Shapiro, Harold T.

English

bepress Legal Repository

Speech: Stopping Science:  Human Cloning -- Should it be Stopped?

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Health Matrix: The Journal of Law-MedicineVolume 9 | Issue 21999Speech: Stopping Science: Human Cloning --Should it be Stopped?Harold T. ShapiroFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/healthmatrixPart of the Health Law and Policy CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons.It has been accepted for inclusion in Health Matrix: The Journal of Law-Medicine by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve UniversitySchool of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationHarold T. Shapiro, Speech: Stopping Science: Human Cloning -- Should it be Stopped?, 9 Health Matrix 303 (1999)Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/healthmatrix/vol9/iss2/6SPEECHSTOPPING SCIENCE: HUMANCLONING - SHOULD IT BESTOPPED?Harold T. ShapirotI MUST ADMIT THAT "stopping" phrases like "StoppingScience" seem to have a magnetic resonance to them. Indeed, theyhave a certain bracing quality that not only beckons us to purpose-ful action, but often contains either an obvious imperative of somesort, such as "stop the violence," and/or an understandable wish,such as "stop AIDS" or "stop cancer." Indeed, we are now stop-ping so many things that there is a new literary genre dealing withthe End of Empire, the End of History, the End of God, the End ofAffluence, the End of Nation State, and so on.Somewhat less frequently, a different class of "stopping"phrases is developed that urges us to stop something, or slowsomething down that most people think, on balance, is a very goodthing. Here we are presented with a much more subtle matter. Al-though the rallying cry is intended, once again, to promise us abetter world if only we will act, this time the promised prize isavailable only if we have the wisdom to see the futility of our cur-rent beliefs and the dangerous dynamic of our present circum-stances. This special category of "stopping" phrase, therefore, at-tempts to call our attention not only to a complex matter, but tosome previously "hidden" impact and/or meaning of developmentsin a particular area. Thus, for example, however positive develop-ments in science and/or technology may seem, someone is sug-gesting that a deeper look into their full impact would, at the veryt Professor Harold T. Shapiro has been the President of Princeton Universitysince 1988. Prior to that, he spent eight years as the President of the University ofMichigan. Among his many interests is an interest in science policy. He has beenchairman of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee, a commission which issueda report on cloning human beings in June, 1998. He has a Ph.D. in economics fromPrinceton University.HEALTH MATRIXleast, generate some disquiet in our minds, particularly regardingthe meaning of these new developments for our views regardingour own humanity and our "appropriate" role or place in ourworld.In any case, these more subtle "rallying cries" not only call usto action, but call us to account for both our intellectual short-comings and the lethargy that together prevent us poor souls frombeing agents of positive change. Such phrases, therefore, are si-multaneously meant to mobilize us and to scold us for our previousblindness. It is in this category that phrases such as "Stopping Sci-ence" or "Stopping Progress" or "Stopping Religion" or "StoppingTechnology" fall, and since they dare us to think anew about somecentral matters in our lives, our initial reactions are often "flight"(denial) or "fight" (denial again).It is always challenging, and often bewildering, to look belowthe surface of things to uncover a "new truth" that suggests thatone may need to replace previous beliefs with a new set of ideas.Fortunately, contemporary observers have lots of intellectual re-sources for attending to such situations, since a great deal of mod-em thought, from Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Einstein to the ideasthat surround the more recent notion of the Social Construction ofReality, deals with the "uncovering" of truths that replace a set offormer beliefs which have been revealed to have been badly mis-taken or have been proven to be convenient myths. Thus, for ex-ample, our prevailing confidence in human competence, technol-ogy, and science may, in the fullness of time, turn out to be justanother myth that needs to be modified or set aside!I must confess, however, that of the many surprises I have en-countered in an academic career spanning almost four decades,being asked to address a conference with the overall title of "Stop-ping Science" came as a bit of a surprise, although I expect that theorganizers of the conference may be quite serious about the issue.In retrospect, it seems that I began my academic career at a lesssophisticated (i.e. more naYve) moment in my life with the rathersimple idea that I might, through teaching and scholarship, play asmall role in advancing knowledge, thereby improving the humancondition. Even then, I was aware that since ancient times someobservers of the evolving human condition had associated techno-logical and material progress