves that religion, especially Church, has always been in contrast with radical thinking and changes that made it to reshape its own ideologies. So, people like Galileo had a rough time at the hands of the Church. Later on, the theory of evolution of species too faced the same situation as it again made religion to step back and recompose to face the newly developed challenges. As Draper (1873) states, many medical advances including abortion and euthanasia too were made to cringe as religion-based social taboos. It is this interest to keep science under chain that made the concept of popular science so widespread. According to Musolff (2007), the present situation is that science has to exist only as a popular science; and for every movement, there is the need to ensure that taboos are not severely hurt. Evidently, this hinders the growth of science when it is considered as an independent field of knowledge; and this is so because under the new concept, science is only meant to cater for the needs of the existing social situation (ibid). The present day situation is that in a nation like the US where individual liberty is the most precious thing, popular science gained such a dominant position in helping the people decide the consequences of various developments. As such writings often aimed more at entertainment value and personal relevance, their depictions of situations often included such colorful facts and information that are not thorough in analysis. This situation is evident from the fact that the opponents of cloning heavily rely on religious and moral principles that exist in the society. In the view of Maio (2006), instead of showing how the development will change the society, the popularizers are more interested in explaining how the development will alter the existing norms and values; and unfortunately, these debates are often supported by little scientific evidence than an inherent sense of uneasiness in giving up what one wanted to preserve. In order to understand how these popularizers take a position that is not so different from fiction, one should look into how media and culture have played havoc with the concept of cloning as evident from the EMBO Reports. The report that analyzes the way scientists and popular media presented cloning to the general public reveals that most of the documentaries on cloning tend to contain negative connotations juxtaposed with the concept of a miracle cure. Another finding is that such presentations tend to show fiction as fact. To illustrate, they present possible future developments as something that have already taken place. That means, instead of analyzing the real situation, the popular presentations virtualize the situation, and often intensify the presentations to create a feeling of insecurity and fear. A perfect example is the eugenic uses of cloning as pointed out by the TV program Chances and limits of medicine in the year 1997. Thus, the media, almost totally, stressed on the ideology that unlike all other scientific advancements, cloning is the way to supreme power for scientists on the one hand, and total anarchy for the society on the other. In fact, the message about cloning provided by popularizers is not too different from the message available through science fiction. Since long, creating the copy of an adult has been considered as an act of blasphemy under the Judeo-Christian background. So, the name of cloning gave the fiction writers a chance to come up with all kinds of wild fantasies like the Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus of Mary Shelly. Admittedly, this was just one among the many documentaries, novels, and fiction that flooded the popular culture. This inherent interest from the part of fiction writers to present the clone as potential evil is evident from the fact that in most of the ‘clone films’, the clone is potentially dangerous and evil while the one from whom the clone is made is good. Some examples are the Embryo (1976) and The Darker Side of Terror (1979). In all these cases, the clone is considered inferior purely because of lack of originality, and the ones who develop clones are punished for the blasphemy they commit. Another point that deserves attention is the fact that for all those clone fictions, cloning is a taboo or a violation of the social norms though the reason always remains mysterious. However, in all such works, the creation of clones is solely aimed at committing some evil; and such acts always take place in secret. Also, the clones are never presented like humans or nearly-humans. Instead, the fictions gain satisfaction by not giving the clones human perfection; thus sticking to the Judeo-Christian bred belief that only God can give a soul, or that even if man manages to create life artificially, it will lack something as it is against the covenants of God. The strong influence of religion on the lives of American people is evident from the interest shown by films to assert that gene is the very basis of all the secrets of human life and that playing with gene would result in unimaginable consequences. This is evident from films like The Cloned Human: Horror Vision or Medical Progress? and Promise or Horror. What all these films and fiction in common is the desire to promote the propaganda that human life is not only the physical existence but also something else called ‘soul’ that cannot be replicated through cloning. However, one can see that cloning is just one among the so called many advances that radically change human nature. To illustrate, according to Frey (2006), nanotechnology and cybernetics are capable of introducing radical enhancements to human nature (p. 365). As Frey (2006) points out, the issues created by cloning in the society are not entirely new but are the continuation of the questions posed by abortion and euthanasia (p. 376). Already seen, opposition to all these comes from environmental movements, feminists, and more importantly the Church. In total, it becomes evident from the analysis that the real issues associated with the adoption of cloning have not been properly discussed and publicized. Instead, the American life that is highly influenced by religion has developed a lot of fantasies and fears related to cloning as the issue was handled more like a fiction than like a reality. The possible consequences identified by various scholars are the acceptance of the absence of human superiority, demise of familial relationships and possibility of genetic monsters. References Cloning: Toward a new conception of humanity? The Atlas Society. Retrieved from http://www.atlassociety.org/cloning-toward-new-conception-humanity Draper, J. W. (1873). History of the conflict between religion and science. Retrieved from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper00.htm Erickson, M. (2005). Science, Culture and Society. UK: Polity. Frey, C. (2006). “Bioethics from the perspectives of universalisation”. In H. Roetz (Ed), Cross-Cultural Issues in Bioethics: The Example of Human Cloning. New York: Rodopi. Kass, L. (1997). The wisdom of repugnance. Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0006.html Mieth. D. (2002). “Ethics, morality and religion”. In A. McLaren (Ed), Cloning. Germany: Council of Europe. Musoff, A. (2007). Popular science concepts and their use in creative metaphors in media discourse, 67-86. Retrieved from http://www.metaphorik.de/13/musolff.pdf Maio, G. (2006). Cloning in the media and popular culture. EMBO Reports, 7, 241-245. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n3/full/7400652.html Rowe, A. (2007). Top 10 scientific breakthroughs of 2007. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/YE_10_breakthroughs Read More