To clone or not to clone

The Telegraph reports today that Prof. Ian Wilmut, a leading voice in the field of genetics and cloning, has abandoned his position of being "implacably opposed" to human cloning and argues, in is upcoming book, that there are occasions when it should be considered.

Cloning has been a hot topic for a long time but since Dolly the sheep appeared on the scene it seems that everbody has an opinion, usually against it.

Should we oppose it though?

Let us first assume that before any type of gene manipulation is allowed in humans there will be a lot of research and testing behind it. We do this for new drugs, food additives, cosmetics (touchy subject) and any number of other things to it is no great stretch to imagine that before you're allowed to tweak somebody's DNA you should have to prove that the process is safe.

So, we have a process which is safe (or as safe as most medical procedures or pharmaceuticals) and offers two immdiately obvious benefits:

- Screening for hereditory disease (both in parents and in the foetus) and the opportunity to do something about it prior to birth.

- Genetic manipulation to produce smarter, stronger and generally "better" children.

Now, as far as I can see, the only objection to the first benefit is that it "goes against God". After all, what parent wouldn't want to reduce the risk of their child getting Parkinsons, Alzheimers or any number of other hereditary diseases. The argument that it is against God god implies a rather unpleasant divinity when you consider some of the diseases involved that could potentially be eradicated.

The second benefit is more likely to generate opposition, both from the "against god" lobby and from many people that would be in favour of screening for hereditary problems. After all we are now out of the realms of preventative medicine; we are now making improvements.

But why shouldn't we make improvements? Absolutely no reason as far as I can see, as long as they are genuine improvements. Why, given a choice, would you like your child to have an IQ of 120 when they could have an IQ of 220. Why would you want them to be physically weak when their bone density and musculature could be improved? Why would you want them to have to wear glasses when you could give them 20:20 vision? Why would you want them to endure unnecessary dental procedures?

The answer is that you shouldn't; of course this will make your child "superior" to you. Perhaps this is what is really holding us back. We all desire to be the best - stronger, cleverer, faster. Why would we deliberately create somebody who could outshine us in all respects?

The answer? We've been doing it for millennia. By choosing the strongest alpha-male or the partner with the most attractive qualities we are endeavouring to create the best of all possible offspring. All it should really take is a shift in perspective (I hesitate to use the somewhat tired phrase "paradigm shift") for us to see that making our children smarter can only be good for the species as a whole.

Of course there is one fly in the ointment - where do we draw the line? Should the parents that want a child with blonde hair and blue eyes be allowed to do so? Will "less desirable" traits (as current fashions dictate) die out or won't it matter because when they become fashionable again they can be turned back on.

At what point does genetics become genocide?

Categories: Cloning, Genetics, Morality