Recent cloning books

"The Copy Shop" by Paul Raeburn -- a lengthy review of Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World by Lee M. Silver (Avon Books, 1997), re: "Wrestling with ethics on biotechnology's new frontier." The reviewer writes that "No question is too speculative, remote or absurd for Silver, a Princeton University biologist and geneticist who teaches bioethics. He entertains even the wildest and most speculative notions because -- as he argues persuasively -- the future is already here. Many genetic and reproductive manipulations that seem to be science fiction are far closer to reality than we recognize."

Silver "raises the possibility that a lesbian couple might have a child that is genetically related to both of them, through a process known as embryo fusion. He talks about 'the Michael Jordan scenario,' in which a nurse might surreptitiously steal a few drops of blood from Michael Jordan during a routine physical and sell it on the black market to be used in cloning. He explains the mechanics of fetal matches, in which immature eggs and sperm progenitors would be removed from aborted or miscarried fetuses to create children whose parents were never born.... Midway through the book ... a disturbing message becomes clear. Nearly every tale ends with the same punch line: the technology to do this is already in hand. Almost everything needed to accomplish these feats has already been done in mice or other laboratory animals...."

Silver also "finds dizzying layers of contradiction in most religious and ethical arguments against one or another reproductive or genetic technology. Many of the arguments are based on the notion that there is a 'specialness' about human reproduction or human embryos or human life.... Referring to a technique -- already accomplished with mice -- that could lead to the production of human sperm in, say, the testes of a pig, Silver says: 'The "specialness" of humanity has been challenged, and it's been found wanting.... There is *nothing* special about human reproduction.'" And so on. New York Times Book Review, Jan 11 '98, p11.

"'Clone': A Frankenstein Monster Ended Up Being a Lamb" by Ed Regis -- a review (pro, not con) of Clone, by Gina Kolata (William Morrow, 1997). Kolata equates past thought on the subject of cloning with science-fiction on the same level as horror classics. Perceived moral problems with cloning are relegated to the domain of "professional doomsayers" and purveyors of "apocalyptic nonsense." In Clone, "scientists bent on manipulating nature for their own ends" are transformed into bearers of "ennoblement, proud that we as a species have managed to perform this phenomenal feat of applied biology." Gives the background behind the scientific exercise which created the first clone of great notice, "Dolly," the sheep in Roslin, Scotland. Chronicles the obstacles and solutions leading to how cloning is now scientifically possible. New York Times, Jan 1 '98, n.p.

Post Script: "Ewe and Cry"

To the Editor:

John R G. Turner's able review of Gina Kolata's "Clone" (Dec. 28) exaggerates when it says that "effectively no moral debate could take place on human cloning" prior to "the creation of Dolly." In 1966-67 Joshua Lederberg, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, began public discussions of the issue. His motives were candidly eugenic: "improvement" of the genetic qualities of humankind. The theologian Paul Ramsey's reply in 1968 became a classic for those who opposed human cloning on moral grounds. Many colleges and professional societies sponsored forums on the scientific, legal, political, ethical and religious issues.

Then the subject fell into neglect because, as Turner rightly says, it seemed to deal with idle conjectures, not real possibilities. Dolly brought a re-emergence of old debates.

Roger L. Shinn

Southbury, Conn.

(The above "Post Script" comes verbatim from The New York Times Book Review, January 25, 1998, p4. Note that it refers to a different review than the one above by Ed Regis.)