[2] Even if the technique were perfected, however, we must ask ourselves what practical value wholebeing cloning might have. What exactly would be the difference between a “cloned” baby and a child born naturally — and why would we want one?

 

[3] The cloned child would be a genetically identical twin of the original, and thus physically very similar —far more similar than a natural parent and child. Human personality, however, emerges from both the effects of the genes we inherit (nature) and environmental factors (nurture). The two clones would develop distinct personalities, just as twins develop unique identities. And because the copy would often be born in a different family, cloned twins would be less alike in personality than natural identical twins.

 

[4] Why “copy” people in the first place? Couples unable to have children might choose to have a copy of one of them rather than accept the intrusion of genes from a donor. My wife and I have two children of our own and an adopted child, but I find it helpful to consider what might have happened in my own marriage if a copy of me had been made to overcome infertility. My wife and I met in high school. How would she react to a physical copy of the young man she fell in love with? How would any of us find living with ourselves? Surely the older clone — I, in this case — would believe that he understood how the copy should behave and so be even more likely than the average father to impose expectations upon his child. Above all, how would a teenager cope with looking at me, a balding, aging man, and seeing the physical future ahead of him?

 

[5] Each of us can imagine hypothetical families created by the introduction of a cloned child — a copy of one partner in a homosexual relationship or of a single parent, for example. What is missing in all this is consideration of what’s in the interests of the cloned child. Because there is no form of infertility that could be overcome only by cloning, I do not find these proposals acceptable. My concerns are not on religious grounds or on the basis of a perceived intrinsic ethical principle. Rather, my judgment is that it would be difficult for families created in this way to provide an appropriate environment for the child.

 

[6] Cloning is also suggested as a means of bringing back a relative, usually a child, killed tragically. Any parent can understand that wish, but it must first be recognized that the copy would be a new baby and not the lost child. Herein lies the difficulty, for the grieving parents are seeking not a new baby but a return of the dead one. Since the original would be fondly remembered as having particular talents and interests, would not the parent expect the copy to be the same? It is possible, however, that the copy would develop quite differently. Is it fair to the new child to place it in a family with such unnatural expectations?

 

[7] What if the lost child was very young? The shorter the life, the fewer the expectations parents might place on the substitute, right? If a baby dies within a few days of birth and there is no reason to think that death was caused by an inherited defect, would it then be acceptable to make a copy? Is it practical to frame legislation that would prevent copying of adults or older children, but allow copying of infants? At what age would a child be too old to be copied in the event of death?

 

[8] Copying is also suggested as a means by which parents can have the child of their dreams. Couples might choose to have a copy of a film star, baseball player or scientist, depending on their interests. But because personality is only partly the result of genetic inheritance, conflict would be sure to arise if the cloned child failed to develop the same interests as the original. What if the copy of Einstein shows no interest in science? Or the football player turns to acting?

 

[9] Success also depends upon fortune. What if the child who does not live up to the hopes and dreams of the parent simply because of bad luck?

 

[10] Every child should be wanted for itself, as an individual. In making a copy of oneself or some famous person, a parent is deliberately specifying the way he or she wishes that child to develop. In recent years, particularly in the US, much importance has been placed on the right of individuals to reproduce in ways that they wish. I suggest that there is a greater need to consider the interests of the child and to reject these proposed uses of cloning. By contrast, human cloning could, in theory, be used to obtain tissues needed to treat disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and diabetes. These diseases are associated with cell types that do not repair or replace themselves, but suitable cells will one day be grown in culture. These uses cannot be justified now; nor are they likely to be in the near future.

 

[11] Moreover, there is a lot we do not know about the effects of cloning, especially in terms of aging. As we grow older, changes occur in our cells that reduce the number of times they can reproduce. This clock of age is reset by normal reproduction during the production of sperm and eggs; that is why children of each new generation have a full life span. It is not yet known whether aging is reversed during cloning or if the clone’s natural life is shortened by the years its parent has already lived. Then there is the problem of the genetic errors that accumulate in our cells. There are systems to seek out and correct such errors during normal reproduction; it is not known if that can occur during cloning. Research with animals is urgently required to measure the lifespan and determine the cause of death of animals produced by cloning.

 

[12] Important questions also remain on the most appropriate means of controlling the development and use of these techniques. It is taken for granted that the production and sale of drugs will be regulated by governments, but this was not always the case. A hundred years ago, the production and sale of drugs in the US. was unregulated. Unscrupulous companies took the opportunity to include in their products substances, like cocaine, that were likely to make the patients feel better even if they offered no treatment for the original condition. After public protest, championed by publications such as the Ladies’ Home Journal, a federal act was passed in 1906. An enforcement agency, known now as the FDA, was established in 1927. An independent body similar to the FDA is now required to assess all the research on cloning.

 

[13] There is much still to be learned about the biology associated with cloning. The time required for this research, however, will also provide an opportunity for each society to decide how it wishes the technique to be used. At some point in the future, cloning will have much to contribute to human medicine, but we must use it cautiously.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

译文

 

多莉引发的谬论

 

1997年2月克隆羊多莉的出生引发全球范围内关于克隆的道德和医学问题大辩论。美国几个州和欧洲国家已经禁止克隆人类，然而韩国科学家在10月声称他们已经开始了克隆人的计划。在《时代周刊》的这篇文章中，在苏格兰罗斯林学院克隆出多莉的胚胎学家Wilmot阐释了他认为对克隆人的争论很大程度上没有意义的理由。

 

[1] 对人工复制生命的道德问题的辩论忽略了一个事实：当前，克隆本身是一个效率极低的过程。我们的研究表明克隆胎儿和后代的死亡率比自然生育的高的多 --出生前，大约为10倍，出生后为3倍。这令与动物打交道的人们很沮丧，克隆的高失败率让人难以想象将它应用于人类本身。

 

[2] 然而，即使技术已经非常成熟，我们也必须扪心自问：克隆人具有什么实际价值吗？克隆婴儿和自然生育的婴儿到底有什么差别 -- 我们为何想要克隆人？

 

[3] 克隆的孩子与被克隆的孩子将是一对基因完全相同的双胞胎，这样从生理上讲他们十分相似--比自然生产的双亲和孩子还要相像。然而个性形成受继承的基因和环境因素两方面的影响。这两个克隆产物将发展完全不同的个性，就像双胞胎具有不同的个性一样。因为克隆人经常在不同的家庭中成长，所以克隆人在个性上没有双胞胎那么相似。

 

[4] 首先，为什么"复制"人呢？不能生育的夫妇可能选择克隆他们自己而不接受基因捐赠。我和妻子生了两个孩子，领养了一个，但是，想想，如果克隆一个我自己来弥补缺憾，那对我的婚姻将意味着什么？我和妻子在高中相识。她将如何面对高中时爱上的年轻人的克隆？我们自己又如何面对和自己生活在一起的情况？当然，被克隆的那个人-在这种情况下，就是我- 会认为他理解克隆人的行为因而可能比普通父亲更容易给孩子强加一些愿望。最重要的是，十多岁的克隆孩子将如何应对这样的状况- 看着头发稀疏，逐渐年老的我，想着这就是他的将来吗？

 

[5] 我们每一个人都可以想象由于克隆孩子的加入而可能组成的家庭--比如，将同性恋伴侣中的一个或者单亲克隆。但是在这样的情况下我们并没有考虑这对克隆孩子有什么好处。因为没有哪一种无生育能力能够通过克隆得以解决，所以我并不觉得这样的建议可以接受。我的担忧并不是建立在宗教或者所感知到的内在伦理原则上，而是我认为以这种方式建立的家庭很难给孩子提供一个合适的成长环境。

 

