Unit 8

Section (A)

Legal and Moral Implications of Cloning


At first it was just plain surprising. Word last week that a scientist named Ian Wilmut had succeeded

in cloning an adult mammal — an achievement long thought impossible — caught the imagination of

everyone. The laboratory process that produced Dolly, an unremarkable-looking sheep, theoretically

would work for humans as well. A world with human clones was suddenly within reach. It was science

fiction coming to life.

In the wake of Wilmut's announcement, governments hurried to draft guidelines for the unknown, a

future filled with incredible possibilities. President Clinton ordered a national commission to study the

legal and moral implications of cloning. Leaders in Europe, where most nations already prohibit human

cloning, began examining the moral implications of cloning other species.

Like the Theory of Relativity, the splitting of the atom, and the first space flight, Dolly's appearance

has generated a long list of difficult puzzles for scientists, politicians, and philosophers. And wild

questions on the topic of cloning continue to mount.

Why would anyone want to clone a human being in the first place?

The human cloning situations that experts consider most frequently fall into two broad categories: 1)

parents who want to clone a child, either to provide transplants for a dying child or to replace that child,

and 2) adults who for a variety of reasons might want to clone themselves.

Will it be possible to clone the dead?

Perhaps, if the body is fresh, says one expert. The cloning method used by Wilmut's lab requires

combining an egg cell with the nucleus of a cell containing the DNA of the person to be cloned. (DNA is a

very long, ribbon -like molecule that contains our genetic information.) And that means that the

nucleus must be intact. Cells die and the cell nucleus begins to break apart after death. But, yes, in

theory at least it might be possible.

Would a cloned human be identical to the original?

Identical genes don't produce identical people, as anyone who knows a set of identical twins can tell

you. In fact, twins are more alike than clones would be, since they have at least shared the same

environment within the mother, are usually raised in the same family, and so forth. Parents could clone

a second child who resembled their first in appearance, but all the evidence suggests the two would

have very different personalities. Twins separated at birth do sometimes share personality

characteristics, but such characteristics in a cloned son or daughter would only be reminders of the

child who was lost.

Even in terms of biology, a clone would not be identical to the "master copy". The clone's cells, for

example, would have energy-processing machinery that came from the egg, not from the person who

was cloned. But most of the physical differences between originals and copies are so minor that

detection of them would require a sophisticated laboratory. The one possible exception is bearing

children. Wilmut and his coworkers are not sure that Dolly will be able to have lambs. They will try to

find out once she's old enough to breed.

What if parents decided to clone a child in order to harvest organs?

Most experts agree that it would be psychologically harmful if a child sensed he had been brought

into the world simply as an organ donor. But some parents already produce second children with

nonfatal transplants in mind, and many experts do not oppose this. Cloning would increase the chances

for a tissue match from 25 percent to nearly 100 percent.

If cloned animals could be used as organ donors, we wouldn't have to worry about cloning twins for

transplants. Pigs, for example, have organs similar in size to humans'. But the human body attacks and

destroys tissue from other species. To get around that, one company is trying to alter the pig's genetic

code to prevent pig organs from being attacked. If the company's technicians succeed, it may be more

efficient to produce such pigs by cloning than by current methods.

How would a human clone refer to the donor of its DNA?

"Mom" is not right, because the woman or women who supplied the egg and gave birth to the infant

would more appropriately be called Mother. "Dad" isn't right, either. A traditional father supplies only

half the DNA in a child. Judith Martin, in her writings under the name of "Miss Manners";, suggests the

phrase, "Most honored sir or madam". Why? "One should always respect one's ancestors," she says,

"regardless of what they did to bring one into the world."

That still leaves some confusion over vocabulary. The editorial director of one dictionary says that

the noun "clonee" may sound like a good term, but it's not clear enough. Instead, he prefers "original"

and "copy".

What are the other implications of cloning for society?