with the dehumanization of mankind,but I thought of them (unjustly) as being on the fringes of societywith little appreciation of the demonstrated capacity of science andtechnology not only to relieve human suffering, but to enhance the[Vol. 9:303HUMAN CLONING - SHOULD IT BE STOPPED?expression of our own humanity. There were always those, I toldmyself, who had a self-interest in opposing change. Almost fourdecades later, despite my continued commitment to skepticism re-garding all manner of current beliefs, I have a more nuanced viewof these matters. My new perspective includes a great deal morerespect of the need for all thoughtful citizens to consider not onlythe impact of science and technology on those cultural institutions,values, and other cultural commitments that sustain our individualand common life, but to contemplate both the proposition that thenature and speed of scientific and technological development are,in part, an optional matter, and that we are all faced with the chal-lenge of finding a way to deal with the mystery that will always liebeyond science itself.More specifically, however, why would anyone want to stopsome branch of scientific investigation or interfere with the exist-ing dynamic underlying the development of new technology? Evenamong those with great respect for the continuing contribution ofscience, there are, of course, ontological arguments having to do,for example, with deeply held views regarding the limits on appro-priate human behavior and/or activity. In addition, there are purelysecular concerns about the continued capacity of human institu-tions and nature itself to survive advancing science and technologyand the associated desires to control and possess all. As HavelockEllis commented in The Dance of Life,The sun and the moon and the stars would have disappearedlong ago . . . had they happened to be within the reach ofpredatory human hands.'Indeed, concerns regarding all these issues are found throughoutthe historical record of Western civilization and are widespread inthe Western literary tradition.For example, the notion that science and technology is Janus-faced - both friend and foe - is a very old one. The idea that ad-vances in science and technology bring both vast good and cata-strophic evil is a truly ancient one and is, for instance, deeply em-bedded in classical Greek culture, where science and technologyare often characterized as having brought both promise and peril,hope and despair. Moreover, even in those early days, the focus ofconcern was on the implications of our new knowledge for the1 HAVELOCK ELLis, THE DANCE OF LiFE 352 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin 1923).3051999]HEALTH MATRIXmeaning of being human and what new and perhaps dark humandesires would be released by our new power. Since the earliestdays, therefore, the issues have been: how do we understand thenature of what it means to be human within the context of our newknowledge about the natural world, and how will these develop-ments influence the future of the human condition? This is a rathernatural concern for those who think deeply about the nature of thehuman condition, as it is hard enough to know who we are, letalone what we shall become. Listen, however, to the voices ofOvid and Sophocles, who speak directly to the issue of mankind'sevolving role and whether limits to our power are an essential as-pect of our humanity.What you want, my son, is dangerous, you ask for power be-yond your strength and years: your lot is mortal. But what youask is beyond the lot of mortals.2Many things are formidable, and none more formidable thanman .... And he wears away the highest of the gods, Earth,immortal and unwearying, as his ploughs go back and forthfrom year'to year .... Skillful beyond hope is the contrivanceof his art, he advances sometimes to evil and other times togood . . . . May he who does such things never sit by myhearth or share my thoughts.3These verses, and the countless others that have become part of theWestern literary tradition, reflect the fact that just below the sur-face of our consciousness there has always been not only a greatdeal of pent-up anxiety regarding the impact of science and newtechnology both on a wide variety of honored practices, importantvalues, and other longstanding cultural commitments, and on theinherent limits on the ability of science and technology to addressimportant aspects of the human condition (e.g., the Faust Legend).Moreover, these concerns have always focused on the fact that sci-ence and technology seem to have very little to say about how hu-man beings should act, or how they are to construct a coherent andsecure narrative of their place in the scheme of things.2 See generally OVID, METAMORPHOSES, BOOK II, 16-17 (A.D. Melville,trans., Oxford Univ. Press 1986).' See generally SOPHOCLES, ANTIGONE, 22-23 (Nicholas Rudall, trans.1998).306 [Vol. 9:303HUMAN CLONING - SHOULD IT BE STOPPED?Of course, alternative views about science and technologyalso have an ancient lineage. Aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic,for example, particularly the notion of humankind's perpetual pro-gress within the divine unfolding of history (e.g., the ExodusStory), have been responsible