The Cloning Election: Senator Kerry redefines the terms of the stem cell debate

Nigel M. de S. Cameron

John Kerry’s decision to leap-frog the stem cell funding debate into full-blown support for cloning may soon come back to haunt him and his supporters. By jumping on the bandwagon set rolling by Ron Reagan, Jr., in his barnstorming speech to the Democratic convention, he has very quickly made a fateful decision. Bandwagons do not encourage reflection.

Four key facts seem to have escaped his attention. They need to be drawn to the attention of the American public if it is to make up its mind on one of the biggest issues of the 21 st century.

First, there is a general principle that often entraps adversarial politicians. Just because the other guy thinks A does not make A mistaken. One of the strangest interventions in the campaign so far comes in a letter to the Senator from a group of senior German politicians and warns him on just this point. Signatories include prominent Greens and Socialists as well as conservatives. Their message? Just because President Bush is against cloning for research does not make it right. So they appeal to Senator Kerry to support the Bush policy on cloning, as they do.

Second, as this letter illustrates, around the world the cloning debate is being conducted in very different terms. Ron Reagan, jr., told the Democrats that cloning for research was opposed only by “the theology of the few.” This was one of the most startling examples of dishonesty in a debate that has not always been characterized by candor. Earlier this year, Canada enacted a ban on cloning that is, if anything, stronger than the language of the anti-cloning legislation that the President has endorsed - which twice passed the House of Representatives (with a big bipartisan majority) and is now languishing in the Senate. Canada joined other nations that are not known for being under the thumb of the “theology of the few,” perhaps most notably Australia and Norway. Germany, of course, where they know a thing or two about unethical science, banned all cloning back in 1990.

But here is the hot news: France has now done the same thing, bringing the whole of “old Europe” into the Bush anti-cloning camp. In France, if you do what Ron Reagan, Jr. wants and what John Kerry now says he will fund, you don’t get a federal grant. You get seven years’ jail time.

Third, as the international debate illustrates, here in the US opinion is not as neatly divided into “theology of the few” crazy pro-lifers on the one hand, and compassionate, sane, everyone else on the other. Feminists, environmentalists, and liberal, pro-choice religious groups like the United Methodist Church have all denounced cloning for research. This has led to a growing alliance between “conservatives” and “liberals.” So, for example, opposition to California’s bizarre pro-cloning Proposition 71 is being led by a coalition from both ends of the culture.

Fourth, as widespread ignorance of these facts illustrates, the American press has generally failed in its duty and been guilty of some of the worst groupthink in a generation. When liberals and conservatives, divided by abortion, come together to fight cloning, isn’t that a big story? When France and Canada agree with President Bush and criminalize cloning, isn’t that news? You can search the US print media with a magnifying glass and you will hardly find one word on these stories. Would delegates to the Democratic convention have given Ron Reagan an ovation if they had known the facts behind his weasel words? His bandwagon could yet cost their party the election.

Behind all this, the real debate is about the capacity of our society to ensure that biotechnology, with its Pandora’s box of possibilities, will serve the human good. We don’t want the mass-production of human embryos for experimental purposes and destruction. We don’t want designer babies who have “features” picked by their parents. We may well fear the rise of a new eugenics if we do not act to ensure responsible use genetic information and manipulation, and the prospect of human “enhancement.” We may disagree about where exactly we need to draw lines, but we take it for granted that drawing lines is going to be necessary if these new technologies are going to be used in ways that are not just profitable but ethical and safe. The editorial boards and op-ed grandees have done a disservice to democracy by their uncritical support for embryo stem cell hype and what has often amounted to derision for those who have seen grave ethical and policy issues to be at stake in this debate.

But now that John Kerry has gone on the record for cloning, all that may change. For the good of the human race and sane biotech, let’s hope it does.

Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D., is President of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future based at Chicago-Kent College of Law. He has represented the United States at the United Nations discussions of a convention to prohibit human cloning, but writes in his personal capacity.