Scientists may never clone a human, but we now know that sensational claims about cloning can be replicated indefinitely.
Cloning falls into a hot-button category of news, genetic research, that is particularly ripe for exploitation. It is not very well understood by most people, including journalists, and it involves terms like “DNA” and “mutation” that can flood the imagination with B-movie visions of technology run amok.
This potent mix of fear, fascination and ignorance perhaps explains why normally skeptical people suspend their critical judgment and entertain unlikely claims from dubious sources.
Consider recent events: A Riverside physicist with no track record in molecular biology says he plans to set up a human cloning factory in the next few years and eventually crank out 500 clones–genetic copies grown from a fully developed cell–for infertile couples each year. He manages to sell this idea, not to a lurid supermarket tabloid, but to the steady and sober National Public Radio, whose report is picked up by the major news services, then a scattering of other media.
Then the deluge. Within 24 hours the story leads broadcasts and newspapers around the world. No less than the president of the United States publicly calls on Congress to act quickly and stop this guy. A White House statement calls physicist Richard Seed’s project “irresponsible, unethical and unprofessional.”
A better adjective might have been “unlikely.” Rarely have so many been so agitated about so little. A clear-eyed examination of Seed’s credentials, resources and rhetoric compel the conclusion that his project is little more than a fantasy. The episode readily calls to mind the first big human-clone sensation, a 1978 book by science writer David M. Rorvik that purported to be an account of a wealthy American who secretly had himself cloned by a reproductive specialist. The book, printed by a respected publisher, was ruled a hoax in a 1982 court suit.
Last week’s cloning furor reached global proportions not just because Richard Seed struck some people as a sound and credible scientist, but partly for the opposite reason: He came across as a bit vague and eccentric, not someone we like to think of as messing around with the basic stuff of life.
One of the things that makes cloning scary, rather than exciting, is the thought that there might be any number of odd dabblers out there, beyond the reach of law or reason.
The history of science is rife with examples of grandiose claims, unsupportable conclusions and outright fraud–Piltdown man, cold fusion and the famous prediction that a major earthquake would rock the Midwest in December 1990. But nothing seems to rival the fear factor connected with genetic research.
One reason may be that the genetic revolution of the past several decades has produced startling advances in medicine and agriculture. That makes it harder to dismiss someone with scientific credentials who says he is on the brink of mass cloning or some other unsettling breakthrough.
Unfortunately, those trying to separate the real from the ridiculous can’t always count on the news media to help them out, as last week’s runaway coverage vividly demonstrated. Even news organizations such as the Tribune, which saw little merit in the story initially, eventually were swept in from the sidelines, if only to report on the oddness of the media event itself. This has become a common dynamic in journalism; it’s safe to say that similar stories will be sailing toward your doorstep soon.
For those readers and television viewers trying to keep up with news from the fast-developing genetic revolution, here are some guidelines for building your own hokum detectors:
First, do not accept extraordinary claims, as the late Carl Sagan used to say, unless they are accompanied by extraordinary proof. Pressed for details about how he will deal with the profound biological challenges of cloning a human, Seed has offered mainly generalities and platitudes about how science, now that cloning has been proved possible in animals, can overcome all obstacles. Not good enough.
Actually, even the notion that cloning has been accomplished merits a bit of skepticism. The claim that Dolly the sheep is a clone, although widely believed, has not yet been proved to the satisfaction of some molecular biologists. They want to see the feat replicated in other labs before they accept the results as valid.
Another thing to bear in mind is that nobody understands fully how all this gene stuff works. Therefore few scientists want to go on record as saying flatly that something like human cloning is impossible. That leaves the door open for charlatans who can’t be readily refuted.
Thirdly, be aware that the genetic researchers most capable of cloning humans are perhaps the least interested in doing it. The holy grail for these specialists is gene therapy, the repair of genetic flaws that cause disease. However, some researchers believe they would benefit from technologies that might evolve from cloning efforts, and for that reason they oppose measures to ban such research.
Finally, don’t lose sight of the fact that scientific research is not just a search for the truth about the physical world; it involves fierce competition for funding and increasingly is a thriving commercial enterprise. Beware the scientists or companies that bypass the peer-reviewed publication and call a news conference to announce their stunning breakthrough. They might be mainly interested in drumming up investor interest, as Seed freely admitted he was.
Meanwhile, prepare for more weird science. We may hear next from someone–an Elvis impersonator, say–who claims to be a clone off the old block. Hey, it’s possible, right?