The gravest concern isn't really cloning itself, but genetic engineering — the deliberate altering of

genes to create human beings according to certain requirements. Specifically, some experts are

concerned about the creation of a new (and disrespected) social class: "the clones". One expert believes

the situation could be comparable to what occurred in the 16th century, when Europeans puzzled over

how to classify the unfamiliar inhabitants of the Americas, and endlessly debated whether or not they

were humans.

The list of questions could go on; people are just beginning to wonder about the future of the world

after cloning.

Words: 900

New Words

　implication n. 1.含义，暗示 2.牵连，卷入
▲clone v. (使)无性繁殖；克隆
n. 无性繁殖系（个体）；克隆
　fiction n. 1.小说 2.虚构，想像
　draft vt. 1.起草，草拟 2.征募，征召
n. 1.草稿，草案，草图 2.汇票
　guideline n. 指导原则，指导方针，准则
　prohibit vt. 禁止；阻止，使不可能
　relativity n. 1.【物理】爱因斯坦的相对论(指出一切运动都是相对的，而且把时间看作是与空间有关

的第四维） 2.相关性，相对性
　split v. 1.（使）裂开，（使）破裂 2.（使）分裂
n. 裂缝，分裂
　atom n. 1.原子 2.微粒，极小之物
　mount vi. 增加，上升
vt. 1.登上 2.准备并进行；组织，发动
　category n. 种类，类型，范畴
▲transplant n. 1.移植的器官或植物 2.（组织或器官的）移植
vt. 1.移栽，移种（植物等） 2.移植（器官） 3.使迁移，使移居
　nucleus n. 1.细胞核，核 2.原子核 3.中心，核心
■DNA n. 脱氧核糖核酸
　ribbon n. 缎带，丝带
▲genetic a. 遗传的，遗传学的
▲intact a. 完整无缺的，未经触动的
　gene n. 基因
　twin n. 孪生儿，双胞胎
　resemble vt. 像，类似
　machinery n. （总称）机器，机械
　minor a. 较小的，较少的；低级的，次要的
n. 未成年人
　detection n. 察觉，发觉；探测
　breed vi. （动物）繁殖，产仔
vt. 饲养，繁殖
n. 品种，种，属
　organ n. 1.器官 2.风琴 3.机构
■donor n. 1.献血者；捐献器官的人 2.捐赠者
　fatal a. 决定命运的 ;致命的
◆nonfatal n. 非致命的
　tissue n. 1.组织 2.薄纸，纸巾
　code n. 1.代码，密码 2.法典，法规，准则
vt. 译成电码
　technician n. 技术人员，技师
　infant n. 婴儿
　phrase n. 短语，词组，用语
vt. 用言语表达，叙述
　confusion n. 1.困惑，迷乱，分辨不清 2.混淆 3.混乱，骚乱
　editorial a. 编辑的，主编的
n. 社论
　deliberate a. 1.故意的，蓄意的 2.谨慎的，慎重的
v. 认真考虑，研讨
　specifically ad. 1.明确地，具体地 2.特别地，特意
　comparable a. 可比较的，类似的
　classify vt. 分类，归类
　debate v. 讨论，辩论
n. 讨论，辩论



Phrases and Expressions

　succeed in doing sth. 成功，完成
　work for 适用于 为... ...工作
　as well (as ) 也，和，除... ...之外
　within (one's) reach 在伸手能及的范围以内 近的；方便到达的
　come to life 活跃起来，表现生动
　in the wake of 随着，紧跟着
　in the first place 首先，一开始
　fall into 可分成；属于
　provide for 为... ...提供（所需的某物）
　break apart 自行裂开
　in theory 理论上
　identical to / with 与……一模一样
　and (so on and) so forth 等等
　What if … …要是……怎么办
　bring into the world 生（孩子）
　with sth. in mind 出于……目的
　get around 成功地解决，克服
　refer to 将……称为 提及，谈到 查阅，询问 转送至某人以便得到处理或帮助
　give birth to sb. / sth. 生(孩子)；产(仔)
　under the name of 用别名
　regardless of 不顾，不管
　be concerned about / over 担心，担忧
　comparable to / with 可与……相比
　puzzle over 努力思考
　wonder about 对……好奇；想知道；对……疑惑



Proper Names

　Ian Wilmut 伊恩·威尔莫特
　Dolly 多莉(羊)
　Clinton 克林顿(美国前总统)
　Judith Martin 朱迪斯·马丁
　Miss Manners 礼仪小姐


Section(B)

Who Will Take Advantage of Human Cloning?


