THE moral and ethical questions raised by the appearance of the cloned sheep Dolly has rocked most of us out of our complacency. What could previously be dismissed as wild speculation has now entered the realm of the thinkable. The obvious deduction is being made - if a sheep can be cloned, can human cloning be far away?
We all sense moral danger in the prospect but how real is it? What are the ethical issues raised by this event?
So far, speculation has not centred on the cloning which has been shown to be possible - instead we seem to be more worried about the future and the possibility of human cloning.
First, we should note the benefits which might accrue from the ability to clone an animal. Dolly is genetically identical to the animal from whose body the original cell was taken. For a geneticist, this is most valuable since it bypasses the genetic lottery of normal reproduction.
The cells of each cloned animal will behave in the same way so comparisons can be made when one animal is genetically treated or altered and the other is left untouched. The benefits of the possibility of such experiments are obvious and rapid advances in the treatment of genetic diseases can be expected.
The pharmaceutical industry may also benefit as genetically identical living organisms can be developed which will enable the production of new and more beneficial drugs.
While these and other potential benefits have been highlighted by scientists, it is the downside - human cloning - which most people fear.
Dr Ian Wilmut, head of the team in Edinburgh which cloned the sheep, has dismissed the possibility of human cloning because, he said, it was unethical. It would be illegal in many countries.
But the fear is that the possibility will lead to its use, ethics or no ethics, somewhere. What if the technology falls into the hands of a mad dictator? Could he not misuse it to create clones of himself or others?
In history, great scientific leaps forward which brought benefits to the world have sometimes brought great suffering. Gunpowder and nuclear power are obvious examples. Declaring germ warfare unethical or illegal didn't prevent the fear of its use in the Gulf War.
It is important to remember that we are already familiar with genetically identical people who occur naturally - identical twins. The phenomenon also occurs naturally in the animal kingdom.
Being genetically identical does not mean exact replicas. Physical appearance may be very similar and some character traits may be shared, but they are still different individuals, with separate personalities and identities.
The major ethical questions raised by human cloning are far more profound and far more difficult to address. For example, what are we doing to the dignity of procreation and the conception of life?
A powerful force in modern medicine is the drive towards a more perfect baby, one which is "guaranteed" free of defects and imperfections, where even the mildest handicap is seen as a failure by the parents and, possibly, a reason to sue the obstetrician. A further step is the desire to determine the sex and many of the characteristics of the baby.
Cloning would resolve these issues at a stroke. Each baby would be the product of the cells of its parent and so genetically identical to its parent.
While such possibilities are still in the realm of science fiction, each step along the road diminishes the role that procreation plays in our world. Procreation is not just a way of making babies, to be discarded if a better method is discovered. Procreation is a human activity - a way of showing and sharing love, with dimensions of mystery and awe which every parent experiences.
It results in the "givenness" of a child who is not chosen or designed by its parents but is accepted and loved precisely because it is different and an individual. Even one instance of human cloning would diminish this essential element in our humanity.
WE are long used to human control over the natural world. Much of this control has been for the betterment of humankind, though some has been misguided and has had a disastrous effect on our natural environment.
What makes human genetics so frightening to so many people is that, for the first time in history, we have the possibility of altering our own human make-up at its very core - the very genes which determine so much about us. As someone has put it, after centuries of engineering the world around us, we can now "engineer the engineer".
Such profound changes are likely to be irreversible. Human cloning would represent a huge leap forward so that humans would then be able to recreate themselves in a way not possible with ordinary procreation.
What does recreating oneself say about the dignity and status of human life?
Part of what makes human life sacred and attracts that special dignity is its uniqueness. Each human being has value because we are not just instances of type - a human life lost can never be recreated. Are we facing the possibility that this also might be done in the future?
ALL decisions about the use and non-use of a new technology are essentially value judgements. Of all the myriad possibilities open to research, those that are important or valued are chosen and others ignored. It isn't scientists who should decide - it is society which sets its priorities and goals and indicates the relative value of particular courses of action.
So too with human cloning. It is only if society is disinterested that it will be left to scientists to set priorities and goals. It is the same in politics and economics. It is only if people fail to take responsibility for their society that it is left to economists to make decisions or impose a profit motive to shape society.
If society fails to engage in the discussion of the future direction of genetics, then that, in itself, expresses a value judgement - in effect, it is saying it doesn't matter.
Scientists have indicated the possible scientific benefits of the cloning of Dolly. The way is obviously open towards human cloning. Our instinctive fears at the prospect can be misdirected into concerns about instances of possible misuse, and cloud the real issues that society has to address - questions about our understanding of procreation and human origin, the dignity and status of human life, and the value judgements involved in indicating possible areas of research, especially in the area of human genetics.
These are the real questions to be faced - we ignore them at our peril.