Even before scientists began to clone animals through genetic engineering and "designer" genes, ethical debates have raged on in the medical and scientific communities as to how far people should go to control their own bodies. But a panel of four figures with different perspectives on the bioethics debate defended the process to over 100 students and faculty in a discussion held yesterday in Logan Hall. The experts -- including Gina Kolata, a science writer for The New York Times and author of Clone: The Road to Dolly and The Path Ahead; Biochemistry Department Chairperson Ponzy Lu; Penn Center for Bioethics bioethicist Paul Wolpe and Biology Professor Scott Poethig -- described the most recent developments in the field of genetic engineering. "For the first time, through bio-engineering, one can create a human who is not the product of a sperm and egg," Wolpe said. Insisting he was in favor of cloning, Wolpe still stressed that doctors must consider the moral implications of the process. "Bioethics serves as a check on physician power," he said. Wolpe stressed that "[gene therapy] should be performed carefully and rightfully" and that he is "deeply concerned that it be discussed in society." While some believe that cloning is unethical because it counteracts human nature, several panelists pointed out that the ability to clone animals -- or even humans -- could be valuable. Kolata cited examples of cases in which cloning might save lives. For example, cloning would allow a 40-year-old woman -- unable to have a baby on her own -- to give birth. And although the federal government has decided to cease putting federal money toward cloning for at least two years, Wolpe said he is skeptical about whether cloning research will cease. But Poethig rebutted this point, saying that while the Food and Drug Administration "has the power to shut down cloning,? it has decided not to? because people want to have the technology." After the discussion, some students expressed negative feelings toward the practice of cloning. College senior Agatha Lambris said that if genetic engineering would be allowed, rich people would be the only ones likely to afford it. "Would this not lead us down the slope to racism and the like?" she asked.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