Last week's news that scientists had cloned a sheep sent academics and the public into a panic at the

prospect that humans might be next. That's an understandable reaction. Cloning is a radical challenge

to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's reasonable to be concerned that it might be a preface to

activities that will threaten human society and dignity. Yet much of the moral opposition seems also to

grow out of an automatic, unthinking disgust. This refusal to consider the issue logically makes it hard

for even trained scientists and other experts to see the matter clearly. While human cloning might not

offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a convincing case that it would do any real harm,

either.

Conservative spiritual leaders have claimed that cloning a human constitutes a gross attack on

human dignity. That would surely be true if a cloned individual were treated as a lesser being, with

fewer rights or lower status. But why suppose that the laws that protect our rights and dignity would

not be applicable to cloned persons? A leading lawyer has suggested that cloning would violate the

"right to a unique genetic identity". Where did he come up with such a right? It makes perfect sense to

say that adult persons have a right not to be cloned without their voluntary, informed consent. But if

such consent were given, whose "right" to genetic identity would be violated?

Many of the vivid warnings of science-fiction concerning the prospect of human cloning turn out,

upon reflection, to be wildly improbable. There's the fear, for instance, that parents might clone a child

for the sake of having "surplus parts" in case the original child needs an organ transplant. But parents

of identical twins don't view one child as an organ farm for the other. Why should cloned children's

parents be any different?

Another disturbing thought is that cloning will lead to efforts to breed individuals with genetic

qualities perceived as desirable (math geniuses, soccer players, etc.). Such ideas are offensive, not only

because of an unthinking disgust, but also because of the horrors carried out by the Nazis in the name

of improving their race. But there's a vast difference between the breeding programs as practiced by

some groups (where the urge to breed certain types of people leads to efforts to destroy other types)

and the much more harmless forms already practiced in democratic societies (where, say, lawyers

freely choose to have sexual relations with other lawyers). Banks stocked with the frozen sperm of

geniuses already exist, but they haven't created a master race because few women are queuing up to

get pregnant this way. Why should we think it would be different if human cloning becomes available?

So who will likely take advantage of cloning? Perhaps a couple whose child is dying. This might seem

psychologically suspect. But a cloned child born to such suspect parents stands no greater or lesser

chance of being loved, or rejected, than a child created the normal way. Infertile couples are also likely

to seek out cloning. That such couples have other options (artificially bringing egg and sperm together,

or adopting a child) is not an argument for denying them the right to clone. Or consider an example

raised by Judge Richard Posner: a couple in which the husband has some unfortunate genetic defect.

Currently, if this couple wants a genetically related child, they have four not altogether pleasant

options. They can reproduce naturally and resign themselves to the risk of passing on the disease to the

child. They can go to a sperm bank and take a chance on unknown genes. They can bring egg and

sperm together artificially and dispose of any affected baby before placing it in the mother, or before

birth — though that might be objectionable, too. Or they can get a male relative of the father to be a

sperm donor, if such a relative exists. This is one case where even people bothered by creating a child

under the lens of a microscope might see cloning as not the worst option.

Even if human cloning offers no obvious benefits to mankind, why ban it? In a democracy we don't

usually pass laws against something before there is actual or probable evidence of harm. Before we go

any further, it might make sense to require a temporary pause on research into human cloning in order

to make a systematic enquiry into the grave questions it raises. When research into cloning is resumed,

human cloning should remain a research activity for an extended period. And if it is ever attempted, it

should — and no doubt will — take place only under careful examination and layers of legal

administration. Most important, human cloning should be governed by the same laws that now protect

human rights. A world not safe for cloned humans would be a world not safe for the rest of us.

