Who Owns Clones?

December 9, 2001

by John F. Schmidt

The war against terrorism has pushed the issue of cloning to the back pages of newspapers, when in other circumstances it would have undoubtedly been in the forefront. We have been distracted by bombing the Taliban, and have been missing the mischief underway in the laboratories.

Why does cloning deserve to be such a big issue? Some would say because it deals with ethical issues of life, and therefore cannot be left to the scientists. Some feel that it cheapens life, especially if the genetic materials come from aborted babies. Others worry about genetic manipulation, even to the mingling of human and animal DNA, creating half-man, half ape hybrids. Would it not be handy if everybody could buy a half-intelligent animal servant around the house to clean up and cook?

Scientists have already spliced the luminescent genes from a jellyfish into the genes of a mouse. The result is a rodent that literally glows in the dark. Dolly, a cloned sheep, grew in England to maturity cloned from the cells taken from the udder of a mature sheep. Much of the Insulin used as human medicine today is produced in part through the use of genetic engineering. I am a diabetic. It would be wonderful if I could grow a new pancreas or deal with a possible genetic defect that predisposes my body to diabetes.

Genetic manipulation has produced patented seed types that are extremely resistant to insects and drought. Scientists have created designer-seeds that produce great crops but cannot reproduce themselves. They call them “terminator seeds.” Several years ago, riots erupted in France when local farmers feared that cross-pollenization from the sterile seeds would destroy their domestic seed’s future viability. Could a global bio-disaster erupt from terminator technology?

The scientific possibilities of genetic manipulation are mind-boggling. If carried to even predictable limits, this science could transform life as we know it, and perhaps eliminate some types of physical defects entirely. Imagine eliminating Downs Syndrome by fixing the genetic problem that is the cause. Could we grow new limbs? Could we engineer replacement organs from our own personal DNA and avoid the organ rejection problem?

For all the bright prospects, there is a very dark side. How do you judge whether a domestic ape-man servant has civil rights? Can you patent a man? Firms dealing in genetic manipulation presently spend enormous sums to patents their DNA ‘designs.’ They claim to ‘own’ the results and the U.S. government has issued patents for some new DNA ‘designer genes.’

All of this genetic manipulation stuff sounds terribly academic and sci-fi until we ask who might own a patented human DNA design that grows to maturity. If our government already grants patents on bush-league DNA modifications like glowing mice, how can it resist granting ownership rights to companies patenting modified humans? Will such a person become the property of some bio-lab? Would he be classified as a person or a patented design no different than a refrigerator?

Didn’t we settle that issue in the 1860’s in America?

As strange as it might seem, no one seems to be asking who owns the rights to existing DNA. And it is a very real question with very important implications for the future of our children, and indeed our very species. Some laugh at the very question.

Yet bio labs invest literally billions of dollars to craft pre-existing DNA into different forms. The results are precise enough to document and patent. In other words, their product is information in the form of self-replicating chemical compounds. The U.S. government considers the intellectual product sufficiently unique to grant a patent on it. Billions of dollars sounds like it is a very serious matter.

Why then should it be considered to be laughable to inquire as to who owns the original design of all DNA in existence? Is it any less an intellectual product because it existed before bio-labs? Is the DNA coding that underlies all living beings, whether microbe or man, any less worthy of respect for its intellectual content because it pre-existed the possibility of human manipulation?

Anyone who has ever worked with computers, or gone to the extent of writing computer code knows how sensitive the whole process is to error. Mistakes in computer code are instructions that don’t make sense when the computer tries to execute them. One misplaced bit can cause a program to lock up - to ‘die.’ Other times, depending on its place in the program, the result may be insignificant. It all depends on where it is in the sequence of instructions.

This is also exactly true of DNA coding. DNA is a bio-chemical computer program. It contains an enormous amount of information. How much more intelligence was required to design the DNA program of life? The information found in the tiny life forms in a rain puddle exceeds by orders of magnitude the greatest efforts man has been able to produce up to this point. And were man able to duplicate it, it would only prove that it is the product of intelligence, purpose and energy, not randomness. Truly life is ‘fearfully and wonderfully made.’ (Ps 139:14.)

I defy any atheist or agnostic to take an honest look into the mirror and state that they behold a cosmic accident. Human will has to stubbornly deny self-evident truth to make that claim. (Rom 1:18-22.)

So who designed the marvelous program that is DNA? God did. His fingerprints are all over it, and He owns the patent on all of Life. ‘All live unto Him.’ (Luke 20:38.) We bear the image of this Creator in us in so many ways. (Mark 12:16.) Therefore, no one may tamper with it without His permission.

Is all DNA research inherently wrong then? No. It is not wrong to seek to understand God’s creation. Indeed we are commanded to “subdue” it and make it useful for man. (Gen 1:28.) We may learn to read the marvelous DNA code, and to be able to see where mistakes in transmission have crept in. Just as it is not wrong to subdue the wilds to cultivation, or to carve the land and breed living things to make them useful, so it is not wrong to correct what has been damaged: ‘to make the crooked ways straight,’ or to improve the breed. But we must never imagine that we made DNA, or that we own it, or are the Masters of it. God will judge anyone who fails to give Him glory. (Romans 1:18; 1 Cor 1:29) The guiding rule in all research investigations must always to honor the One who owns the patent. We must “render unto God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17.)

In all the issues and questions that will arise in the future over the issue of genetic engineering, the right course will be to recognize the original designer and owner of our very life essence, and conduct our investigations accordingly. We must not seek to confuse the ‘kinds’ of creation, or patent the source code of the DNA in any respect whatsoever. To do so would be the ultimate insult to the Author of all Life.

Our human governments righteously punish those who would steal another man’s work and call it their own. The Judge of All will not tolerate anyone plagiarizing His work and calling it their own either. Life cannot be patented. It already has an Owner.

__________________________________________

John F. Schmidt has written numerous articles over the last decade. Politically, he is an Alan Keyes-type Republican. Along with his wife, he has organized voter drives in Pennsylvania, and been active politically since the 1990 elections. His livelihood, until recently, was spent in automation engineering for a large global equipment manufacturing company, specializing in coal mining. WANB in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania hosted Schmidt's weekly talk radio program "Issues and Answers." His writing is intended to relate the headlines of today to the foundation of eternal truth - the Scriptures. He currently resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. Visit his website at: Inalienable-Rights.org

Send the author an E mail at Schmidt@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of John's articles, visit his archives.