Clones at Discount Prices
Interview with bioethicist and medical historian Axel W. Bauer
Ulrich Schnabel
Die Zeit 38
September 1999
DIE ZEIT: You describe the relationship between bioethics and bio-research as a race between the hare and the hedgehog: By the time ethics—and then the legislator—reacts to the latest scientific developments, researchers have long since created new possibilities that the existing regulations can no longer accommodate. Has the legislator already lost the race?
AXEL W. BAUER: Take cloning. For once, the legislator was faster than the biologists; it banned this technology at a time when it was not yet technically feasible. Today, cloning is possible—and attempts have immediately begun to undermine this law.
ZEIT: The demand that humans should not be cloned is shared by most people.
BAUER: That depends on how the question is posed. American biologist Lee Silver describes in his book The Cloned Paradise several fictional cases that could change some people's minds. For example, he describes a couple who clone a genetic twin to save a child with cancer who could serve as a bone marrow donor. One could, of course, object that a child is being instrumentalized—but how many children are born to save marriages? Depending on how detailed one views the possibilities of cloning, motives can certainly be found that quickly call the general ‘no’ into question.
ZEIT: Can the state counteract this?
BAUER: The German Embryo Protection Law draws clear boundaries. I think that's right, even if it only has a braking effect. Because what is possible will sooner or later be done—if not here, then in countries with more liberal legislation. In the United States, there are an estimated three million infertile couples. If only half a percent wishes for offspring, that would already be 30,000 interested parties. And even with just 10,000 potential cloners, the matter would be financially worthwhile. Proponents of cloning hope, opponents fear, that we humans are nothing more than the sum of our genes. A human genome contains only 715 megabytes of information. That would never be enough to code all the synaptic connections between our brain cells and create our personality. Therefore, the idea of cloning a Hitler is also absurd.
ZEIT: But the situation looks different with methods like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), where an embryo created in a petri dish can be tested for possible genetic defects before being implanted into the mother's womb. Certain traits can, in principle, also be selected this way. Does this create a societal compulsion for a qualitatively superior child?
BAUER: Indeed, such methods pose the latent danger of eugenics from below. This extends into the entire issue of abortion and is particularly evident in PGD. We are on the way to a eugenics that is not state-imposed but determined by the people themselves.
ZEIT: The aforementioned Lee Silver foresees a two-class society in which the rich can genetically optimize their offspring, while the poor must continue to leave reproduction to nature. Do you consider this scenario realistic?
BAUER: No. For one thing, we cannot predict what will happen when a particular gene is altered in combination with other genes. Furthermore, it is by no means certain that a one-sided breeding approach would have evolutionary advantages. It only takes certain environmental changes, and suddenly all those who are genetically very similar are threatened with extinction.
ZEIT: But the idea that the upper echelons of society will have better access to these methods is not far-fetched?
BAUER: That seems conceivable from today's perspective. But one must also see: Prices will fall in this sector as well. This is not exclusive technology. It could just as easily be that in 50 years, one could clone oneself at discount prices.