Bad sci-fi from Olympia
Seth Cooper and Robert Blue have already posted fine comments on the dishonest stem cell bill in the Washington State Legislature, and Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute has written a very good piece in National Review Online. Seth has requested that I comment on the issue, which I am more than happy to do.
I have already talked about embryonic stem cell research–both its ethical and scientific problems. But the most disturbing parts of this bill aren’t about stem cell research. They’re about cloning, and about dishonesty. The law asserts two self-contradictory things. First, it says that “It is the policy of Washington state that… somatic cell nuclear transplantation is permitted.” But later on, it declares, “No person may knowingly engage or assist in the cloning or attempted cloning of a human being.”
The trouble with those statements is that “somatic cell nuclear transplantation” is simply a fancy way of saying “cloning,” period. Dolly the Cloned Sheep (something of a hero of mine, as it happens) was created via somatic cell nuclear transplantation, and she would have been called Dolly the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transplantation Sheep if that weren’t such a mouthful. The only way the law can support itself is through the bizarre definition provided of “cloning of a human being.”
“Cloning of a human being” means asexual reproduction by implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or substitute for a uterus with the purpose of producing a human being.
So as long as you don’t mean to create a human being by cloning one, you’re in the clear. Now we ask what, exactly, is a human being–which the law does not bother to define. (This is, I think, a seperate argument than the question of what, exactly is a person, which the abortion debate hinges on.) Scientifically, the moment you have an cell that is both omnipotent (physically able to create all the cells of the body) and diploid (containing the full complement of DNA), you have Homo sapiens (or Caenorhabditis elegans, or Orcinus orca, or Sequoia sempervirens, or whatever). But legally, I guess, it’s not considered a human being until… well, the law isn’t clear on that at all, actually.
But, if we go by the principle that you’re not “legally” a human being until you’re born (repulsive to me personally), then the law allows people to clone to their hearts content–as long as they kill the clones before they’re born. Because if they’re born, then everyone involved in their cloning gets fined $300,000 dollars. That sort of state-mandated killing is disgusting, and the law should be decried simply for that possibility.
But as technology continues, the possibilities get even wierder. The law notes that a “substitute for a uterus” can be used–as long as it’s not used with the “purpose of creating a human being.” Imagine that someone develops a way to grow a clone entirely outside a human body–at what point is that clone considered to be a “human being?” As soon as you let it out of its glass jar? This law leaves open the possibility that a clone could be raised to adulthood–as long as it is never “birthed” from its “substitute for a uterus.” Of course, if the clone escaped, the scientists would have to kill him (or her–a female clone would make for a better movie) before he (or she) was noticed by the authorities. (”Hey, you! Clone! Who let you out of your jar! They’re getting a hefty fine!”)
Yes, it sounds like a bad science fiction movie. But, quite frankly, so does this whole mess.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
February 15th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Excellent post, Tim. Did anyone happen to notice what Mrs. Gregoire has had to say about this issue? In the King County Journal, they say that
How can someone support the destruction of human life through embryonic stem cell research, yet support the prohibition of human cloning? I suppose if it only counts as human cloning once the clone is removed from its pseudo uterus, then anything goes. Take care and God bless.
February 15th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Tim,
GREAT post. I’ve sent the link to a lot of people, asking them to contact their reps, and hopefully they will.
Sopater,
First, I honestly don’t know how Gregoire looks herself in the mirror each morning, how she sleeps at night, etc.
Second, the fact that she supports embryonic stem cell research and the prohibition of human cloning at the same time is not all that bizarre. This is the same woman who proclaimed that Rossi’s lead of 261 votes was a tie, Rossi’s lead of 42 votes was a tie, but her own lead of 129 highly questionable votes is a clear victory.
February 16th, 2005 at 6:25 am
So your problem, essentially, is that the law redefines common terms for its own purposes?
Look out, felony murder statutes, Flag o’ the World has got your number!
February 16th, 2005 at 8:40 am
No, my problem, essentially, is that the law would cause state mandated killing.
February 16th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
From the website of the Association of American Medical Colleges:
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Therapeutic Cloning)
Related Resources
Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research
President’s Council on Bioethics Report on Cloning
Faculty Petition on SCNT
AAMC Documents
May 10, 2002 AAMC Letter on Specter Legislation (S.2439)
April 30, 2002 AAMC Press Relesease
March 29, 2002 AAMC Statement on Human Cloning
January 24, 2002 AAMC Letter on Feinstein Legislation
November 27, 2001 AAMC Letter on SCNT Legislation
July 27, 2001 AAMC Letter on Greenwood Legislation
July 27, 2001 AAMC Letter on Greenwood Legislation
Cloning is the creation of multiple copies of a single molecule, cell, or virus. There are many different kinds of cloning, most of which are now commonplace in science. Cloning has allowed scientists to develop powerful new drugs and to produce insulin and useful bacteria in the lab. It also allows researchers to track the origins of biological weapons, catch criminals and free innocent people, and produce new plants and livestock to feed an undernourished world population.
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or therapeutic cloning involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a “somatic cell” (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research. The AAMC supports on-going research into SCNT and has endorsed legislation that would allow such research to flourish.
Reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is intended to create human beings by cloning human embryos. The AAMC and the National Academy of Sciences recommends a legally enforceable ban on all forms of this type of cloning.
__________________
In addition, a bill was introduced in the US Senate (S2439) led by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa,), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would prohibit human cloning while preserving the use of cloning technology to produce stem cells.
