Bob Carling
>Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 07:59:50 -0600
>From: "Lawrence D. Rupp" <rlawrenc@mail.tds.net>
>Reply-To: rlawrenc@mail.tds.net
>To: Ecotheology Discusssion <ecotheol@mailbase.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Dawkins on Dolly
>References: <md5:00358ED228E81A7F5092B033FDE4A440>
>X-List: ecotheol@mailbase.ac.uk
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave ecotheol'
> to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
>Sender: ecotheol-request@mailbase.ac.uk
>
>For our edification:
>
>Larry
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Dolly and the cloth-heads" *
>>
>> by Richard Dawkins
>>
>> * title was chosen by the editor
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Published in The Independent newspaper on Saturday 8th March 1997
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The admirable Dolly the sheep must have felt her cloned ears burning this
>> week. She has seldom been off the air, seldom far from the Comment columns,
>> the Leader pages or the Letters to the Editor.
>>
>> What has intrigued me is the process by which invited contributors to the
>> broadcast debates on such delicate matters are chosen. Some of them are
>> experts in the field, as you would expect and as is right and proper. Others
>> are distinguished scholars of moral or legal philosophy, which is equally
>> appropriate.
>>
>> Both these categories of person have been invited in their own right,
>> because of their expert knowledge or their proven ability to think
>> intelligently and express themselves clearly. The arguments they have with
>> each other are usually illuminating and rewarding.
>>
>> But there is another category of obligatory guest. There is the inevitable
>> "representative" of the so-and-so "community"; and, of course, we mustn't
>> forget the "voice" from the such-and-such "tradition". Not to mince words,
>> the religious lobby. Lobbies in the plural, I should say, because all the
>> religions have their point of view, and they all have to be represented lest
>> their respective "communities" feel slighted.
>>
>> This has the incidental effect of multiplying the sheer number of people in
>> the studio, with consequent consumption, if not waste, of time. It also, I
>> believe, often has the effect of lowering the level of expertise and
>> intelligence. This is only to be expected, given that these spokesmen are
>> chosen not because of their own qualifications in the field, or as thinkers,
>> but simply because they represent a particular section of the community.
>>
>> Out of good manners I shall not mention names, but this week I have
>> experienced public discussions of cloning with several prominent religious
>> leaders, and it has not been edifying. One of the most eminent of these
>> spokesmen, recently elevated to the House of Lords, got off to a flying
>> start by refusing to shake hands with the women in the studio, apparently
>> for fear that they might be menstruating or otherwise "unclean".
>>
>> They took the insult graciously, and with the "respect" always bestowed on
>> religious prejudice (but no other kind of prejudice). The spokesman then,
>> when asked what harm cloning might do, answered that atomic bombs were
>> harmful. No disagreement there, but the discussion was in fact supposed to
>> be about cloning.
>>
>> Since it was his choice to shift the discussion to atomic bombs, perhaps he
>> knew more about physics than about biology? But, no, having delivered
>> himself of the daring falsehood that Einstein split the atom, he switched
>> with confidence to geological history. He made the telling point that, since
>> God laboured six days and then rested on the seventh, scientists, too, ought
>> to know when to call a halt.
>>
>> Now, either he really believed that the world was made in six days, in which
>> case his ignorance alone disqualifies him from being taken seriously. Or, as
>> the presenter charitably suggested, he intended the point purely as an
>> allegory - in which case it was a lousy allegory.
>>
>> Sometimes in life it is a good idea to stop; sometimes it is a good idea to
>> go on . The trick is to decide when to stop. The allegory of God resting on
>> the seventh day cannot, in itself, tell us whether we have reached the right
>> point to stop in some particular case. As allegory, the six-day creation
>> story is empty. As history, it is false. So why bring it up?
>>
>> The representative of a rival religion on the same panel was frankly
>> confused. He feared that a human clone would lack individuality. It would
>> not be a whole, separate human being but a mere soulless automaton.
>>
>> When one of the scientists mildly suggested that he might be hurting the
>> feelings of identical twins, he said that identical twins were a quite
>> different case. Why? Because they occur naturally, rather than under
>> artificial conditions. Once again, no disagreement about that. But weren't
>> we talking about "individuality", and whether clones are "whole human
>> beings" or soulless automata?
>>
>> This religious spokesman seemed simply unable to grasp that there were two
>> separate arguments going on: first, whether clones are autonomous
>> individuals (in which case the analogy with identical twins is inescapable
>> and his fear groundless); and second, whether there is something
>> objectionable about artificial interference in the natural processes of
>> reproduction (in which case other arguments should be deployed - but
>> weren't). I don't want to sound uncharitable, but I respectfully submit to
>> the producers who put together these panels that merely being a spokesman
>> for a particular "tradition" or "community" may not be enough. Isn't a
>> certain minimal qualification in the IQ department desirable, too?
>>
>> On a different panel, this time on radio, yet another religious leader was
>> similarly perplexed by identical twins. He too had theological grounds for
>> fearing that a clone would not be a separate individual and would therefore
>> lack "dignity".
>>
>> He was swiftly informed of the undisputed scientific fact that identical
>> twins are clones of each other with the same genes, exactly like Dolly the
>> sheep except that Dolly's clone is older. Did he really mean to say that
>> identical twins (and we all know some) lack the dignity of separate
>> individuality? His reason for denying the relevance of the twin analogy was
>> even odder than the previous one. Indeed it was transparently
>> self-contradictory.
>>
>> He had great faith, he informed us, in the power of nurture over nature.
>> Nurture is why identical twins are really different individuals. When you
>> get to know a pair of twins, he pointed out triumphantly, they even look a
>> bit different.
>>
>> Er, quite so. And if a pair of clones were separated by 50 years, wouldn't
>> their respective nurtures be even more different? Haven't you just shot
>> yourself in your theological foot? He just didn't get it - but, after all,
>> he hadn't been chosen for his ability to follow an argument.
>>
>> Religious lobbies, spokesmen of "traditions" and "communities", enjoy
>> privileged access not only to the media but to influential committees of the
>> great and the good, to the House of Lords (as I mentioned above), and to the
>> boards of school governors.
>>
>> Their views are regularly sought, and heard with exaggerated "respect", by
>> parliamentary committees. Religious spokesmen and spokeswomen enjoy an
>> inside track to influence and power which others have to earn through their
>> own ability or expertise.
>>
>> What is the justification for this? Maybe there is a good reason, and I'm
>> ready to be persuaded by it. But, on the face of it, isn't there more
>> justification for choosing expert witnesses for their knowledge and
>> accomplishments as individuals, than because they represent some group or
>> class of person? Come to think of it, in the light of all those worries
>> about lack of individuality among clones, isn't there a touch of irony here?
>> Maybe even a useful allegory? Ah, now, you're talking!
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [Home] John Catalano <catalj@spacelab.net>
>
>--
>What must we do to create the greatest good for an optimum number of
>people over the long run?
>"Good fences make good neighbors"
>ANY CAUSE IS A LOST CAUSE WITHOUT A REDUCTION IN POPULATION
>
>
============================================================
Dr R.C.J. Carling, Home address
Senior Editor, Life Sciences 90 Charlton Road
Chapman & Hall Shirley
2-6 Boundary Row Southampton, SO15 5EW, UK
London SE1 8HN, UK Tel: +44(0)1703-778830
Tel: +44(0)171-865-0066 Fax: +44(0)1703-342838 (but
Fax: +44(0)171-410-6907 please call first)
www.chaphall.com/chaphall.html www.tcp.co.uk/~carling
bob.carling@chall.co.uk (work) carling@tcp.co.uk (home)
============================================================