| Send in the Clones By Antonio C. Abaya Written Jan. 12, 2005 For the Philippines Free Press January 22 issue If your pet dog or cat or parakeet or whatever were to suddenly die, and you have $50,000 to spare for a replacement, be comforted by the knowledge that it is now possible to order an exact clone of your dead pet from a (where else?) California-based company called Genetic Savings and Clone. Be sure, however, to save some DNA material (blood, tissue, fur or feathers) before you bury the poor thing. (During the trial of Hubert Webb for the alleged rape and murder of that Vizconde girl in BF Homes some eight or nine years ago [during the watch of President Ramos], I wrote in my Philippine Star column that the bodily fluids which the NBI claimed it had saved from the girl�s vaginal cavity should be subjected to DNA analysis [a relatively unknown tool then] to determine whose semen, if any, were present in it. His own defense lawyer, however, objected to the idea of extracting semen or blood samples from his client for a comparison analysis, and the NBI did not insist. So, perhaps, Hubert was guilty, after all, despite all the recurrent talk about his �young, innocent, wasted life.� (When a fire gutted the Ozone Disco in Quezon City and burned to death more than 160 disco revelers some eight years ago [also during the watch of President Ramos], more than half of them charred beyond recognition, I again wrote in my Philippine Star column that tissue samples should be extracted from the charred remains for DNA analysis, and compared with DNA material from their surviving siblings or parents. The authorities did not listen to me, and instead hurriedly buried the unrecognizable charred victims in a common grave. (Now this country has sent two forensic teams to Thailand to help identify some 4,000 unrecognizable victims of the tsunami disaster through DNA analysis.} A pet owner in Texas has actually ordered and received, just before last Christmas, a clone of her pet cat, from DNA material of the original cat which had died last year. She swears the clone is identical to her original pet, including even its personality. This, of course, was not the original clone, nor even the original commercial clone. The pioneer was Dolly the sheep, which was cloned in Scotland several years ago. Dolly has opened a potentially lucrative field in bio-genetics, as well as a Pandora�s box of ethical and practical questions. It is now possible to clone dearly beloved pets when they die, just as it is now also possible to clone prized cattle (for about $20,000 each) that will give the tenderest meat or the most abundant milk. Ditto for mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses and an endangered wild bull in Indonesia said to be close to extinction, all of which have been cloned either in the laboratory or in the commercial marketplace.. The obvious question is: when will scientists clone a human being? A pseudo-scientific cult in Canada actually claimed to have cloned several humans in 2003, but the mainstream scientific community has not taken these claims seriously, absent any detailed account of their methodology. But there is now no longer any doubt that the field of bio-genetics is wide open and it is only a matter of time before someone somewhere will clone a human being, not necessarily from a dead or dying human, but from the genetic material embedded in stem cells extracted from a living one, with the full consent and knowledge of that living person. Some countries, such as the US, worried about the ethical and legal implications that such a breakthrough will entail, have passed legislation banning human cloning in general, and stem cell research in particular that leads to reproductive cloning. An issue that found resonance with American conservative voters in the recent elections. But even in such restricted societies, bio-scientists would still be free to pursue research towards therapeutic cloning, such as the cultivation of stem cells that will be given genetic instructions to develop into a liver or a kidney or a lung or skin compatible with the metabolism of the stem cell donor, or to be placed in a �bank� of human spare parts accessible to anyone who can afford them. While this may sound like Frankenstein science, its future is assured, not only because of the human desire to continually push the boundaries of knowledge, but also because of the financial rewards that await the successful researchers. As the population ages, especially in the rich countries which are its natural market, the demand for replacement organs and tissues will be practically limitless. Not to mention the demand caused by accidents and congenital defects. Bio-genetics is a field that the Philippines can enter and excel in if its medical researchers, with government prodding and financial help, were to agree on what specialized field or fields they will concentrate on and develop a niche expertise in. Some medical research is affordable by a country like ours, unlike, say, space science or nuclear fusion, both of which require billions of dollars. If even a poor country like Cuba was able to develop a niche expertise in antibiotics which is internationally recognized, there is no earthly reason why Filipino medical researchers cannot establish their own niche in the wide open field of bio-genetics. Playing God While I am all in favor of therapeutic cloning (to develop human �spare parts�), I see absolutely no value in reproductive cloning, to produce clones of existing or recently dead persons. And I can only foresee many practical (and ghoulish) problems that such cloning will spawn.. Such as, will a cloned family member be entitled to the inheritance that the natural member that he/she replaced was entitled to? A spouse may feel comfortable with a cloned replacement of a beloved wife or husband. But will the children feel the same way, or will some of them go batty living in the same house with such an unnatural being? Would a clone be legally responsible for the crimes or liabilities of the natural person he or she replaced? How to tell the difference, since both original and clone would have the same DNA? Having successfully made a clone of one person, what will stop him or her from cloning a multiplicity of clones of the same original human? The practical and legal problems would then multiply. Where will it stop? It is because of practical reasons such as the above that I do not favor reproductive cloning of humans, and not because it would be �like playing God.� Man has been playing God since the time he learned how to make fire, which was previously the exclusive domain of volcanoes, lightning and phosphorus deposits, the earthly manifestations of God in the eyes of the early bipeds. . One can almost hear a wise old sage cautioning his fellow Neanderthals as they huddled in their cold, dark and dingy cave, with something like, �If God had intended man to make fire, he would have built him with a flame thrower.� ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org.. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Send in the Clones� Dear Mr Abaya, This kind of technological breakthrough would certainly be a boon to a Third World country like us. But I am afraid it would never fly. The main culprit would be the Catholic Church who holds the citizenry by the balls. It would be demonized to high heavens. Condoms pa lang, pinag-aawayan na, how much more for cloning. Auggie Surtida, [email protected] January 25, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I enjoy reading your materials...send me more. Thanks. Maryann O�Connor, [email protected] January 26, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Cloning, and GMO, are just few of the many technological breakthroughs that our indefatigable scientists have successfully offered to the present world, of course it also brings with them social and ethical issues. Do we accept or reject them? This reminds me of a Wharton paper that I read wherein the author (Tolkowsky) stated that although it�s given that technological assets can determine the progress of an individual, a company or even a nation, the decision to embrace or to reject technology is itself deeply affected by abstract ideas that are embedded in an individual�s (or a nation�s) general life philosophy. �The field of the philosophy of technology is relatively young,� says Tolkowsky. �It was founded on the stipulation that technological change is a driver of historical processes, but newer theories challenged this deterministic approach and advocated a reverse direction of the causal arrow, namely -- that it is social change that triggers technological innovation. As a historical example, Tolkowsky points out that 19th century Europe had all it took to become the home of the first powered flight -- but it didn�t. �By 1810 the British country gentleman George Cayley had built a working glider, and by the 1890s a German, Otto Lilienthal, had completed more than a thousand daring flights in full-size gliders,� says Tolkowsky. �Yet mainstream European science turned its back to the prospect of aviation and it was a pair of Americans, the Wright brothers, who took the lead in powered flight.� Tolkowsky suggests that Europeans saw air flight as a threat to the established social order. If people could fly, what would become of state sovereignty? The socially structured Europe couldn�t bear this thought. It took a couple of American boys, living in an unstructured frontier society, to shed an unyielding philosophy that blocked a technological leap. Rey Abella, [email protected] Tarlac, January 27, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Dear Tony---One of my favorite songs ever is �Send in the Clowns�. Your article �Send in the Clones� must have scared your readers�..for the cloning of clowns in Malacanang can be a horrendous possibility Josie Lichauco, [email protected] February 14, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |