ORANGE JOURNALISM: A juicy JR134 class project

On February 22^nd, 1997, people all across the world watched in awe as news channels announced the creation of the first cloned animal to the world: a sheep by the name of Dolly. At that time, cloning was still a relatively new term to some, but it has become much more well-known since then. According to Wikipedia, cloning has been defined as "the process of [artificially] creating an identical copy of an original organism or thing." It gives a more in-depth and biological description as being, "a molecule, single cell, or multi-cellular organism that has been directly copied from and is therefore genetically identical to another living organism."

With her birth, Dolly brought exciting new possibilities into the world of science, ranging from stem-cell research to human cloning. Genetic-enhancements and artificial creations became a tangible reality to strive towards, no longer something in a science fiction novel. Yet the reaction to this scientific breakthrough was and continue to remain varied, as members from two opposite ends of the spectrum (and some in between) argue for and against the progression of genetic engineering, and ponder over whether or not scientists should get the green light for human-cloning.

Scientists and ethicists share disagreements on this very contentious topic. San Jose State Psychobiology Professor Ron Rogers believes that both genetic engineering and cloning "will greatly enhance the health, welfare, and quality of life for many, many people."

Likewise, University of Southern California medical student Adia Freeman pointed out the many advantages that cloning research would have, by saying that the purpose of cloning research is to provide "stem cells to people who have, for example, Alzheimer's--the stem cells will grow new tissue that was lost in these diseases." Freeman went on to point out that “the benefit of cloning to people with pernicious diseases is far greater than the risk of the slippery slope."

In What Scientists Think, by Jeremy Stangroom, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, stated, "I would say that the discovery of stem cells, and of their potential to transform into any tissue type in the body, really offers the possibility of one of the most significant advances in the history of medical treatments." However, he went on to point out that there are moral objections that come up with stem cell research, from people who are against the use of embryos.

SJSU Philosophy Professor Dr. Dan C. Williamson shared his concern about the progression of science and technology, in this respect. "The main [problem] that I worry about is that life will become a kind of corporate enterprise, an industry, where the human becomes a mere object," he said. "If society gets it into its collective ‘head’ that it’s ok to experiment at basic levels of what at this time constitutes the human being, then where might this lead?"

Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Commission on Bioethics at the University of Chicago, is strongly against genetic enhancements and cloning, as he wrote in his article Preventing a Brave New World, "We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings not because of the strangeness or novelty of the undertaking, but because we intuit and we feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear." He goes on to offer four objections to cloning. "It constitutes unethical experimentation...threatens identity and individuality...turns procreation into manufacture...and means despotism over children and perversion of parenthood." Williamson also sees cloning as a kind of violation to humanity, as he said rather poetically, "Along with Walt Whitman, I celebrate the 'body electric,' the human enhanced not by genetic manipulation, but enhanced by an enthusiastic acceptance of life and its beauty."

Kass paints a picture of the world in the future, if cloning and genetic engineering were to progress, taking into account that it would be scientifically possible to enhance the intellectual and physical features of a child while it is still at an embryonic stage. Thus, a society would be created to consist of genetically-enhanced humans, versus "the naturals." He points the ability for parents to shape their children, “with the aid of human genomics, to produce or select for what some regard as 'better babies'--smarter, prettier, healthier, more athletic--parents will leap at the opportunity to ‘improve’ their offspring." He feels that this would be morally unethical, and "a crushing dehumanization."

Those in support of cloning are not alarmed at such a painting of the future. Richard Doozy, who is a political theory expert and writer of 300 scholarly papers, said, "Cloning does not reduce the relevance of ethics--after all, to clone a person is to make another just like him or her and that means the clone will have all the rights and responsibilities of other human beings."

David Haas, who has a PhD in Botany from the University of Illinois, does not see the idea of genetically-enhanced humans taking over the world as being realistic. "As far as the genetic engineering of test tube super babies is concerned, I believe the government would keep a tight lid on anything like this, and the only people that could afford it would be a select few."

It is quite obvious that those affected by the future of cloning the most would be the present generation of young adults. San Jose State Business Marketing student Combiz Salehomoum shared his views about living in a genetically-enhanced world. "Having robots programmed to conduct specific tasks is one thing, but to have humans with higher intelligence and higher physical strength can be damaging to society. We would no longer be competing with our average genius, the average genius would be struggling with the enhanced human," he said. However, he felt torn, as he also added, "[Cloning] can help save lives by creating vital organs...manipulating genes can help us advance and develop a better understanding of ourselves and our roots."

Twenty-one-year-old Oliver Woody also expressed his concern with the idea of a genetically-enhanced world. "I am reminded of--forgive the analogy--the Green Goblin from Spider-Man...his physical performance was enhanced but he became psychotic in the process." However, he still said he was in favor of the progression of cloning, regardless. "If we can continue to progress 'human nature' to a point where we actually improve the basic formula for humanity, why would we not jump at that chance? Sometimes risks need to be taken."

Twenty-two-year-old Princeton University graduate and electrical engineer Wayne Hopp does not see the risks worth taking. "I believe human creation is already a great enough miracle that has been given to us, we should not be tampering with it."

Williamson also agrees in valuing human creation for what it is, but realizing how little we know about it, despite all of our advancements. "As a philosopher, I don’t see us as having a complete understanding of either the world or ourselves. I think scientists would have to agree with this. I think there are several layers of complexity we have yet to explore even in this 'ordinary' world, let alone genetics," he said. "...Let’s learn to love this world instead of seeing it as a continuing reserve of this or that material. Let's stop treating ourselves and the world like objects, and, instead, start treating the world and ourselves as living things that should receive dignity and respect."

One thing is evident--society remains torn regarding the advantages and disadvantages of allowing cloning to progress, as a diverse set of opinions continue to float around.

Back to Orange Journalism Home Page
Journalism 134 Home Page
Profcraig.com

Orange Journalism:
A class project by the students of Journalism 134, Online In-depth Reporting, Fall 2006, with Dr. Richard Craig.