The Daily has the right to print whatever it wants, but it would be nice if the editors and writers could do a little research and think through their positions before publishing arguments that have no connection to reality, and thus hurt their positions. A perfect example are the editorial in Thursday’s Jan. 22 edition, and Ben Jones’ column in the same edition, both calling for a ban on cloning research. All these arguments are identical to the ones used 20 years ago when in vitro fertilization (IVF) was first used in humans (“test-tube babies”). Civilization has not collapsed because of IVF, and civilization will not collapse because of cloning technology.

First of all, cloning does not equal eternal life. Mother Nature has been cloning humans for millions of years. The results are called “identical twins.” Imagine if you could clone a twin of yourself. Then you die. How does that twin carry on your life experiences, your memories and your thoughts?

Second, a basic lesson from Genetics 101 is that the phenotype of an organism (the characteristics of an organism) is composed of three components: a genetic component, an environmental component and an interaction component between genetics and the environment. Although the contribution of each component cannot be easily quantified, it’s safe to say that, in most cases, the genetic component is quite small. One cannot create a carbon copy of one’s personality simply by duplicating the genes. The environment that child is raised in must be identical, and even then, the interaction component is so poorly understood that the chances of having an individual with an identical personality is nearly 0 percent. This is why we often have identical twins with identical genes who were raised in identical environments who still have personalities as different as Yin and Yang. This is also why trying to “program” clones as “killing machines” or pharmaceutical “guinea pigs” or “slaves” will fail. The variations in expression of genes plus the effects of the environment and interaction components yield virtually infinite possibilities for diverse personalities and characters. Clones will be full humans in every sense of the word.

Third, we live in a capitalistic nation. There is obviously a huge prospect for profit in producing organs that will not be rejected by the body (more on this later). But where is the profit in producing whole humans? Private companies obviously can’t make a profit on a technology that takes millions of dollars of investment and has such a high rate of failure. The only source of money is the government. What do you think the reaction would be on Capitol Hill if a scientist came into Congress and said, “I want $1 trillion to replace the U.S. Armed Forces with an army of ‘killing machine’ clones”? I don’t think recruiting officers are going to lose their jobs for a very long time.

Fourth, if it takes $1 million to make a clone (which is only a fraction of how much it took to clone Dolly), how much do you think that’s going to alter the world’s population?

Fifth, the real benefit of cloning, in my opinion, lies in the production of organs which are identical to the patient’s own organs and have no chance of rejection. Right now, if you need a new liver, for example, you have two choices: 1) death, and 2) pray that somebody will die and donate you a liver, with a very high percentage that you will die due to a massive immune response, or total collapse of your immune system. One option being researched is xenotransplantation, or the use of human organs grown in animals such as pigs. However, on the very next page of Thursday’s Daily (p. 6) is an article about a group of prominent scientists calling for a ban on xenotransplantations due to the risk of viruses. Now imagine you are this patient, facing either death or probable-death, and the technology that could save you by creating a new liver, your OWN liver, has been banned because of fears of “killing machines.”

Sixth, Mr. Jones says that scientists can “program brains.” This is news to me. How exactly is this done?

Seventh, how could clones be discriminated by society at large? They have no differences in body shape or skin color. Would they have to wear labels on their clothing, like the Nazis did with pink triangles on homosexuals?

Eighth, a lot has been made that “only God should be able to create life.” This assumes that God must endow all humans with a soul. OK, fine and dandy. Why would an omnipotent God be unable to endow a clone with a soul? This argument was used 20 years ago when IVF was first used in humans, and the “test-tube babies” have grown up to be quite happy, personable adults, with all evidence that they have as much of a soul as anybody else.

These are eight points that come just out of Thursday’s Daily. I didn’t include any rebuttals to Wednesday’s edition since I didn’t see Wednesday’s edition. But I would hope this would clear up any misunderstandings that biologists are “out to destroy the world,” a common refrain over the past 10 years, and one that has been constantly refuted by the tremendous benefits that the Biotechnology Revolution has brought to our quality of life.

Jim Cheaney

Graduate student

Zoology