The action-fantasy film “The Matrix” described a nightmarish future filled with fierce kung-fu fighting. Human beings were no longer born, but grown and used as energy-producing batteries to power a race of sentient machines.
The movie was entertaining science-fiction, but a disturbing scenario is now playing out in Olympia, where pending legislation would legalize the creation of human life for the sole purpose of destruction for its raw materials. The creation of human clones could be on the fast track in Washington .
Engrossed House Bill 1268 passed the state House of Representatives. Despite a recent, narrow defeat in the Senate, a notice to reconsider was made and the bill is still pending in the Senate.
At first glance, the bill seems innocuous and even laudable. It states that “any attempt to clone a human being is in direct conflict with the policies of this state.”
But this is deceptive. EHB 1268 re-defines “cloning of a human being” to the point that it almost runs counter to common understanding. The bill specifically says that the currently favored cloning method, somatic cell nuclear transplantation (SCNT) can and should be used to clone humans. Roughly speaking, SCNT is the asexual creation of life by fusing a body (or “somatic”) cell of one animal into an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The result is a cloned embryo that is the genetic twin of the animal that provided the body cell. Cloning proponents hope to use the cloned embryos for the stem cells they contain.
All the bill actually prohibits is allowing a human clone to survive to full-term. Any act of cloning short of giving birth is permitted under EHB 1268. Anyone who allows a clone to survive to birth would be penalized.
To justify the legislation, cloning proponents have hidden behind a dubious distinction between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning.
But again, the only practical difference between these two “different” practices is whether the cloned human being is allowed to survive.
And that restriction on human clone birthing is the only restriction in the entire piece of legislation. EHB 1268 is too open-ended, providing no ethical guidance or limits on any other form of questionable cloning-related experimentation.
Resistance to the creation of full-term human clones is understandable for many reasons. With current medical technology, cloned human life would be strongly susceptible to defects. The cloning of other animals has required countless trials and resulted in low success rates, with the few successes being marred by abnormalities and shortened life spans. But even so, isn’t it bizarre for legislators to push a bill that promotes human cloning while simultaneously requiring the destruction of any cloned human life? We are faced with the prospect of a whole class of human life that must, by law, be destroyed. This is dangerous precedent, to say the least.
Biotechnology provides humanity with enormous potential to improve our standard of living. Medical and scientific breakthroughs have already been made through the genetic modification of plants, through the humane use of animal experimentation, through the use of human adult stem cells and through a whole host of areas of research that most of us are completely unaware of. A myriad of possible benefits still await humanity through biotech. Wouldn’t it be better for our state’s biotech industry if our legislators and governor were to focus on improving the state’s general business climate, instead of seizing on one small portion of one branch of one industry – and the most ethically problematic portion, at that?
Recently, the U.N. General Assembly condemned all human cloning in an important, but symbolic, vote. Other nations have banned human cloning. Since the recognition of inherent human worth formed the basis of the Washington state Constitution’s declaration that “all political power is inherent in the people,” we should also consider a statewide ban on human cloning. An amendment to EHB, offered by Sen. Val Stevens (R-Arlington), would ban cloning. But without further amendment, EHB 1268 would take us in an entirely different direction, enshrining in law the idea that human life can be created solely so it can be destroyed and used as a material resource.
Just think of “The Matrix” and human batteries, without the cool kung-fu fighting.
Seth Cooper is an attorney with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science &Culture. Timothy Goddard is a freelance writer and blogger with a background in biology. Both authors are contributors to Sound Politics (www.soundpolitics.com).
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
