Hilbert's mantra in the attempt to build a "mathematics without paradox," was "We must know. We will know." But it can be effectively extended to science in its entirety. Ever since Newton and the invention of calculus, science has revealed natural laws and conditions that can be turned to the benefit of people. This, however, has never been its primary purpose. The aims of science are best encapsulated in Hilbert's maxim -- knowledge for its own sake, for the satisfaction of knowing the solution and decreasing the net uncertainty in the universe.
Noble as this sounds, the unfortunate side effect of this mindset is that most scientists live in an ethical vacuum, either ignorant of or choosing to ignore the consequences of their work on the society. The recent cloning of a sheep in Scotland has served to remind us once again that the ethicists are always one step behind the scientists -- in this case, biologists. The issue to be dealt with now is not whether adult humans can be cloned (obviously, they can), but should they be?
The Scottish scientists have tried to head off the impending ethical debate by pointing out that the sheep cloned in this manner are only intended to be used as "protein factories," since they secrete a protein in their milk important for the treatment of emphysema. This defense is eerily similar to the one physicists used to defend the development of the atomic bomb, which was, in effect, "Forget the future implications, and focus on the immediate results." What no one seemed to realize then or now was that ignoring the issue will not make it go away, and so we must discuss it so that we know how to deal with it before circumstances force us to confront it.
Humans can be cloned, and it is very likely that they will be. There are two ways to respond to this. The first is to dispense with all the ethical scruples that come with the territory, and embrace human cloning as a fact of life in the near future. After all, humans have been cloned for centuries. What are twins and triplets, if not biological clones of each other? This could merely be another, more complicated way to do what we normally do biologically (like test-tube babies and artificial insemination) and if well regulated, could open the door to a new range of possibilities, including the possibility to become, in a sense, immortal. Think of it: you, or a likeness thereof, could still be walking the halls of Dartmouth long after 2269.
On the other hand, given Murphy's law and the human inclination towards exploitation, the second option may be more practical. An impartial organization such as the National Academy of Sciences could place a moratorium on cloning(the British have already banned human cloning) while Congress and/or concerned citizens groups deal with the question of whether human cloning should be allowed and what the guidelines should be if it is.
During such a process, the concerns of the general public and the scientific establishment can be aired and addressed. In the words of Stephen Grebe, a biologist at American University, "there's a moral chasm between the technological ability at this point and the public understanding of the purpose of cloning." If we intend to avoid the mistakes from past collisions of science with society, we need to bridge that chasm. True, we may be marching boldly into a Brave New World; but we can at least try to do it with our eyes wide open.
