fone wdivor of P20 ee Sidagtoa. Bost t an
{ Oo - st a>

Genetic Tanvering

In his column of Sept. 30 ("Unpredictable Variety Still Rules
Human Reproduction"), Joshua Lederberg discussed recent developments
in asexual genetic manipulation of laboratory animals, and raised
the possibility that "such experiments might eventually be made to
work in man, perhaps within a few years." Human reproduction might
then become predictable and controllable. Lederberg concluded as
follows:

It is an interesting exercise in social science fiction
to contemplate the changes in human affairs thet might
come about from the generation of a few identical twins
of existing personalities. Our reactions to sucn a
fantasy will, of course, depend on just who is immnor-
talized in this way -- but if sexual reproduction were
less familiar, we might make the same comment about that.

I wish to take strong exception to the casual and cavalier
tone with which Lederberg touched on the implications for human
Society of the scientific developments he so ably described, The
possibility of genetic manipulation in man raises fundamental and
enormous questions == theological, moral, political. These questions
must be carefully stated, the issues clearly articulated, and the
alternative policies fully and soberly considered; “interesting
exercises in social science fiction" are entirely inappropriate,

It is unfortunate that Dr. Lederberg is either unaware of or

unwilling to discuss the moral and political problems involved; it

is shocking that he chooses to speak as if these questions are trivial,
and as if they are reducible to our prejudices concerning the peovie
who might be asexually propagated, Only naivete or hybris can

account for such a jJocular approach; neither is excusable, especially
in a man of Dr. Lederberg's stature, especially in a newspaper column

whose purpose is to make us wiser in matters of public policy

vis-a-vis science.
I think at least the following questions should be discussed:

(1) Are the arguments for attempting genetic manipulation in man
compelling reasons? Our ability to alter human reproduction does not
demonstrate that it is desirable to do so. (2) Is human will
sufficient authority to advocate or to attempt to clone a man?
(3) Should an independent scientist carry out such an experiment in
the absence of public authorization? If not, which'public' should
decidé ~~ scientists, Congress, the UN? (4) Who should control the
genetic planning? (5) Is it not likely that, as with other techno-
logical advances, genetic technology will fall into evil hands, those
of an Eichmann rather than those of a Schweitzer? (6) If the
attempts to clone a man result in the 'production' of a defective
‘product’, who will or should care for 'it', and what rights will ‘it!
have? If the ‘offspring’ is sub-numan, are we to consider it murder
to destroy it? (7) What is the distinction between 'human' and
‘sub~human'? Does not reflection on this question suggest that
the programed reproduction of man will, in fact, de-humanize him?

| The development of science and technology, once begun, /eroceeds
without deliberatedand considered decisions. ' Considerations of
desirability rarely. govern the transition from "it can be done"
to "it has been done", Biologists today are under strong obligation
to raise just such questions publicly so that we may deliberate
before the new biomedical technology is an accomplished fact, a

technology whose consequences will probably dwarf those which resulted

from the development of the atomic bomb.
MH F. Kass, Aq. PLB.
Leon R. Kass, M.D.,PhH.D.

Bethesda, Maryland

Stl A © ak. PLua. on
Betta ka, MA 6° 2
Ce Ashe... “ *FE -