Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Kid A? A closer look at cloning

In the new Time magazine, Randolfe Wicker, 63, spokesman of the Human Cloning Foundation and New York City lighting store-owner, offered these thoughts on the subject that has come to consume much of his adult life, and recently, the imagination of the entire world. ‘I can thumb my nose at Mr. Death and say, ‘You might get me, but you’re not going to get all of me. The special formula that is me will live on into another lifetime. It’s a partial triumph over death. I would leave my imprint not in sand but in cement.’

Wicker, who is gay, struggles with the fact that having children will not come as easily for him as it does for a heterosexual couple. For him, the question has a simple solution: human cloning has presented itself as a possible vehicle for his legacy, a way for him to live, in a sense, after death. The question and answer don’t come as easily for the rest of us, though, who have yet to learn enough about cloning and the implications that come with it to feel truly comfortable about taking one side or the other.

The first instance of cloning that most of us were exposed to, outside the pages of science fiction, came in the form of Dolly the sheep. As scientifically significant as it was, it played out to most of us as a novelty act, a cute stunt with little or no impact on our own lives. From that incident stemmed the initial talk of human cloning which, admittedly, can be an inviting idea on the surface. It caters to the side of us that dwells in realizing the impossible, and the closer we get to that, the less objective the decisions we make. It’s shaping up to be a sprint to see who can finish first, with potentially disastrous results for those who take part.

What’s pushing Wicker and others like him is the potential for a second chance – that some form of him, while not entirely whole, has the chance to live on and enjoy the same things. He has immersed himself in the idea that the ‘second coming’ of himself, if you will, has the potential to carry on with things that he is left unable to accomplish. In theory, it’s an attractive concept, but in reality, it is a troubled idea that carries with it serious flaws and possible repercussions.

Most importantly, he will not be around, for any substantial time at least, for this clone that he desires. When it happens, if ever, the clone will proceed into a life that Wicker will never see, never experience or help discover. The idea alone of leaving a form of himself behind is satisfaction enough, and that is being selfish on the grandest of all scales. He’ll be leaving the child cold turkey, as an oddity rather than a person deserving of natural love and attention. He’ll leave it to be studied and explored, and not to be raised as a normal child should be. This is a society that thrives on grandstanding the odd, and this would take that obsession to an entirely new and obscene level. If he considers this act to be one bred out of love, then he is being blinded by his own selfishness and a case of ‘What if?’ taken to the extreme.

If Wicker is so intent on having a child, he should explore other avenues of child-bearing that could satisfy his need. Anything from a surrogate mother to adoption are legitimate options that many people choose each year. It’s himself that he wants more of, though, a selfish desire that he could theoretically fill by cloning himself.

Another factor is the unknown. For all of the scientific advances and discoveries that have been made, there are an equal number of variables that have yet to be determined. No human to date has been cloned. On that fact alone, no number of predictions or educated guesses could lead me to believe that human cloning is without problems. Wicker says that sharing his genes with a cloned version of himself will allow that person to share his particular loves and interests, which include Middle Eastern food and romantic Spanish music that has long fallen out of the mainstream. The question for us, though, is will it actually? Will this person share every single interest and nuance of Mr. Wicker? Is cloning strictly a matter of nature, or does the nurture argument have any validity? To say this individual, independent of the person who, in a sense, gave birth to them, will operate solely on inherited traits and remain untouched by the environment around him is taking quite a leap. It drags up years of Nature vs. Nurture arguments and, when combined with the possibility of recreating a human, places a potential solution that much further away. Cases have been studied that suggest the human makeup will prevail over outside influences, in instances where identical twins were raised in drastically different locales, only to be reunited years later and find that they did, in fact, share many of the same interests and traits.

That, however, has never lead to a conclusive answer, and can certainly only be used as a stepping-stone when dealing with the concept of human cloning. Whether or not it is nature or nature that shapes us more is an argument well worth taking up, but not at the expense of a child who has been deemed a guinea pig. What happens to that child when they grow up and begin to comprehend the unique situation surrounding their existence? How is it fair to them? We spend time and energy debating whether or not it’s beneficial to us without once ever considering the individual that will be impacted the most. That in itself is a crime and a clear sign that this process should be taken slowly.

Religious convictions also stand in the way of making a firm move to one side or the other. The Catholic Church, to which I belong by default and situation, and not necessarily by choice, has come out strongly against cloning, issuing statements that say only God has the rightful power to create and, of course, take away life. For once I agree. However, when it comes to cloning individual organs (an entirely different debate within itself), I tend not to hesitate as much. This science has the potential to save, to improve the quality of existing life tenfold, and the right to that opportunity should be, in my opinion, fully supported. It’s not toying with new life, but prolonging what we have, what we’re supposed to have, and is the area where the majority of our energy should be focused.

Human cloning presents us with what is perhaps the most interesting and challenging question of the new millennium, where we are combining our burgeoning technology with the most basic, biological building blocks. It’s an exciting prospect, but a virtual breeding ground for disaster. In the Time article, University of Chicago bio-ethicist Leon Kass offers the following warning. ‘It’s not just that parents will have particular hopes for these children. They will have expectations based on a life that has already been lived. What a thing to do – to carry on the life of a person who has died.’

It’s a burden no person should have to carry, and hopefully we realize that before a grave mistake is made. We are teetering on the brink of something we know little about, and could all too easily fall off.

Matthew J. Despres is a Collegian Columnist.

Information from Time Magazine was used in this article.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *