HUMAN BIOLOGY:
Ethics of playing God
Nixon:
settling a squabble
jobs. Their goods will be exempt from the 10% import surcharge. The textile agreement attempts to settle a squabble of long standing. Although U.S. manufacturers of fibers and textiles in general welcome the textile import limitation, they voice reservations about certain aspects of the agreement. For example, they object to the high level of imports of the base period selected and the rate of growth permitted by the agreement. T. Nash Broaddus, president of Duplan Corp., calls the Far East textile quota agreement a "temporary stop-gap." Mr. Broaddus says the amount of imports during the base period (March 31, 1970, to March 31, 1971) is so enormous that the agreement will continue to be a major disruption. In addition, the 5 to 7.5% annual growth for textile imports permitted by the agreement is at least 60% larger than the 2.5 to 3% growth of the U.S. textile market, he adds. Howard W. Swank, general manager of Du Pont's textile fibers department, says that while the agreement permits imports to grow at a faster rate than that of the textile industry generally, it appears that the agreement will help protect U.S. interests. The agreement covers man-made fiber and woolen textiles. For Japan, the agreement is for three years and permits man-made textile imports to grow 5% a year, and woolen imports 1%. For Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, the agreement is for five years, permitting imports of man-made fiber textiles to increase over the base period by 7.5% a year and woolen goods to grow 1 % a year.
Advances in the life sciences and medicine are giving man the power to create human life outside the womb, maintain life where nature dictates death, alter man's genetic characteristics, and reproduce identical individuals asexually by cell nucleus transplantation from a single parent (cloning). These scientific advances are also thrusting upon man ethical and moral choices with which he is as yet ill prepared to deal. These problems were discussed by participants in the International Symposium on Human Rights, Retardation, and Research—"Choices on Our Conscience"—in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation. More than 1200 scientists, social scientists, physicians, ethicists, lawyers, and other intellectual leaders from around the world agreed that society will increasingly have to "play God"—intervening in processes of life and death. In one panel session, Dr. Robert G. Edwards, University of Cambridge, England, a leader in research on in vitro fertilization of human eggs, defended his efforts toward eventual implantation of fertilized eggs in human uteruses. His research was attacked strongly by Dr. Paul Ramsey, professor of Christian ethics at Princeton University, who called such experimentation on human beings unethical and immoral, because it creates unacceptable risks for mother and potential child without need. Dr. Anne McLaren, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said that as a C&EN:
Richard J. Seltzer
Edwards: wide public discussion
I biologist and woman she welcomes Dr. Edwards' efforts to enable infertile females to have babies by fertilized-egg implantation. However, she hopes that competition to be first with human implantation will not impel scientists to race ahead without proper safeguards and preliminary animal research. Dr. James G. Watson, of Harvard University and a Nobel Laureate, emphasized that undoubtedly there will be mistakes made in experiments by Dr. Edwards and other biologists. Dr. Watson believes that there is serious moral dilemma here, but that we cannot let "mistakes" which are human monstrosities live. "We can't go ahead without accepting the possibility of infanticide," he stresses. Dr. Watson adds that he would prohibit any form of cloning with human cells, but would permit cloning of animals—such as for cattle husbandry. Most panel members agreed with this stand. Dr. Edwards responds that it is essential to have wide public discussion of the ethical issues involved in his work. He stresses that his research is yielding information on human reproduction and embryonic development unobtainable in any other way. He urges discussion on whether to permit human cloning. CANCER:
New thrust from Nixon More money, greater sophistication, and better planning for the U.S. cancer research effort with an added "peace bonus" for the Nixon Administration's image—that's the thrust of recent developments in Washington. The 10-member House Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment has unanimously reported out a bill authorizing a three-year, $1.6 billion cancer research effort. Current funding runs about $337 million yearly. Discarding a Senatepassed bill's approach, however, the House bill retains National Institutes of Health control over cancer research. Subcommittee chairman Paul G. Rogers (D.-Fla.) says that a provision for peer group review of grants of $35,000 or less will result in a speedup of almost 40% in making grants. Journeying to Ft. Detrick, Md., President Nixon disclosed conversion of the Army's biological warfare research center to a cancer reI search center. With most of the OCT. 25, 1971 C&EN
11
