CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL: P.0.80X3159
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
Perspectives
editor-in-chief
Sarah Kickler
editorial editor
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Carl Yeh
Cloning humans should be debated, not dismissed
By copying the irrational claims
of cloning's foes, the Oregonian
and others haven'tproven why
human cloning is immoral
I opened the Oregonian editorial page
Tuesday morning, skimmed through
the usual collection of uncontrover
sial, poorly thought out editorials and
paused in anger when I reached the bottom
entry.
The Oregonian couldn’t be more
wrong, I thought to myself. Then I real
ized this was foolish. Of course the Ore
gonian could be more wrong. It regularly
weighs in with a delightful combination of
mainstream ignorance and Christian mor
alizing that would be offensive if it weren't
amusing; witness the five-part diatribe dur
ing the doctor-assisted suicide debate.
The editorial in question, titled “No
cloning around” (man, those headline writ
ers sure make me laugh), argued in favor of
a ban on human cloning in the Unit
ed States. According to the piece,
a decision to impose such a ban is
“an easy one for
Congress” because
no constituency, ( jr
organized or unor
ganized, opposes”
such regulations.
I may not constitute a
constituency. Nor may
my friends, who, scat
tered across the country
Schmierbach and debating the issue
over e-mail when it first
arose, generally agreed with me. Neverthe
less, a substantial number of people are
having a hard time understanding how
President Clinton can justify the claim the
Oregonian echoed — that human cloning is
“untested and unsafe, and morally unac
ceptable.”
Whom exactly does cloning threaten?
The scientific community may have little
to gain from experimentation with human
cloning, but it is difficult to see how in
creased knowledge about the subject could
harm science.
Many European nations have already
signed a treaty putting a five-year ban on
human cloning experiments. According to
an Associated Press story, Dr. Axel Kahn, a
medical ethicist at the National Institute for
Health and Medical Research in Paris, the
harm of cloning would be that it represents
“an insult to human rights."
Khan argues that “to clone humans in
this completely new way means they will
no longer have autonomy, because some
one decided what their hair color and their
other characteristics would be. ” If such a
,2^
pathetic claim were not laughable, it would
be infuriating. I’m not sure what the case
was for Kahn, but the rest of us were born
without control of such genetically deter
mined traits as hair color.
The only clear harm I can see originating
from cloning is that it would further weak
en the claims of religious leaders, who
have long complained that the “sanctity of
human life” was not being adequately re
spected because of practices like abortion
and birth control. Sex without reproduc
tion is wrong, according to these groups.
So, too, apparently, is reproduction with
out sex.
Like the author of the Oregonian editori
al and many other cloning opponents, I too
have read “Brave New World” and its
warnings about a society where class is de
termined by the bottle in which you were
cloned. Regardless, I don’t think mention
ing the book constitutes an effective argu
ment against a new technology.
If cloning represents the moral evil oppo
nents suggest, there ought to be a clear jus
tification for the anti-cloning position. Ref
erences to books and stories about people
being raised for organs do not constitute
such an ethical justification.
Human cloning could certainly be used
in an immoral manner. Creating a person
simply for organs is ethically wrong,
whether done by parents using “tradi
tional” reproductive methods (as some
families with children who need bone
marrow or organ transplants do now) or
using human cloning. Conducting med
ical experiments upon human beings
without their autonomous consent is eth
ically wrong.
The problem is that cloning doesn’t nec
essarily equate with these practices. Rather
than condemning the technology for what
could potentially be done with it, oppo
- nents of human cloning shoul d either
forbid only the unethical practices or
should come up with a compelling
reason why human cloning is inher
ently unethical.
Unfortunately, the people the media
have selected as proponents of human
cloning aren’t doing much better. Richard
Seed, a physicist, has announced he in
tends to conduct experiments with human
cloning, either in the United States or else
where if the practice is banned.
The Oregonian, Clinton and others are
using this threat, made by a man who prob
ably lacks the facilities or the scientific
knowledge to follow through, as justifica
tion for immediate action to stop cloning.
An artificially created deadline for debate
should not prevent intelligent, rational dis
cussion about the issue.
This discussion needs to look beyond
both reactionary responses from religious
leaders and their “bio-ethicist” kin and
threats from technophiles like Seed. In
stead, it should consider individual plans
to conduct cloning experiments on their
ethical merits.
