Cloning and Copying
There's reputable work going on with human cloning. A group of South Korean scientists has figured out how to clone a human embryo.
Immediately, we're into the circle of ethical handwringing that is familiar to us all. But a new intersection struck me as I listened to the stories on the radio.
There's a sense that we want to hold technology back, to prohibit certain kinds of copying that some view as immoral. I have a strong view on this when it comes to humans: so much about a pre-wired person is shaped by their environment that a clone could turn out entirely differently than its original. I refuse to worry about cloning, and I think the importance of creating useful stem cells far outweighs any concerns about creating embryo copies that are “human” in some sense.
Similarly, the copyright debate (particularly in the broadcast flag setting) is often focused on limiting technology so as to prohibit certain kinds of copying that some view as immoral.
I'm going to make a provocative suggestion: Although it is true that too much copying produces cancer (or destructive infringement), the machines that make copying possible don't have moral content. So there is no reason to punish copying machines when they do their job — either when copying embryos or content.
Additionally, the act of copying is purely informational. Too much of it, or too much public distribution of it, can be considered wrongful (cancerous or infringing), but small amounts of copying for personal purposes don't meet this test.
Don't punish technology. Punish people who copy too much. (And let stem cell research flourish.)
Comments
One Response to “Cloning and Copying”
Got something to say?
And - guess what - a 'DNA Copyright Institute' has already been created (see http://www.dnacopyright.com/). Its aim is to protect the copyright that would be established on your unique DNA profile!