Words: 824

New Words

　panic n. 恐慌，惊慌
v. （使）惊慌
　preface n. 1.开端，前奏，序幕 2.序言，前言，引言
　refusal n. 拒绝
　conservative a. 保守的，守旧的，传统的
n. 保守的人，保守派
　spiritual a. 1.宗教上的 2.心灵的，精神上的
　constitute vt. 1.是，构成 2.组成，构成
　gross a. 1.明显错误的 2.总的，总共的
　applicable a. 适用的，合适的，适当的
　voluntary a. 自愿的，志愿的
　consent n. 同意，准许
vi. 同意，准许
　vivid a. 鲜艳的，鲜明的，生动的，逼真的
　reflection n. 1.考虑，深思 2.反射，反照；倒影 3.反映，表达
　probable a. 很有可能的，大概的
◆improbable a. 不大可能的，未必确实的
　sake n. 缘由，理由
　surplus a. 过剩的，多余的
n. 过剩；剩余额
　soccer n. 英式足球
　horror n. 1.令人恐惧的事物，恐怖 2.恐惧，震惊
　democratic a. 民主的，有民主精神的
　sexual a. 性的，两性的
■sperm n. 精子
　queue vi. 排队
n. (排队等候的)一队人或车等
◆infertile a. 不育的；不结果实的
　artificial a. 1.人造的，人工的 2.假的，矫揉造作的
　defect n. 缺陷，缺点
　reproduce v. 1.（指人类、动物等）繁殖，生殖 2.复制，再现
　resign v. 1.顺从，听从 2.辞职，引退
　dispose v. 1.摆脱，处理，扔掉 2.安排，布置
　lens n. 透镜，（凹、凸）镜片
　microscope n. 显微镜
　democracy n. 1.民主国家 2.民主；民主政体
　temporary a. 短暂的，暂时的，临时的
　systematic a. 有系统的，有计划的，有方法的
　resume v. 再继续，恢复
　layer n. 层
　administration n. 1.管理，经营，支配 2.行政部门，行政机关 3.政府
　govern v. 1.影响，支配，规定 2.统治，治理，管理



Phrases and Expressions

　send into 使处于（某种状态），使变得
　at the prospect of/that… 当意识到……可能时
　grow out of 由... ...而生，起因于
　make sense 有道理，合乎情理；明智
　turn out (to be) 证实是，原来是
　on/upon reflection 再考虑后
　for the sake of sth./doing sth. 为了得到或拥有
　view as 视为，看作
　perceive as 视为，当作
　carry out 进行，实施
　in the name of 借... ...之名；为... ...目的
　queue up 排长队
　stock with 使藏有，使备有
　stand a chance of 有可能（取得）
　seek out 寻找并发现
　resign oneself to sth. 只得接受
　pass on 传递，传给
　take a chance on 冒险
　dispose of 摆脱，处理，扔掉
　make an enquiry into 调查；打听



Proper Names

　Nazi （德国）国社党党员，纳粹分子
　Richard Posner 理查德·波斯纳


Section (C)

Twins Six Years Apart


Scientists in Scotland recently announced that, for the first time, they have cloned an exact copy of

an adult mammal. The cloned lamb, named Dolly, has the exact same genes as the adult sheep from

which she was cloned. In other words, the two are identical twins; only Dolly is six years younger. The

goal of the Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut is to develop a way to raise identical sheep that produce

medicines for humans.

A week after Wilmut's announcement, other scientists revealed that they had used a different

technique to clone monkeys, which are much more closely related to humans. These accomplishments

immediately set off a worldwide debate: Should scientists be allowed to clone animals? Is cloning

morally wrong and dangerous — or is it a valuable research tool?