[6] 克隆也被认为是替代死于非命的亲人（通常是一个孩子）的一种方式。任何父母都理解这种愿望，但是我们必须认识到克隆出来的是一个全新的孩子而不是失去的孩子，而问题就在于此，对于悲痛欲绝的父母来说他们寻求的不是一个新的孩子而是死去的孩子的重生。既然原来那个孩子给父母留下了具有特殊天赋和兴趣的美好记忆，那么父母怎么能够不期望一个一模一样的孩子呢？然而，克隆的孩子有可能与所期望的完全不同，让克隆的孩子生在这样的家庭，公平吗？ 

 

[7] 如果死去的孩子很小的话克隆是否可行呢？孩子活得时间越短，父母对克隆孩子的期望就越低，对吗？如果一个孩子出生后几天就死了并且没有什么原因证明死亡是由于先天性的缺陷导致的，这就可以接受去克隆一个孩子吗？制定法律禁止克隆成年人和年龄大的孩子，但却允许克隆婴儿，这符合实际吗？那么多大年龄算作不能克隆的年龄呢?

 

[8] 克隆还被认为是父母拥有一个梦想中的孩子的方式。根据兴趣，夫妻可能选择克隆一个明星、棒球运动员或者科学家。但是遗传对性格产生的影响仅是一部分，如果克隆的孩子并没有像父母期望的那样，肯定会出现矛盾。爱因斯坦的克隆对科学没有丝毫兴趣，该怎么办？或者如果足球运动员变成演员呢？

 

[9] 成功也要靠运气。如果因为运气不好，孩子没能达到父母的期望值呢？

 

[10] 每一个孩子都应该是独立的个体。在克隆自己或者某个名人的时候，父母已经明确地详细规划了他或她希望孩子将来发展的方向。近些年来，特别是在美国，人们以自己希望的方式生育的权力已经得到了重视。我认为我们需要更多地考虑孩子的利益，摒弃这些克隆的建议。然而，从理论上讲人类克隆可以用来获得在治疗像帕金森和糖尿病时所需的组织。这些疾病是由不能自身修复或复制的细胞引起的，但是总有一天这些细胞会在培养基中培养出来。现在还没有正当的理由来用它们，近期也不可能。

 

[11] 而且，我们对于克隆的影响知之甚少，特别是年龄变化所带来的影响。随着我们逐渐变老，细胞发生变化，它们复制自身的次数减少。年龄生物钟通过正常的生育在精子和卵子的产生过程中被重新设定，这就是为什么每一代新生儿都有完整的生命周期的原因。我们并不知道在克隆的过程中年龄会被重新设定还是克隆人的生命会由于他们父母的年龄而缩短。还有一个问题就是在我们人体细胞中积累的基因错误。在正常的繁衍过程中人体系统会自动调出这些错误并加以修正；我们并不知道在克隆的过程中会不会发生这样的过程。现在迫切需要动物研究来测试克隆动物的生命期限，确定它们死亡的原因。

 

[12] 如何最佳控制这些技术的发展和应用也是悬而未决的问题。人们想当然地认为药物的生产与销售应该由政府调控，但是以前情况并不总是这样。一百年前，美国药物的生产与销售并不受管治，肆无忌惮的公司趁机在他们的产品中加入可卡因等物质，这些物质可能使病人在即使药物没有治疗病症的情况下也感到非常舒适。经过公众抗议，在《女性家庭期刊》等出版物的支持下，一项联合法令在1906年获得通过。一个强制执行机构，即食品及药品管理局，在1927年建立。目前正需要一个与食品及药品管理局类似的独立机构来评估所有关于克隆的研究。 

 

[13]还有许多与克隆有关的生物学知识需要我们学习。然而，这项研究所需的时间也为每一个国家提供机会决定如何使用这项技术。将来的某个时候，克隆终究会对人类医药的发展做出很大的贡献，但是我们必须谨慎地利用它。