Sunday, Ju une 20, 1971

THE WASHINGTON POST

hgg Transplants: Not the

 

By Joshua Lederberg

A Nobel Prize winner, Lederberg is
professor of genetica at the Stanford

' University School of Medicine, ust
« NATURE of the bond he -

tween parents and their children,
not to mention everyone's values about
the individual’s uniquepass,- “cauild be
changed beyond recognition.” Agpord-
ing to Harvard profggsor -Jamgs D.
Watson, in testimony before the House
Committee on Sciencevzand Astrqnau-
ties, this is the probabj@ outcome. of ex-
periments in huma bryolo He
believes that scientist? have need
to discuss’ the technical possibi/P4és of
new direction#:in human repfeductive
biology, and he suggests phat: “ptrict
laws be consideged against experimen-
tal studies with.human embryos. In-
deed, these must be controlléd by in-
ternational agreeniént, for né country
has a monopoly on Seientific talent and
interest. if

Watson also remaviepstjat some “be-
Heve the matter is of tigrginal impor-
tance now, and that is a red herring
designed to take our minds off our cal-
lous attitudes toward war, poverty, and
racial prejudice.” What appears at first
sight to be a mischievous suggestion
may then be a grand spoof, worthy of
the author of “The Double Helix.”

My own stance is accurately quoted
by Watson: “Lederberg, among the
first to tale. about cloning as a practi-
cal matter, snow seems bored with fur-
ther talk... we should channel our in-
fluence to the prevention of the wide-
scale, irreversible Gamage | to our i
netic material that ts. new.
through increasing exayge nes maw
created mutagenic compounds. To him,
serious talk about cloning is essen-
tially. crying wolf when a tiger is al-
ready inside.the walls.”

By cloning, Watson refers to experi-
ments, now, done many times with
frogs, in. which the egg nucleus is re-
placed by smother one taken from a
mature cely;From a strictly genetic
standpoint, the result is equivalent to
making a cutting from. a rosebush, By-
passing the sexual process means
that the progeny is like an identical
twin—a result that many people con.

of tl

 

fuse with making an identical copy ‘of
a personality, ,
gi this worth making such a fuss
ut Whet: a plausible comedy one
enuld write’about the diplomatic ma-
neuvering, the investments in bargain-
ing chips, the conflicting intelligence.
reports, in the backgrouzid of the inter-
national conference “Watson projects.
And we can again see. China and
France as probable holdouts against an

 

egg-nucleus test-ban treaty, believing
that their national interests might be
better served by retaining independent
options.

But there is a heartache behind that
comedy. The world-system would not
know how to reach such an agreement
even if it were in fact necessary for
global survival. Every scientist must
face the ambivalent potential of knowl-
edge as it may be applied in a world
that does not know how to govern it-
self. However, scientists may be overly
self-conscious, for the same potentials
for abuse apply to statesmanship, in-
dustry, even the arts—every human ac-

.tivity that maintains the fabric of a na-

tion.

Risk of Confusion
TWOULD BEAWKWARD-to
have to make a case for cloning in
man—we simply: do: not have the nec-
essary background of animal experi-
mentation to kriow what risks would

, circumvent many types of st@l

Most children

e World

be involved, nor to know what human
need would ever be served by it. Some
might be imagined—for exe mple, to

   
 

now prevent a couple from |
‘child “of their own”; but
tions to such problems mi.

    
   
   
   
   

of eloning if I could plac€’ ag
ence in Watson’s concern
will break loose” just wh
born by ‘such a route. k
Even: then, I would w
formal limitations on res@irchiy
and embryos, Just how Would .
policed? Should it apply to st ae
animals, or of “human celfgeultun
which might eventually lead:to knowl-
edge about human eggs? Should we
purge the scientific literature, and. the
textbooks, of references to-quch il
edge? Do we censor publicatigns.
other countries? Should we discouragn
even thinking about such’ eae
phy? If hell were really that imminept,
none of these steps would be outéof
bounds, But we know we will not t
them. Instead we may face a more ing’
sidious confusion about, shichegines af

research are moral, h <a and
this may further exode pready
fragile public suppers. £ Bic re-

search in general. 335: We

Watson’s actual copcern: out em-
bryological research geemtyta me: (1)
that babies conceived not in ain will,
have an aberrant psychic relationship:
to their parents, (2) that Women may
be exploited as surrogate , mothers
carrying someone else’s eggs, ‘quid ‘(3
that a totalitarian regime m i vega
of these methods for geneti regit
tation. ‘ ;

These are not questions that Ch bet
answered by the techniques
lar biology. However, I belaye;: os
Watson has overrated the impordincg
of DNA, in contrast to other corfaga

and familyay » in bi
disaster. In + :

   

by wf n

  
 
   
 
 
 
  
  

tion. Do we belitgy
dren have a lag a

edge of adopted children, a et
to the premise that the fil ak
woven by impregnation... . Le
As to surrogate motherhood, Watson
is concerned with more than coercion,
or the hire of a wet-nurse’s uterine

services. He fears that “the Boring i

meaninglessness of the lives of &
women would be sufficient caus# for:
their willingness.” Is he decrying em-
bryology or sexist oppression?. In
proper libertarian style, women may
defend their right to be diverted how-
ever it suits them. But perhaps they
will also support legislation that would
punish any initiation of pregnancy
without a woman’s willing consent to
the pregnancy. Most of the prosecu-
tions would have nothing to do with
transplanted eggs.

Do we really need any new law to
cope with the fantasied chances for
abuse? Surely no court would enforce
a prenatal contract that required giv-
ing up. bt paer after it was born. The
law sho ethaps clear up the confu-
sion that remains in some states about
the: legal parenthood of children born
oak insemination, And in

   
  
  
  

5 to ithe mother who carried him,
: atter how or whether conceived.

By season to deny a bar-
rex bility of experi-
eng

 
  

mé, ist is the only technique
by which the fantasies of the racial
purists could be realized, and if Hitler
had had a scientific view of race, he
might have promulgated the method.
But nothing would be gained toward
forfending such an abuse by stopping
biological research in democratic coun-
tries today. Nor would there have been
greater advantage in preserving the
false doctrines of Nazi. race-biology or
Stalinist: ‘Lysenkoism at the expense of
our-modern knowledge of DNA. Fu-
ture ‘tyrants would have tortured their
captives less “scientifically,” but not
less vielowsly. ;

eéple, nevertheless, fail to be
rep 8 by: ‘the idea of a population of
xerocoptes of 8 particular genetic type,
as might result from the renucleation
of a harem of eggs. The force of the
metaphor has little to do with the real-

 

I e
Nye

ities of such a Prospect. Is it after all
much more likglys:

dividtalization, against thedehrt
of ous
ever aigeite crowded world.
In fact, studies of separated twins
w that most personality traits owe
fou as much to variations in environ-

‘ment as to variations in heredity, even

within the confines of lower-middle-
class white culture. It follows that
human variety among cultures, across
nationgl and ethnic boundaries, is
mainly of environmental origin today,
and would not be profoundly altered

 

even if the gene pool of the species
were narrowed to many fewer types.

This argument is not to advocate a
genetic xerocopy process: It does sug-
gest that the cloning metaphor con-
fuses the real so Loss

  
 

There is a paradoxical danger’ that -

legal controls agai: Wations in re-
productive method or aga arey

control increase the danger of state in

terference — just as the actual polic-

ing of pornography is a serious threat -

to valid free speech.
On the other hand, the renucleation
of human eggs cannot be regarded as a

  
   

of the additives we:

subject of frivolous or irresponsible
whimsey, For one thing it must be pre-
ceded by a large body of investigative
work on other. animals — and the suc-
cessful cloning of a mouse, though .

‘ m overdue by some of my own prophe-
wal ‘creativity space in an

cies, has yet to be reported. During the
interval that such laboratory findings
appear and are critically reviewed, we |
can also ponder whether there are any
legitirfgte human applications of such
a technique and the context in which
they sh be judged. Differing views
may be taken of the abstract morality
of cloning if\principle. A botched ef-

  
    
   
   
   
  
 

dged as harshly, and
ging to any future ef-
forts, as was the E
Apollo astronauts.

Watson's specific ¢
among several ordey

also agree with him t]

portant a subject t
the hands of the scie
communities. I am

is achievable by laws — TRES@ are by
definition written by politicians, There
are many matters that must be left to
individual conscience, and the moral
sanctions of an informed community.
At some point, a responsible physician
must give counsel as well as provide
treatment to a patient in his charge. _

There are indeed tigers within our
walls that deserve more immediate at-
tention from our lawmakers. We can
prevent moral dilemmas about how to

“remove genetic defects by paying more

attention to preventive environmental
hygiene. A scandalously,small number
our into our

 
 
 
 
    
  
  
 
   

the most important. ol gene’ products
— the eager minds of the nation’s chil-
dren!