2 of 2

Which brings us back to the drum that some of us have been banging, in season and out of season, for the past eight years. Cloning humans must be banned; we must draw a clear, bright line and ensure that this technology (somatic cell nuclear transfer) is not used on members of our species—whether for baby-making purposes, or to mass produce embryos for research. And what few Americans know (including, I suspect, few of those who inhabit Capitol Hill) is that, round the world, the cloning debate is not seen as a pro-life/pro-choice rerun, but as something that brings together Left, Right, and Center.

Did you know that Canada—the Canada that has just signed off on gay marriage—has actually made cloning (including so-called therapeutic cloning) a felony? Clone embryos in Ottawa and you won't get a Nobel prize; you could do five years' jail time. The Assisted Human Reproduction Act makes interesting reading.

* * *

Dr. Frist's flip-flop

Though most Christians have failed to grasp the fact, it's hardly a surprise that biotech issues have started to dominate our culture—and especially our politics. Who would have guessed that the first televised address of an incoming American President would be on stem-cell research? That he would threaten his first veto to head off a challenge to his policy? And that, four years later, Senate Majority Leader and alleged presidential hopeful Bill Frist would decide to break with it? The New York Times applauded his decision but said he should go further and back "therapeutic cloning." Meanwhile, Bill Saletan of Slate, who has one of the sharpest journalistic minds out there, concluded that he is a "closet pro-choicer."

* * *

Nano risks
Science reports on an unusual event: A regulatory agency asking for help from those it regulates on the technology that has stupendous importance for the human future:

Nanomaterials put regulators in an unfamiliar bind. With traditional chemical toxins, any two molecules with the same chemical formula look and behave alike. Two nano-particles made of the same elements but of different sizes, however, may have drastically different chemical properties. Even particles of the same size and elemental composition can have very different properties. … That diversity makes it a daunting task to sort out just which particles are hazardous to people and the environment and to control their production and release.

The Environmental Protection Agency's focus is, of course, environmental risk. But there are potentially more sinister threats from nano in the wrong hands, as Chris Hook has argued in Christianity Today. If the safety issues are solved, we may still end up with a technology that destroys us—by "enhancing us." David Rejeski called the EPA meeting "the blind man feeling the elephant." But at least it's feeling the elephant—on nanotech threats, others seem content to ignore the one in their living rooms.

* * *

Until next time, here are a few of the key life ethics sites monitoring the news:

• Thecbc.org: The Center for Bioethics and Culture
• CBHD.org: The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
• Biotechpolicy.org: The Council for Biotechnology Policy

Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

August (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49