Basic HTML Version
Cloning:DuplicatingHumans
Imagine a world where hundreds,
thousands, perhaps millions of
people all look exactly alike. They
have the same strengths and weak–
nesses, the same proclivities and
interests. In short , tbey are identi–
cal replicas of one individual. Such
a world
may~e
possible in the
near future .
So far, human reproduction has
always occurred through the union
of a sperrn and an· egg - the sex
cells of male and female. But sci–
entists know that all the other cells
of the body contain a full set of
genetic instructions for the entire
individual. Thus if a body cell
could be made to divide and grow,
the result could be a reproduction
of the person that donated that
cell.
This method of asexual procre–
ation is called "cloning," and it has
already been successfully accom–
plished with plants, fruit fties and
frogs.
In 1968, Dr. J. B. Gurdon of
Oxford University obtained an un–
fertilized egg cell from an African
clawed frog. He destroyed the
egg's nucleus (containing the egg's
genetic code) with radiation. Gur–
don then took a
body
cell from
another frog, removed its nucleus
with tiny surgical tools, and im–
planted
it
in the egg cell. The new
"cell" combination began growing
and dividing, and produced a new
tadpole which grew up to be an
identical twin of the frog that do–
nated the nucleus!
How would cloning work with
human beings? Roughly the same
way. A healthy egg could be re–
moved from a woman's body and
its nucleus destroyed . Then the nu-
process known as nitrogen fixation.
Such a breakthrough would dramat–
ically reduce the world's depen–
dence on costly fertilizers.
l ndustry is also very interested in
capitalizing on the new biology. At
least one company is trying to use
genetic manipulation to create a
strain of bacteria that will li terally
eat up oil spills.
Yet, wh ile optimism over the
40
cleus from a cell taken from an–
other person (the "donor") would
replace the destroyed nucleus. The
egg would then be reimplanted in
the uterus of a woman and
all~wed
to grow into a "photo copy" of the
donor. In principie, the proces.s
could be repeated hundreds, thou–
sands, yes millions of times (every–
body has trillions of cells he or she
could "donate" for such purposes).
The consequences of human
cloning are ahiwst impossible to
imagine. The family unit would
have little reason to exist; sexual
relations would no longer be
needed for reproduction. The
whole concept of parenthood, of
being a "father" or "mother"
would need to be revised or
pei–
haps discarded.
What would cloning be used to
produce? Perhaps millions of iden–
tical soldiers, cloned from the most
aggressive and belligerent .stock
available? Perhaps a race of com–
placent passivists? A community of
Einsteins? Perhaps an aging despot
would seek to ensure bis throne
with a clone - his genetic double.
(Would the real ldi Amin please
stand up!) Or perhaps millions of
people would seek a new form of
"immortality" by engendering nu–
merous clones of themselves.
Fertilization of human eggs has
already been accomplished in the
laboratory, and such eggs have
been successfully implanted in
human "mothers." Such tech–
niques are essential prerequisites
for implementing cloning. If clon–
ing becomes acceptable in the fu–
ture , human society will be
dramatically altered - perhaps
beyond recognition.
genetic manipulation remains high
in many circles, an increasing sense
of alarm is being expressed by a
growing number of scientists. The
primary danger is that a new kind of
virulent virus or bacteria might
eventually be produced that could
infect other organisms. This is espe–
cially likely in view of the fact that
the prime organism currently used
in genetic research is
E.
Coli.
a bac-
teria that is a normal inhabi tant of
the human digestive tract and which
can easily enter the body through
the mouth or nose.
. "1 myself mus t admi t that, while
r
felt uneasy about future hazards
when I carried out experiments on
bacteria! transformation
15
years
ago, I did not ponder the full scope
of the problem unti l recently." con–
fides Dr. Liebe F. Cavalieri , profes–
so r of biochemis try a t Cornell
University. Warns Cavalieri: "A
single unrecognized accident could
contaminate the ent ire earth with an
ineradicable and dangerous agent
that might not reveal its presence
until its deadly work was done.. . .
It
is possible, intentionally or unin–
tentionally, to construct highly dan–
gerous agents of other types, worse
than anything yet envisioned in bio–
logical warfa re."
Dr. Robert Sinsheimer, chairman
of the Biology Division of the Cali–
forn ia Inst itute of Technology,
warns that the new genetics may
well be irreversible. "Because of
human fa ll ibility, these new orga–
nisms are almost certain to escape,"
Sinsheimer told
Tite Plain Truth.
"There's no way to recapture them,
and thus we have the great potential
for a major calamity."
Erwin Chargaff, professor emeri–
tus of Columbia Universi ty and
long-time researcher on the charac–
teristics of DNA, states: "l should
say that the spreading of experi–
mental cancer may be confidently
expected."
A chilling confirmation of Char–
gaff's prediction has al ready oc–
curred . Resea rchers in T ex a s
recently sounded críes of grave con–
cero when they succeeded in genet–
ica lly tinkering with an otherwise
harmless mouse cancer virus, only
to find that it was now capable of
causing tumors in other species!
"1 th ink our initial feel ing was
more of fear than anything else,"
admitted Dr. Alfred Hellman, chief
of the Office of Biological Safety at
the Southwest Foundation in San
Antonio. " If it's doing this to these
animals, what's it going to do to us?
And if it happens to us, it could
happen to anybody."
Because of the fu ror over genetic
manipulation, the National Institute
of . Health has recently provided
The
PLAIN TRUTH March 1977