As an ISU alumni and a scientist I periodically check in on the Daily’s opinion section whenever there is a recent achievement in science. Usually I dismiss its misinterpretations of science as the typical irrational thinking and sensationalism endemic of young, naive journalists. On the topic of cloning, however, I feel I should respond to some abuses made against this new science.

First, one should remember that advances in science are always good. Technology can be used for the better or the worse, but having the ability, or knowledge, to do something can only be positive and empowering. There is nothing that should remain unknown. Indeed, even the most insidious technology, nuclear weapons, has been highlighted recently as a possible defense against an asteroid striking earth. Remember, to deny knowledge is to relegate one’s destiny to that of the elements, the supernatural, or those who have the knowledge.

Second, to suggest that someone is “playing God” is hypocritical. The statement requires someone to impose his conception of God onto another. Nothing is more like “playing God” than forcing someone to abide by your religion or burn in your hell. As a society we must obey moral principles and laws of conduct which sustain the society and, thereby, respect the individual, the basis of society. Any rational objections to a technology will be based on these principles and not on subjective concepts.

Third, It would be refreshing to see a journalist truly explore the larger issues instead of predicting Frankenstein monsters and armies of Hitler (whose DNA whereabouts aren’t even known). What about the issue of genetic ownership? I happen to believe that I have a right to my genetic pattern and its destiny. Which means that no one can clone me without my permission. Do I have the right to clone myself and leave my inheritance to my clone? If not, on what basis do you deny me that right? Religion? What if I believe in reincarnation and that cloning is the means by which man was meant to do this? Do you then deny me my religious rights? Do you play God? On the other hand, what if I prove to be resistant to a disease that wipes out most of the population? Should society not be allowed to study my DNA and use it if necessary to save millions of people? What if bringing back Einstein, Newton, or Ghandi could improve science and medicine, end wars and save millions of people? Does society have this right?

Lastly, I would like to point out another mistake in reasoning: the futility argument against cloning. This was represented in Shuva Rahim’s column where it is suggested that all the characteristics we might hope to reproduce in a clone are dependent on the environment. Therefore, we could never hope to actually reproduce another Einstein and would only create an independent twin. If this is the case, then the end result is that another individual is born amongst the millions of others born everyday. This is not an argument against cloning. The only arguments that could be raised against this event would have to apply to existing in vitro fertilization technologies.

Bill Nordstrom

ISU graduate in genetics