Laying the Foundation for the Island of Dr Moreau?

Going against the emerging consensus towards banning animal-human embryonic hybrids for research, Britain edged today towards becoming what one critic termed a “rogue state.” MPs voted overwhelmingly—336 to 176—to not ban the creation of admixed embryos consisting of human DNA being inserted into an empty animal egg. They also voted 286 to 223 not to ban the creation of true hybrids, or embryos created by mixing human and animal DNA.
Tory MP Edward Leigh led the opposition and mentioned that 21 nations have already banned these types of embryos. He warned that Britain risked becoming a rouge state, but PM Gordon Brown countered that the research was “an inherently moral endeavour."

Reading the news coverage of this momentous event, I noticed that several of the articles seemed to be trying to implicitly defend the practice of creating hybrid embryos. There was the quote from Brown calling the action inherently moral, in an attempt to preempt the religious monopoly on moral objections. Then there were several quotes from various scientists talking about how this was clearly something that would help research. Finally, for good measure, there was the perfunctory quote by a “modern” person talking about how ignorant Church leaders once were opposed to the smallpox vaccine and now there is no difference here.

All of that makes for good newspaper coverage, where the goal is to superficially present a major event in a few hundred words or less, supposedly impartially; however, a few things became apparent. Firstly, the only objection that was presented was the slippery slop argument: if we do this, then what’s next? This was dispatched by the authors by pointing out that a “strict” limit for keeping the embryos alive—14 days—was in place, and that no embryo would be transplanted to a womb.

This if course ignores the fact that 10 years ago, when embryonic research was in its infancy, there were people telling us not to worry about hybrids, and that such a thing would never happen. Although I was not alive at the time, I wonder if upon creating the first test tube baby, someone was assuring skeptics that embryos would never be created solely for scientific research. Does one honestly think that, having eventually created viable embryos, self-restraint will prevent them from being implanted to test the results?
Something else that was clear was that the scientists and MPs seem to believe that science must progress for the sake of science—a type of arte por el arte as it were. Most of the commentators seem to believe that to be progressive, science has to be unrestrained. When dealing with laissez faire economics and the free market, almost no one would argue that it is wrong to limit the growth of monopolies, who are truly engaging in the logical conclusion of capitalism; capitalism for the sake of capitalism is rejected because of the damage it does to the free market process itself. Yet for some reason, any suggestion of limiting scientific advancement is met with cries that such censorship is against the spirit of free inquiry—but does that extend even if such inquiry will result in self-destruction?
Another assumption prevalent in the coverage is that such research will be useful. One quote mentioned that while there was no surety that the research would bear fruit, there was a hope. One has to wonder, though, if the world is ready to risk something as fundamental as genetic makeup and a possible contamination of the very core of our being, for a hope. With twenty-one other nations already banning this procedure, these concerns are obviously not limited to the world of fringe religious types and conspiracy theorists.

While we may be some ways off from the creation of an Island of Dr Moreau, the self-satisfaction of many scientists must continue to be scrutinized. One would hope that philosophy of science courses will grow in popularity as the current obsession with “progress” continues to grow, and that a more holistic view of inquiry and advancement will emerge that takes into account the necessity of research and its fundamental worth in a way that current ethics seems to be missing.

Jeffrey Mottle
Writer, Business Founder

For more articles visit Mottle.net - Mottle is my truth engine, its a people search engine, background check anyone you know on Mottle.net