I certainly don’t think science should oc
cur simply for the sake of science, without
ethical discussion or moral consideration.
Too often, scientists trapped in their own
amoral discourse ignore the realities of the
world they experiment on.
Nor do I think the work of medical ethi
cists or the autonomy of human beings can
be ignored. There is a clear ethical justifica
tion for protecting both human life and au
tonomy. (For that matter, there is a clear
justification to protect the rights of ani
mals, although the Oregonian, in its rush to
protect human dignity, has no qualms
about conducting similar experiments on
sheep.)
The question is whether life or autono
my are threatened by cloning. Thus far, 1
have seen no argument that would prove
they necessarily are.
What I have seen is flip claims by the
Oregonian and other “authorities” who use
metaphors about golf and pun-laden head
lines in the absence of persuasive rhetoric
or logical debate.
Mike Sch m ierbach is the editorial editor for the
Emerald. His views do not necessarily repre
sent those of the neicspaper.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Knight or Nike?
Duncan McDonald (ODE, Jan
6) says that Dave Frohnmayer
didn’t receive a $1 million salary
increase, that there is a provision
for the creation of a “Knight
Chair” to the tune of $40,000 per
year (for 25 years based on $1
million) and that the gift was
“private.”
The gift may have been private,
but didn’t it still come from Un
cle Phil? Isn’t Knight in some way
still affiliated with Nike? Bottom
line: Knight or Nike, el presidente
is still bought and sold.
One million or $40,000 for 25
years? Bottom line: Buy not just
one president, buy all presidents
for the next 25 years.
McDonald doesn’t explicitly
state there are no corporate ties
on our fair campus, but he does
ask Claudia Villena for examples.
Well, it seems that the folks over
at the athletic department wear
little besides Nike products these
days. Oh yeah, that banner
protesting Nike at one of last
year’s football games sure didn’t
last long.
James Palandri
Graduate student
Modify money committee
Student Action for Labor and
Equity held a rally Wednesday,
Dec. 3 in favor of holding private
donations to the University ac
countable to the University’s mis
sion statement. SALE believes
that money made by exploiting
the environment or human rights
should not be allowed to benefit
the University.
SALE asks that the University
allow student involvement in the
review of private donations over
$10,000. Speaking on behalf of
the University, Duncan McDon
aid stated that “there is a standing
committee made up of deans, di
rectors and the University presi
dent as well as representatives
from the Department of Universi
ty Development and the Oregon
Foundation who review dona
tions on an individual basis if
there are substantial questions
about a gift” (ODE, Dec. 4). There
is something that this committee
desperately lacks: student repre
sentation. I respect the hard work
the Oregon Foundation puts forth
to raise needed money for our
public institution. However, the
University currently accepts large
amounts of money from donors
with no policy that upholds the
University mission statement
throughout this process. Large
private donations undoubtedly
give donors access to the Univer
sity and pose a potential danger
to the direction the University is
taking into the 21st century.
McDonald claims that Nike is
not “doing something so egre
gious and so outrageous to offend
the greater public’s sensibility.”
So, McDonald does not find it of
fensive that Nike has taken its
manufacturing jobs away from
the United States and brought
them to Indonesia and Vietnam
for cheap labor. Cheap labor and
expensive products give Nike
massive profit margins. This
makes it possible for Nike to
make $25 million donations to
the University. While these dona
tions benefit the University, I en
courage all members of this insti
tution to ask a question or two.
Why was this money not used to
keep the jobs here in the first
place? Why doesn’t Nike share
the profits with the current labor
force? After all, without the sweat
of many Third World people,
Nike’s financial success would not
be as sizable as it currently is.
Sure, by Nike’s own reports, con
ditions are great for overseas work
ers. On a comparative scale, this
may be true. Several other manu
facturers have taken jobs away
from the United States and given
them to the Third World labor
force in pursuit of massive profits.
McDonald and SALE both
want the University to grow in
excellence. That is precisely why
SALE has drafted a policy per
taining to the acceptance of pri
vate dollars to our public institu
tion. McDonald rejects the need
of a policy of this sort: “There are
no corporate ties at the University
that dishonor us.” If we as a uni
versity have no dishonorable ties,
why is an acceptance policy
problematic?
Michael Olson
SALE