les documents
du bulletin de l' information scientifique
du comité départemental 44 de l'association française
pour l'information scientifique
PERIODIQUE A PERIODICITE VARIABLE
Declaration in Defense of Cloning
and the Integrity of Scientific Research
Free Inquiry magazine, Volume
17, n° 3 ( 1997 )
We, the
undersigned, welcome announcements of major advances in
the cloning of higher animals. Throughout this century, the physical, biological, and behavioral sciences have placed
important new capabilities within human reach. On balance, these advances
have contributed to enormous improvements in human welfare. Where novel
technologies have raised legitimate ethical questions, the human community has
in general demonstrated its willingness to confront those questions openly and
to seek answers that enhance the general welfare.
The cloning of higher animals raises ethical concerns. Appropriate guidelines need to be developed that will prevent
abuses, while making the benefits of cloning maximally available. Such
guidelines should respect to the greatest extent possible the autonomy and
choice of each individual human being. Every effort
should be made not to block the freedom and integrity of scientific research.
No one has demonstrated a present capability to clone
humans. Yet the very possibility that contemporary achievements may open a path
toward cloning has sparked a hail of protests. We view with concern the
widespread calls to delay, defund, or discontinue cloning research which have
come from sources as disparate as President Bill Clinton in the United States,
President Jacques Chirac of France, former Prime Minister John Major of Great
Britain, and the Vatican in Rome.
We believe that reason is humanity's
most powerful tool for untangling the problems that it encounters. But reasoned argument has been a scarce commodity in the recent flood of
attacks on cloning. Critics have delighted in drawing
parallels to the myth of Icarus and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, predicting
terrible consequences if researchers dare to press on with questions whose
answers "man was not meant to know." Behind the most vituperative
critiques seems to lie the assumption that human cloning would raise moral
issues more profound than those faced in connection with any previous
scientific or technological development.
What moral issues would human cloning raise? Some
religions teach that human beings are fundamentally different from other
mammals - that humans have been imbued with immortal souls by a deity, giving
them a value that cannot be compared to that of other living things. Human
nature is held to be unique and sacred. Scientific advances that pose a
perceived risk of altering this "nature" are angrily opposed.
Deeply rooted as such ideas may be in dogma, we
question whether these should be used to decide whether human beings will be
permitted to benefit from new biotechnology. As far as the scientific
enterprise can determine, Homo sapiens is a member of the animal kingdom. Human capabilities appear to differ in degree, not in kind,
from those found among the higher animals. Humankind's rich repertoire of
thoughts, feelings, aspirations, and hopes seems to arise from electrochemical
brain processes, not from an immaterial soul that operates in ways no
instrument can discover.
The immediate question raised by the current debate
over cloning is, therefore, do advocates of supernatural or spiritual agendas
have truly meaningful qualifications to contribute to that debate? Surely
everyone has the right to be heard. But we believe that there is a very real
danger that research with enormous potential benefits may be suppressed solely
because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. It is important to
recognize that similar religious objections were once raised against autopsies,
anesthesia, artificial insemination, and the entire genetic revolution of our
day - yet enormous benefits have accrued from each of these developments. A
view of human nature rooted in humanity's mythical past ought not to be our
primary criterion for making moral decisions about cloning.
We see no inherent ethical dilemmas in cloning nonhuman
higher animals. Nor is it clear to us that future developments in cloning human
tissues or even cloning human beings will create moral predicaments beyond the
capacity of human reason to resolve. The moral issues
raised by cloning are neither larger nor more profound than the questions human
beings have already faced in regards to such technologies as nuclear
energy, recombinant DNA, and computer encryption. They
are simply new.
Historically, the Luddite option, which seeks to turn
back the clock and limit or prohibit the application of already existing
technologies, has never proven realistic or productive. The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would be a
tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection of
cloning. We call for continued, responsible development of cloning
technologies, and for a broad-based commitment to ensuring that traditionalist
and obscurantist views do not irrelevantly obstruct beneficial scientific
developments.
The signers of
the Declaration are Humanist Laureates of the International Academy of
Humanism:
·
Pieter Admiraal, Medical Doctor, The
Netherlands
·
Ruben Ardila, psychologist, National University of Colombia,
Colombia
·
Sir Isaiah Berlin, Professor Emeritus of
Philosophy, Oxford University, U.K.
·
Sir Hermann Bondi, Fellow of the Royal Society,
Past Master, Churchill College, Cambridge University, U.K.
·
Vern Bullough, Visiting Professor of Nursing,
California State University at Northridge, U.S.A.
·
Mario Bunge, Professor of Philosophy of Science, McGill
University, Canada
·
Bernard Crick, Professor Emeritus of
Politics, Birkbeck College, University of London, U.K.
·
Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate in Physiology,
Salk Institute, U.S.A.
·
Richard Dawkins, Charles Simionyi Professor of
Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University, U.K.
· José Delgado, Director, Centro de Estudios Neurobiologicos, Spain
·
Paul Edwards, Professor of Philosophy, New School for Social
Research, U.S.A.
·
Antony Flew, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Reading
University, U.K.
·
Johan Galtung, Professor of Sociology,
University of Oslo, Norway
·
Adolf Grünbaum, Professor of Philosophy,
University of Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
·
Herbert Hauptman, Nobel Laureate, Professor of
Biophysical Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, U.S.A.
·
Alberto Hidalgo Tuñón, President, Sociedad Asturiana de
Filosofía, Spain
·
Sergei Kapitza, Chair, Moscow Institute of Physics
and Technology, Russia
·
Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, State
University of New York at Buffalo, U.S.A.
·
Gerald A. Larue, Professor Emeritus of
Archeology and Biblical Studies, University of South. California at Los
Angeles, U.S.A.
·
Thelma Z. Lavine, Professor of Philosophy,
George Mason University, U.S.A.
·
Jose Leite Lopes, Director, Centro Brasiliero de Pesquisas Fisicas,
Brazil
·
Taslima Nasrin, Author, Physician, Social
Critic, Bangladesh
· Indumati Parikh, Reformer and Activist, India
·
Jean-Claude
Pecker, Professor Emeritus of
Astrophysics, Collège de France, Academy of Sciences, France
·
W. V. Quine, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Harvard
University, U.S.A.
·
J. J. C. Smart, Professor of Philosophy,
University of Adelaide, Australia
· V. M. Tarkunde, Reformer and Activist, India
·
Richard Taylor, Professor Emeritus of
Philosophy, University of Rochester, U.S.A.
· Simone Veil, Former President, European Parliament, France
·
Kurt Vonnegut,
Novelist,
U.S.A.
·
Edward O. Wilson, Professor Emeritus of
Sociobiology, Harvard University, U.S.A.
afis, Science et
pseudo-sciences, 14 rue de l'école polytechnique, 75005 PARIS.