John Whitehead's Commentary
Tinkering with Monkeys and the Brave New World
The great science fiction writers, such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, saw it coming. Huxley wrote in 1946 that because of the growing power and prestige of secularist science, people would sooner or later be seen merely as cogs in the machinery of nature. "Human beings, it is more or less tacitly assumed," he said, "are nothing but bodies, animals, even machines." A mere two decades later, in 1964, computer scientist Herbert A. Simon took it a step further. He compared people to ants and added: "Only human pride argues that the apparent intricacies of our path stem from a quite different source than the intricacy of the ant's path."
The general assumption, therefore, of many in the scientific community is that people are mere machines--machines that can be tinkered with if need be. This is why we should be concerned, perhaps even alarmed, with the ever-increasing announcements about genetic manipulation and cloning.
The steps toward a devalued view of people have been methodical. Despite the warning signs, the United States government relaxed its standards on DNA research in 1994. And the August 2000 guidelines to allow federal funding of human embryo cell research by the U.S. government will, according to many, lead a revolution in science. The guidelines allow federal funding--that is, by "us" the taxpayers--for research with stem cells that have been removed from human embryos.
The concept of cloning burst upon the world several years ago with Dolly, the cloned sheep. Although concerns have been raised on the great potential of its misuse, British government commission experts called for a lifting of the ban on human cloning during the summer of 2000.
Obviously, some realized early on that if mammals, especially monkeys, which are thought to be closest to humans biologically, can be cloned, what will stop the next inevitable step, which is human cloning? Apparently little, it seems. The announcement of several weeks ago that American scientists had genetically altered a rhesus monkey certainly heads in this direction. In fact, it marked the first time anyone had so altered a primate--a grouping that also includes humans. The researchers made the monkey by splicing jellyfish genes into eggs of rhesus monkeys, just to see if their technique would work. Ostensibly, the reason for such research is to produce animals with genes that cause various diseases and cancers so that scientists can test new therapies and vaccines to eventually help human beings.
"Before, it was mice. Now monkeys--both cloned and gene-altered," Eric Kleiman, research director of Defense of Animals, an international animal advocacy group, was quoted as saying. "It's pretty clear who is next," he added, "and it will be just as reprehensible when people are manufactured to suit experimenters."
We may indeed be approaching the situation described by Huxley in his landmark 1932 novel Brave New World, which many believed was far off in the future but now seems extremely imminent. Indeed, within the next few years, there could possibly be human clones. Some have posited that such clones would be "soul-less" and could be treated as sub-humans, to be used as servants, warriors, entertainment devices or organ storage places ready to be utilized when a "real" human needs a new liver or pancreas.
Gene manipulation raises many ethical questions as well. If, as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided, the pre-born have no rights, their genes may be altered. But if genetically altered fetuses are eventually born, they will have been genetically changed without their consent. Although current research concentrates on curing inherited diseases, the research may also enable scientists to change basic human characteristics--such as a baby's sex.
All of this will arrive under the guise of a caring and all-wise science. But as Professor Neil Postman of New York University notes, what Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, such "advances" will more likely come from "an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Unfortunately, there is very little outcry about such scientific tinkering, especially from the religious community. In accordance with their tenets about the specialness of people, they should find such experiments revolting. Donald Bruce, however, who is chairman of the Church of Scotland committee that examines ethical issues raised by advances in science and technology, has been outspoken. "To produce replica animals on demand would be to go against something basic and God-given about the nature of life," he said. Moreover, "history suggests we could never rest assured that no human being would dream of exploiting genetics or embryology to evil ends."
The general assumption, therefore, of many in the scientific community is that people are mere machines--machines that can be tinkered with if need be. This is why we should be concerned, perhaps even alarmed, with the ever-increasing announcements about genetic manipulation and cloning.
The steps toward a devalued view of people have been methodical. Despite the warning signs, the United States government relaxed its standards on DNA research in 1994. And the August 2000 guidelines to allow federal funding of human embryo cell research by the U.S. government will, according to many, lead a revolution in science. The guidelines allow federal funding--that is, by "us" the taxpayers--for research with stem cells that have been removed from human embryos.
The concept of cloning burst upon the world several years ago with Dolly, the cloned sheep. Although concerns have been raised on the great potential of its misuse, British government commission experts called for a lifting of the ban on human cloning during the summer of 2000.
Obviously, some realized early on that if mammals, especially monkeys, which are thought to be closest to humans biologically, can be cloned, what will stop the next inevitable step, which is human cloning? Apparently little, it seems. The announcement of several weeks ago that American scientists had genetically altered a rhesus monkey certainly heads in this direction. In fact, it marked the first time anyone had so altered a primate--a grouping that also includes humans. The researchers made the monkey by splicing jellyfish genes into eggs of rhesus monkeys, just to see if their technique would work. Ostensibly, the reason for such research is to produce animals with genes that cause various diseases and cancers so that scientists can test new therapies and vaccines to eventually help human beings.
"Before, it was mice. Now monkeys--both cloned and gene-altered," Eric Kleiman, research director of Defense of Animals, an international animal advocacy group, was quoted as saying. "It's pretty clear who is next," he added, "and it will be just as reprehensible when people are manufactured to suit experimenters."
We may indeed be approaching the situation described by Huxley in his landmark 1932 novel Brave New World, which many believed was far off in the future but now seems extremely imminent. Indeed, within the next few years, there could possibly be human clones. Some have posited that such clones would be "soul-less" and could be treated as sub-humans, to be used as servants, warriors, entertainment devices or organ storage places ready to be utilized when a "real" human needs a new liver or pancreas.
Gene manipulation raises many ethical questions as well. If, as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided, the pre-born have no rights, their genes may be altered. But if genetically altered fetuses are eventually born, they will have been genetically changed without their consent. Although current research concentrates on curing inherited diseases, the research may also enable scientists to change basic human characteristics--such as a baby's sex.
All of this will arrive under the guise of a caring and all-wise science. But as Professor Neil Postman of New York University notes, what Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, such "advances" will more likely come from "an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Unfortunately, there is very little outcry about such scientific tinkering, especially from the religious community. In accordance with their tenets about the specialness of people, they should find such experiments revolting. Donald Bruce, however, who is chairman of the Church of Scotland committee that examines ethical issues raised by advances in science and technology, has been outspoken. "To produce replica animals on demand would be to go against something basic and God-given about the nature of life," he said. Moreover, "history suggests we could never rest assured that no human being would dream of exploiting genetics or embryology to evil ends."
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
