In H. G. Wells’s novel The Island of Dr. Moreau, the survivor of a shipwreck lands on an island in the South Pacific. There he discovers the island’s owner has been creating human-animal hybrids.
Wells’ novel grew out of his revulsion at what people were doing to animals. Today, the real source of horror is what man is doing to himself.
Wells’ villain used surgery to create his monsters and had to flee civilization to pursue his inhuman goals. Today’s would-be Dr. Moreaus not only have a much more powerful tool—genetic engineering—but they also have the government’s official blessing.
At least they do in Great Britain. Earlier this month, Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority gave the go-ahead to create “interspecies embryos” for use in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research.
In case you're not fluent in euphemism, “interspecies embryos” is another way of saying “human-animal hybrids.” Researchers intend to remove the nucleus from a human cell and transplant it into an empty cow egg.
The resulting embryo’s stem cells would then be used “for studying diseases, researching genetics, or testing drugs.” Finally, to add insult to injury, the Authority has “stipulated that the embryo must be destroyed within 14 days.”
For now at least. Only the terminally gullible would believe that, having forced the door to human-animal hybrids open, the proponents will remain content with the “restrictions” imposed by the Authority.
The rationale for extending the use of human-animal hybrids is contained within the Authority’s ruling: It cited the British public’s “ease” with the use of human-animal embryos in experimentation.
Well, if people can be made to feel at “ease” with the procedures I have just described, they can probably be made to feel at “ease” with even greater assaults on human dignity—especially if, as writer Michael Cook points out, proponents of the assaults engage in “extensive re-education” of the public, as they did in this instance. Even then, they had to fudge or ignore evidence of considerable public revulsion at the idea.
In other words, the system is being rigged to promote more such experimentation, not less. Compared to promises of “miracle cures,” national prestige, and, of course, big money, human dignity counts for very little with these kind of panels.
That is, if it counts for anything at all. According to the Authority, it is “unclear” whether “a species distinction between animals and humans . . . can be maintained.” Well, if you believe that, there's no practical limit to what real-life Moreaus can do. Like Wells’s creation, they can follow the research where it leads, untroubled by any moral concerns. If that means implanting the hybrid and bringing it to term, fine.
But it isn't fine. The “species distinction” between man and beast is as obvious as the fact that only people can have this discussion. The only question exists in the minds of those who are so blinded by hubris and greed that they are at ease with what H. G. Wells found revolting—the kind of “ease” that should make the rest of us very nervous.
Today's BreakPoint Offer
Apply today for the 2008 Centurions Program and study with Chuck Colson and other leading thinkers for one year. The deadline for applications is November 30.
In H. G. Wells’s novel The Island of Dr. Moreau, the survivor of a shipwreck lands on an island in the South Pacific. There he discovers the island’s owner has been creating human-animal hybrids.
Wells’ novel grew out of his revulsion at what people were doing to animals. Today, the real source of horror is what man is doing to himself.
Wells’ villain used surgery to create his monsters and had to flee civilization to pursue his inhuman goals. Today’s would-be Dr. Moreaus not only have a much more powerful tool—genetic engineering—but they also have the government’s official blessing.
At least they do in Great Britain. Earlier this month, Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority gave the go-ahead to create “interspecies embryos” for use in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research.
In case you're not fluent in euphemism, “interspecies embryos” is another way of saying “human-animal hybrids.” Researchers intend to remove the nucleus from a human cell and transplant it into an empty cow egg.
The resulting embryo’s stem cells would then be used “for studying diseases, researching genetics, or testing drugs.” Finally, to add insult to injury, the Authority has “stipulated that the embryo must be destroyed within 14 days.”
For now at least. Only the terminally gullible would believe that, having forced the door to human-animal hybrids open, the proponents will remain content with the “restrictions” imposed by the Authority.
The rationale for extending the use of human-animal hybrids is contained within the Authority’s ruling: It cited the British public’s “ease” with the use of human-animal embryos in experimentation.
Well, if people can be made to feel at “ease” with the procedures I have just described, they can probably be made to feel at “ease” with even greater assaults on human dignity—especially if, as writer Michael Cook points out, proponents of the assaults engage in “extensive re-education” of the public, as they did in this instance. Even then, they had to fudge or ignore evidence of considerable public revulsion at the idea.
In other words, the system is being rigged to promote more such experimentation, not less. Compared to promises of “miracle cures,” national prestige, and, of course, big money, human dignity counts for very little with these kind of panels.
That is, if it counts for anything at all. According to the Authority, it is “unclear” whether “a species distinction between animals and humans . . . can be maintained.” Well, if you believe that, there's no practical limit to what real-life Moreaus can do. Like Wells’s creation, they can follow the research where it leads, untroubled by any moral concerns. If that means implanting the hybrid and bringing it to term, fine.
But it isn't fine. The “species distinction” between man and beast is as obvious as the fact that only people can have this discussion. The only question exists in the minds of those who are so blinded by hubris and greed that they are at ease with what H. G. Wells found revolting—the kind of “ease” that should make the rest of us very nervous.