All attempts at cloning were largely unsuccessful until 1984. That's when a scientist in Denmark

separated cells from a sheep's embryo (胚胎). An embryo is an early stage of development in which

cells are busy dividing and "transforming" into specialized cells like skin, eye, or muscle cells.

Unlike a skin cell, an embryo is on its way to becoming a complete living thing: The Danish scientist

combined an embryo cell with an egg cell from another sheep. He put the combined cell — then a newly

growing embryo — into a grown female sheep. To much surprise, the embryo grew into a baby lamb.

Since then, other scientists have used embryos to clone cattle, pigs, goats, rabbits - and, now, even

monkeys.

So what makes Wilmut's sheep unique? Instead of using early-stage embryo cells, Wilmut used cells

from the udder (乳腺) of an adult sheep. In theory, that's like using one of your skin cells to clone a new

you!

Wilmut knew that each cell of the body contains a full set of genetic instructions — instructions to

grow a complete individual. (The only exceptions are egg and sperm cells, each of which contains half

the genes to grow a new individual.) Once cells have specialized, on their way to becoming skin or eye

or udder cells, most of the genetic instructions to make a full being are turned off. Until now, scientists

believed that specialized cells could not be used to form a complete living thing.

Wilmut proved them wrong. He found a way to take an udder cell and make it grow into a new cloned

lamb. An amazing fact: Dolly has no biological father.

Wilmut's success didn't come easily. He has been studying this problem for more than two decades.

Last year, he used embryos to successfully clone two sheep. Then he went ahead to clone an adult

sheep. But, of 277 udder cells he fused with egg cells, only 30 began to develop into embryos. He

implanted 29 of those into female sheep. Only one adult gave birth to a lamb.

Other scientists have jumped in to repeat Wilmut's experiment with other animals, including cows.

And that's what has scientists, animal-rights advocates, politicians — even President Clinton — up in

arms. How far, they wonder, will cloning go?

Wilmut maintains that cloning animals has tremendous potential for helping people. Cloned sheep, he

says, could be used as living drug factories. Scientists could "engineer" sheep that produce drugs in

their milk. And by altering the proteins on the surfaces of animal organs to make them more like

human organs, scientists believe they may be able to create a plentiful source of organ donors for

people.

Why not clone humans as organ donors? Theoretically, Wilmut says, there is no reason his

techniques couldn't someday be used to clone people. Think about the possibilities: a whole basketball

team of Michael Jordans, a scientific panel of Albert Einsteins, a movie starring and co-starring Brad

Pitts.

On a more serious note, some experts argue that couples who have difficulty having a baby could

make copies of themselves. And parents whose child has a fatal disease like cancer might be able to

clone the child, creating a twin who could be a bone-marrow (骨髓) donor.

But even Ian Wilmut draws the line at cloning humans. "All of us would find that offensive," he says.

Several countries, including Britain, Denmark, Germany, and Australia, have made all scientific work on

cloning humans illegal. The U.S. has no such law, but President Clinton has set up a panel of scientists

and philosophers to study the issue. In the meantime, Clinton has imposed a ban on using federal

money to clone humans.

Humans are more than the sum of their genes, argues a philosopher at one research institute.

Though they look exactly the same, clones are not necessarily exact copies. The younger twin might

grow up with different influences — say, unusual friends or special teachers. A cloned Albert Einstein

might fail his physics class. A cloned pop star might sing terribly.

Say you were cloned. Would your twin live a shorter life because he or she started out with DNA that

was already 10, 20, or 30 years old? Scientists aren't sure. And how could you prevent someone from

taking a sample of your hair and making a clone of you? Again, no solutions.

Some people who oppose cloning also object to the use of animals as research tools. "Next, they'll be

cloning foxes to make more fur (毛皮) coats," says the president of an animal rights group.

What do you think? Should scientists be allowed to clone animals? How about humans?

Words: 900