In the debate (such as it is—there’s so much confusion and euphemisms it’s not a conversation accessible to most) over cloning, one thing has been consistent—those who support cloning have kept moving the bar.
Here’s some of what I wrote about a similar debate in late 2003 in New Jersey. It was the same kind of deal as in New Jersey: nearly no one wanted to oppose the panacea research that would save us all, or so folks were told:
This New Jersey bill is telling. Research-cloning (so-called “therapeutic cloning”) advocates routinely argue that they are only interested in research on early embryos — that there could be a 14-day cutoff. Of course, for those who believe that an embryo is a human life from the get-go, that’s no ideal. On the other hand, an argument could be made for the virtues of baby steps (versus deadlock — which in this case is no prohibition on the cloning of humans). But the New Jersey bill moots that option — it casts doubt on the willingness of the biotech industry to stop after 14 days.
It’s not a huge surprise. For instance, during a June hearing before the presidential bioethics commission, Michael Werner of BIO, biotech’s lobby group, had this exchange with commissioners:
PROF. GEORGE: So if there were promising lines of research that would require implantation, you would not be in favor of pursuing those lines of research?
MR. WERNER: Yes, that’s correct. Having said that, I will be fair and say I think that — No, I think that it’s fair to say that, you know, science advances, ethical thinking advances. We constantly are re-examining our views and our principles.
I think it’s okay for us to say we’ve said it throughout history with new technology. It’s okay to say, you know, this is something that’s troubling, but now, you know, umpteen years later we for some reason feel like, you know, we can re-explore whether that’s an appropriate limit. I will tell you that I have no view that, sure, we’re going to move the goal post. I would say our view is 14 days because the primitive streak seems like an appropriate boundary, and that’s where we are.
PROF. GEORGE: So for you that’s a principal limit.
CHAIRMAN KASS: For the time being.
MR. WERNER: Yeah.
PROF. GEORGE: Well, that’s the question.
MR. WERNER: Now. That’s correct. No, look. And you know, for what it’s worth, I understand that that’s frustrating, and that’s why I sort of hesitated to say it, but I do think that that’s where we are, and I don’t know that it’s appropriate to say that limits on scientific research should stay static over the course of decades as things change.
That boilerplate 14-day limit will be history, in New Jersey at least, if A2840 gets a nod from the assembly during next week’s lame-duck session — a dangerous precedent liable to have a domino effect nationally. Despite a fierce misinformation campaign the state over, groups like the New Jersey Right to Life Committee and the New Jersey Catholic Conference will continue to rally their troops throughout the weekend, to stop it. When the clone-and-kill bill passed the state senate last December, five Republicans voted for it — no doubt fearing the political fallout from opposing a bill Christopher Reeve testified in support of. And it’s hard to believe none of them will go to the vote untouched by biotech lobbying. Consider a not-so-small detail: One Republican county chair is a partner in a public-relations group that has flacked for one of the state biotech firms. In recent days, “Dear Colleague” faxes have included recycled material from Republican Utah senator Orrin Hatch and Nancy Reagan, who support federal legislation that would allow for “therapeutic cloning”; neither has supported the expansive New Jersey bill explicitly, however. No doubt that nuance is easily lost in the heat of the session-close ruckus on a debate that has now dragged on for over a year in the New Jersey statehouse.
No one talks about 14 day limits anymore. The bar keeps getting moved.