for, some would say, transforming areverence for nature to a "mere" resource to support humankind'sefforts to achieve their (and God's) program of upward progress.Consider the following verses from Genesis:God said: Let us make humankind, in our image, according toour likeness! Let them have dominion over.., all the Earth... . Bear fruit and be many and fill the Earth and subdue it!4The same verses, of course, not only have a variety of interpreta-tions, but also provide support for the widely held Western notionof the moral superiority of human life over other forms of life.Whatever else one may say about science, one must allow thatit can be quite subversive, since its focus on revealing the previ-ously unseen reality of things works against the stability of currentbeliefs and our trust in or even reverence for certain values that arerequired to sustain certain valuable human institutions. While itmay seem fine to have the "real truth" out (it certainly seems betterthan sustained ignorance!), our social institutions often rely ontrust - as opposed to skepticism and even, as noted above, a rever-ence for a particular set of beliefs.In our own time, of course, we must both celebrate and con-tend with the fact that science and technology are advancing at anunprecedented rapid pace. To the extent, therefore, that scienceworks to undermine our faith in existing arrangements for our in-dividual and common life, it is a moment of considerable reflec-tion on the meaning of these developments. In addition to the rapidoverall pace of scientific and technological progress, the currentscientific environment is characterized by truly extraordinary ad-vances in the life sciences and information technologies, and bothof these areas have already had a deep impact on our social, politi-cal, cultural, and economic environment, New information tech-nologies, for instance, have not only changed the way we worktogether, but are impacting the scientific agenda in almost all ar-eas. Developments in life sciences - especially genetics - are inti-mately related not only to the clinical practice of medicine and all4 GENESIS 1:26-28 (American Standard).1999]HEALTH MATRIXaspects of agriculture, but to issues of how we understand birthand death, human identity, the limits (if any) of intellectual prop-erty, the social and economic role of free markets, health andsafety issues, and the future of our environment.The impact of these developments has been so startling andperplexing to some, that many observers believe that a consider-able level of scientific and technological hostility, supported by achasm between the dynamic of scientific and technological devel-opments and our general social inertia, is becoming more wide-spread. Furthermore, at the current time, a growing distrust in bothbusiness enterprise, experts of all stripes, and government agenciesto take responsible positions in these areas has added to the levelof concern.In such a context, it is always important to remember thatanyone who has actually studied the material condition of humansocieties over time cannot help but be impressed by the contribu-tion of science and technology, not only to a fuller understandingof the natural world and a fuller expression of our humanity, but tothe reduction of individual human suffering. Nevertheless, as withthe Ancients, we must continue to acknowledge that while theredoes not seem to be anything particularly convincing about callingnew scientific developments or other threats to previous beliefsdehumanizing, these developments do bring in their wake a certaindisquiet and perplexity to many.My own view is that sustaining the intellectual authority ofthe scientific community requires their willingness to take appro-priate action as new scientific understandings emerge. This is asocial as well as a scientific process. Social decisions are not andcannot be left to scientists alone.A striking mismatch continues to exist between the concernsof public policymakers and scientists. The concerns of scientistsfocus on issues of cost, risk, and benefit. The concerns of the pub-lic, however, focus on moral acceptability. Science, however, doesnot deal with issues like better or worse, or have much to say aboutfreedom, virtue, childhood, identity, etc. - issues which haveseemed to matter to us for a long time. We need to acknowledgethat there is much about the conduct of life that is not addressed byscience.Does our survival as humans require a shift in our values andaspirations? Is it true that the only way we save our souls is to findsome moral compass, or moral limits, to our desire to conquer andcontrol all and to possess all? Perhaps only such limits can save us[Vol. 9:3031999] HUMAN CLONING - SHOULD IT BE STOPPED? 309from the moral ambiguity of our own cleverness. We need not onlyto distinguish between self-interest and community interest, senti-mentality and careful thought, learning and imagination, but tounderstand the power and limitations of knowledge.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1485&amp;context=healthmatrix

Speech: Stopping Science: Human Cloning -- Should it be Stopped?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Case Western Reserve University School of Law