sign in sign up
<<
Home , Human cloning

BOOK REVIEW

Contributors to the book include provides very little information that has and bioethecists, social scientists, lawyers, not already been discussed in other physicians, political scientists, human- bioethical dilemmas. The authors men- Human : The ists, theologians and scientists. Only 3 of tion assisted reproductive techniques (in Report of the the 18 authors appear to be biologists. vitro fertilization, cryopreserva- What’s more, none of the contributors tion and pre-implantation genetic diag- President’s Council on has any experience with cloning animals nosis) but do not point out the ethical or with assisted reproductive techniques. and moral issues that also apply to con- One has to wonder whether anyone in- traception, abortion, adoption, divorce, volved with writing this book has ever single parenthood (through artificial in- by Leon R. Kass looked into a microscope and observed semination or otherwise), genetic test- Public Affairs Books, $14.00, the beauty of a pre-implantation em- ing, euthanasia, suicide, child abuse, 352 pp, 2002 bryo—human or otherwise. The council and homosexuality, sought out viewpoints of others through to name a few. I could not find anything REVIEWED BY MARK WESTHUSIN reading, invited testimony and public in this book unique to the issue of Texas A&M University comment, but the book provides few de- human cloning, other than concerns College Station, Texas, USA tails as to where (or from whom) this in- about inefficiency, high abortion rates formation was obtained and how much, and the potential for developmental ab- Let me begin by saying that I do not sup- if any, was included. Why was no one in- normalities, all of which are well-docu- port human cloning. It does not feel volved with stem- research, animal mented elsewhere. right to me and, more important, there is cloning or assisted reproduction in hu- While I found this book ineffectual, I a significant likelihood based on animal mans asked to participate? would like to emphasize that I have the studies that it would result in high rates The book describes panelists as “not utmost respect for the panelists and do http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine of abortion and develop- experts but simply not question their qualifications, motives mental abnormalities. I re- thoughtful human be- or contributions. Nor do I take lightly main undecided on the ings.” That implies their arguments, opinions and sugges- issue of therapeutic cloning experts are not tions for a public policy on human cloning for biomedical re- thoughtful, but go about cloning. The book’s most significant con- search, however. This book their business with little tribution is its mention of a need for dis- did little, if anything, to in- regard for the potential cussion, review and evaluation of the fluence my thinking or po- consequences of their re- ethical and moral issues surrounding as- sition on either of these search. On the contrary, I sisted reproduction in . But I do matters, and I am skeptical would venture to say that not understand why cloning has been sin- that it will do so for any- most scientists ponder gled out for so much attention. Why, for one else. The book is little ethical questions much example, would one suggest banning the more than a compilation more than do others. production of human by nuclear

© Group 2003 Publishing of rhetoric derived primar- Including such experts transfer to create stem cells, yet leave in- ily from the popular press, would have brought to tact the ability to legally produce human public discussions and per- the table information embryos by in vitro fertilization and use sonal opinions. It pays only minor atten- critical to forming educated opinions those for production? This tion to the of cloning and other and recommendations. seems rather hypocritical. There are, per- assisted reproductive techniques and to One can produce genetically identical haps, some other ethical and moral con- the role science (and scientists) should , for example, by splitting an em- cerns that are unique to human cloning, play in forming public policy. bryo rather than by nuclear transfer. Half but I could not find them in this book. The cover of the book depicts a of the embryo could be frozen for trans- human fingerprint; the ‘foreword’ adds fer later, to produce twins of different that fingerprints represent our unique ages—is this unethical? Would it be ac- personal identity and suggests that ceptable to harvest and store a few em- Do you have thoughts or cloning humans would take away this bryonic cells for potential use as stem ideas for individuality. But the book fails to men- cells? In theory it may also someday be the Book Review section? tion that even genetically identical possible to collect a single cell from a We actively solicit your twins produced by natural means do blonde-haired, blue-eyed male and, suggestions for books not share the same fingerprints. Given using advanced techniques of in vitro what we now know about variations in gamatogenesis (which will surely be or topics. mitochondrial DNA and epigenetic ef- available) and nuclear transfer, produce a fects on the phenotype of cloned ani- brown-haired, brown-eyed, girl. The re- Nature Medicine welcomes mals, there is good reason to believe sult would obviously not be a , or at your comments – that clones would be less identical than all genetically identical, but derived from you may contact genetically identical twins. It is this a single cell of a single person. Would us at our email address: type of misinformation, evident that be ethical? throughout the book, that calls into Excluding expert researchers has re- [email protected] question its value. sulted in a book that, in my opinion,

502 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 9 • NUMBER 5 • MAY 2003