A small step..

1997/04/01 Kaltzada, Pili - Elhuyar Zientziaren Komunikazioa Iturria: Elhuyar aldizkaria

• Genetika

The scientific journal Nature released on 27 February the work carried out by researchers of the Roslin Institute. But when the article written by Ian Wilmut and his collaborators saw light, Dolly was known worldwide. And, aware of the importance of the discovery and the repercussion that the news was going to achieve, a week before its launch in Nature, the British Press Association was informed. The New York Times was the first to spread the news of the clonic sheep.

British writer Aldous Huxley described clonic beings in 1932 in his book Bai mundu berria. Fiction, however, approached reality in a new step II. During the World War. On the occasion of his desire to be an example of race and exemplarity, the orders of Hitler were carried out many attempts under the direction of Josef Mengele, who we knew as the Angel of Death; since then, for many citizens, genetic manipulation has been linked to these events of Auschwich forever. In addition, fiction has ensured the survival of this dark myth through several novels and films, as is undoubtedly the case of the children of Brazil.

It is no wonder, therefore, the controversy that has provoked nothing more to open the news of Dolly. The dream of reason causes monsters and ignorance, or half-truths, fear. As it has been possible to clone beings of high level, why not, as it is usually said in the circus, more difficult even the lords, clone to man?

The debate does not focus on the viability of the technique used by the researchers of the Roslin Institute of Scotland, nor on the problems that can be the manipulation of animal genetic information; the problem that has provoked intense sessions in newspapers, radios, television and colloquial gatherings has been limited to the potential use of this technique: Will the human being come to manipulate his own species in a desired way? Once the road is opened, who will put the barriers to the sea?

After Dolly, what?

It is the ascension of her mother, who carries her own genetic information. There has been a great concern about the fact that you can not yet say what we are going to find on the path that Dolly has opened.

Ian Wilmut has shown himself again and again against the human cloning. “Technically analyzed, it would not be anything difficult, of course, researchers should go beyond the steps taken to get Dolly if at some point they wanted to transplant the genetic code of human beings, but after having heard those words. As is known, there is always a risk that someone will do something in science, as in other areas of life. In Western States, in most cases explicitly and otherwise implicitly, it is totally forbidden to be human as possible. The problem is not the viability of the technique we have used; we should analyze the ethical content of that possible use and, in my opinion, the researchers who work with me, that would be an injustice. Ethically it is not possible to accept such experiments, it is contrary to human law.” These statements were made in all news agencies; Ian Wilmut, head of the Roslin Institute research team, spoke to reassure people.

However, the environment was not entirely to manipulate the genetic information of them. From the very moment the Genome Project was launched, this debate on bioethics was opened to the public. According to Xabier Etxeberria, director of the Chair of Ethics at the University of Deusto, “everything that can be done doesn’t have to be done. Starting from this base, I believe that in the future there will be no need to raise the possibility of cloning with the human being. (...) Because research cannot cause more harm than benefits.” In his statements to the Basque Newspaper, Xabier Etxeberria highlighted the need to create an ontological code that regulates and controls this type of research.

We have also heard that cloning with animals and humans should be distinguished. It will seem obvious to you what has been said, reader, but after reading what has been read in recent months we have dared to say again. Science is at the same time the only one responsible for all our evils and the only solution. Science itself will save us from tragedy or from the flames of hell to help us take away. There is no way, there is no one who has put science and technology in place; we have not heard almost anywhere that the development of science is not in itself good or bad, but accidental. Given the timid information we have received about Dolly, we have lacked the umbrella of prudence.

Can it be beneficial?

Without a doubt. The genetic code of these animals can explain the mysteries of life. In our genes, the characteristics of life are codified. Knowing them and, where necessary, correcting them, would allow us to overcome many obstacles. For example, a complete pathway of recovery of many diseases or new possibilities of organ transplantation. Currently in medicine several animals are used as a bioreactor, to which they are incorporated a foreign gene to produce anti-disease substances. It is an example, of course.

All said is the sudden launch with the cloning of superior beings in the head. If we analyze the genetic manipulation of plants, the field of benefits extends more: the production of substances against certain diseases, the abundance of foods that resist pests, etc., and much more. These experiments are already being carried out and in some cases the success will be vital for millions of citizens. There is the rival of the coin.

Can it be harmful?

Without a doubt. Unfortunately, at the moment unilateral coins have not been found, so it is inevitable that all coins have their opponent and patch.

Genetic manipulation can accelerate the loss of biodiversity and, as we know, it is already a rather serious problem to deepen more. The following example serves to understand what we mean. Suppose we have the possibility of massively producing a variety of plants capable of dealing with a certain type of pests; logically, the rest of varieties of the plant is discarded little by little, because we have a healthier, more productive plant and, in short, better. Without remedy, the plant will lose its genetic treasure, it will only be a matter of time. What's more, if the mechanism that causes this epidemic detects and overcomes the protection systems of this variety, the plant would lose, in addition to the genetic treasure, all its chances of survival. In a few years, months or days, we should remove one of the existing plant species in the world, another.

What Heidegger said today seems prophetic: “The ability to manipulate one’s own life will be in the future more dangerous than new technologies capable of causing death.”