In recent weeks the world has been embroiled in the debate over the science of cloning. After the announcement of Scottish scientists “recreating” a sheep, and the subsequent disclosure of the same success with monkeys here in the United States, legislators, scientists and citizens alike began dreaming up dooms day scenarios involving seven foot grasshoppers and dogs smarter than most people.

Sadly, the president endorsed this hysteria with urges for legislation limiting the new procedures. With very little information available at this point in regards to the applications and uses of cloning, it is foolish to allow panic to govern behavior or legislation. As a society we must permit our scientists to explore what this technology holds, and not limit them for fear they may build a modern day Frankenstein. It has already been proven that the this technology has tangible medical benefits, many of which could be expanded, given the opportunity.

Before any decisions are made involving this process, we must examine the true nature of our moral protests, and understand where they originated. It is utter hypocrisy to object to the “creation” of animals for experimentation, but at the same time hold no reservations if the process involves exclusively “naturally born” entities. Science should not, and cannot be limited by a cry of unnaturalism, or obscenity.

As human beings it is our obligation to strive for knowledge and ability, if for nothing else, the pure and simple applications they may present in the healing of others. The pioneering techniques involving cloning offer new hope in battling health problems that were, only months ago, insurmountable. Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists from Scotland involved in producing Lucy, sees medical applications that can immediately be implemented.

Currently, his team is in the process of breeding sheep that produce a gene that treats emphysema and cystic fibrosis. The idea is to mass-produce the gene and increase availability through cloning. “The human protein is simply not available, and people with the lung disease die unnecessarily young in the absence of the protein. We should be able to mass produce the protein in the animals and make it less expensive. It would be possible to treat all of the people in the developed world, at least.”

For many this technology represents playing God. However, we must ask ourselves if it were not this technology, would it be something else? Nuclear medicine? Prosthetics? Space exploration? To pronounce cloning as going too far is to draw an arbitrary line in the sand based on fear. A line is drawn that may have the cure for some of our greatest medical challenges on the other side.

The effort to regulate this new science in America is a fallacy of reasoning in itself. Most of the world’s scientists, genetic engineers and lab technicians do not live within the boundaries of the United States and are therefore not subject to any laws we could pass involving the science. It could be naive for anyone to believe such experiments may not already be under way, or, at the very least, in the planning stages somewhere in the world.

George Annas, chairman of Boston University’s health law department was recently quoted as saying, “There is probably no way to prevent [human clone] from happening somewhere in the world.” Any reaction of this science must be carefully reasoned and well researched. It was only two weeks ago Congress was conducting hearings on the matter, simply trying to understand what the process actually entails. It is law writing under this shadow of ignorance that much harm could be done. Blanket legislation would prevent far more good than bad. We must understand what is, before we can decide what should not be.

It would seem appropriate to describe this time as a crossroads. Science has again proven itself, and the world, wrong, and accomplished what only years ago was not possible.

The possibilities now before us were stuff of short stories and movies a short time ago. The fact of the matter is the world is still evolving, as it always will, and should. Our lack or readiness does not give us license to stop it. We must understand the science before we can understand where to take it.

Zuri Jerdon is a senior in English from Cincinnati, Ohio.