I’m not sure how I feel about this issue. It is a difficult one. It does get to the basic question of what is human life, which is why I think we should go slowly on this. To the commenters who take Governor Gregoire to task for her position, I guess you’ll have to ask the same questions of that ultra-liberal, Orrin Hatch.
February 16th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
At the Heart of Cloning -
Personhood: It Comes Naturally
by Dan Kennedy, C.E.O., Human Life of Washington
When did you become a human being? That’s an easy question to answer. Embryology long ago proved that at conception, you were a unique human being, and your development was self-directed. This is simply a scientific fact. The key question in the debate surrounding cloning and embryonic stem cell research, revolves around whether we, as single-celled human beings were also human persons, entitled to all the rights and protection offered to every other human being? This question is not one that can be answered by science, because to do so would require criteria measurable by science. Any measurable criteria, such as size or functionality, would be inherently arbitrary, nonsensical, and menacing to all persons. It would be like trying to use a yardstick to measure freedom. Philosophically speaking, it is known as a category error. Yet, so much, and so many lives depend on knowing what personhood is.
For example, to say that a single-celled human being at conception cannot be a human person because it is no larger than the dot at the end of this sentence is to simply give a description based on appearance. It is not an explanation or definition of what this human being is. Aristotle 2400 years ago noted that to obtain a true definition of what something is, you must discover what its powers are and what it is meant to be. To judge by appearance alone is both ignorant and perilous. Genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing - history offers abundant witness to the brutal injustice that inevitably results from arbitrary judgments.
At conception, each of us becomes a self-possessed human person. We possess our own future; it belongs to us uniquely and no one else. No matter our size, present within us at conception is the complete design of what we are meant to be and a guiding force or impetus that brings that development about. This power and the information necessary to direct it must be present at conception in order for development to occur.
Personhood is not dependent on whether one is currently manifesting all one’s powers or not. It is not a temporary state that comes and goes with our degree of functionality. A machine could conceivably be designed to look like us, and mimic numerous human traits, but functional mimicry is not personhood. Indeed, there are already machines that actually function more efficiently than we do at specific tasks, but I seriously doubt your vacuum cleaner ever wonders about the fairness of it all. You, however, are intrinsically oriented toward that unique human characteristic, evident even in young children (as in the frequently heard refrain, “that’s not fair!”), to desire and reflect on transcendent realities like justice and truth.
Moreover, our dignity at conception is often obscured by labels assigned to stages of development such as zygote, blastocyst, fetus, or infant. But, an embryo is not less of a human being than an infant, anymore than a child is less of a human being before puberty than after. At every stage, we are whole human beings.
This problem with labels is not new. In fact, Abraham Lincoln used to illustrate it by humorously asking how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? The answer is four, because it makes no difference if you call it a leg, it is still a tail. In the same way, how we label a stage of development doesn’t change the fundamental nature or reality of that which we label. The same is true in labeling an event like birth. Birth itself does not bestow a nature or identity on us that we were not already in possession of, except we are given a name. Birth is simply a change of environment. Labels and language have repeatedly been distorted for the very purpose of dehumanizing those who are different, who don’t look like us, or those targeted for exploitation.
Another problem arises because we are not always able to perceive personhood in others, especially the unborn or those diagnosed as in a persistent vegetative state, but this does not serve as proof that personhood must not be present. Someone who is sleeping may not show any visible evidence of personhood either. Just because we can’t “see” that personhood is present, doesn’t change the fact that it is. Logically speaking, one’s own lack of clarity does not alter objective reality, since truth is something we discover, not something we decide.
Ironically, those who would deny personhood under these circumstances, fancy themselves more sophisticated than their historical counterparts, who condoned atrocities based on appearance. However, they display the same shallow mentality when it comes to contemporary debates. Once again, we witness ignorance and utilitarian motives corrupting what is both rationally and morally obvious, that we can not earn for ourselves, or bestow on others what is already ours by nature.
Our culture’s eclipse of reason has resulted in untold suffering and a relentless violation of inalienable rights. The unborn, the elderly, the disabled are all targets of these self-appointed, final arbiters of personhood. Unless this is reversed, we will ultimately discover that none of us are immune from these arbitrary judgments. Healing the culture must begin with acknowledging that at conception, a unique, self-possessed human person comes into being. Their future, as well as ours, depends on it.
February 16th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Steve– that the AAMC makes the same dishonest differentiation as the bill doesn’t surprise me. But please note that they at least draw a false, but helpful distinction between “theraputic” and “reproductive” cloning, which the bill doesn’t do. But in both cases, it’s just a question of “intent,” and it raises the disturbing possibilities I bring up.
Second–can you send me a link to something about the bill you mentioned? I can’t find anything with the number you cite either this year or last.
February 17th, 2005 at 8:34 am
It was in the 107th Congress. The link is below.
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=657648394372+3+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
February 17th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for the link. That legislation is different than the WA state bill, in that it draws the line at placing the clone in the uterus. They consider that to be “reproductive cloning,” and therefore a no-no. The state legislation says it’s fine to implant it in a uterus, as long as there’s not “purpose” to “produce a human being.” So it’s better law–but not what I’d call good law. It’s still dishonest, as it tries to assert that nuclear transplantation is qualitatively different than producing a fully grown human clone, when in actuality, it’s just the first step.
You’ll note that this bill didn’t even make it out of committee–and I wonder if Hatch would cosponsor it in its previous form.