Dolly, the first cloned sheep

Andrew Marr, writing in the Independent on
February 2, 1997 in comparing Galileo, Copernicus and Dolly is
not, scientifically speaking, comparing like with like.

The sending of two Americans to the Moon in 1962 was an
engineering achievement which could be compared with Galileo's
and Copernicus' scientific achievements. Science does not change
the material world but engineering does. Some engineering works
done have the potential to alter considerably mankind's future
prospects in the near future and it is possible that "Dolly" may
do this with undesirable results, if we are not very careful.

Copernicus who did mathematics and postulated that the Earth went
round the sun altered the thinking of the educated people of his
time, but he did not alter the way most people lived.
Similarly Galileo who used a telescope, an engineering invention,
to make scientific observations did not change the material world
in which most people lived. The earth had always gone round the
sun irrespective of what people had believed. After these
scientific discoveries people grew food, worked, made love,
married, had children and died in the natural ways. They did not
mutate into biologically different kinds of people and neither
did their animals.

Nature has always been changed and it responds well to
evolutionary change, but revolutionary change like "Dolly" raises
too many ethical doubts and I expect that most people would not
want scientists to pursue this line of research.

The landing of the first men on the Moon was watched with pride
by most people including me. The creation of "Dolly" has filled
me with foreboding, not pride. This is because the landing of men
on the Moon did not radically change either the Moon or the
Earth. The only moral debate on this subject was, "Is too much
money being spent on it?"

However, just because scientific or engineering experiments are
possible does not mean they should be done. The creation of
"Dolly" is contrary to natural laws, because it bypasses sexual
reproduction completely. I suppose it could even make the male
of the species redundant.

One hopes that the expense involved will prevent many such
experiments, but it should not be this that prevents it, but an
ethical decision that we have no right to create animals in a
totally unnatural way. Animals in a similar way to people have
a right to their natural dignity. We may use them but not abuse
them.

Learning to live with the nuclear bomb (not splitting the atom
or even building a nuclear power station, before people knew that
these caused pollution) which Andrew Marr mentions and accepts,
was also unethical in my view. Andrew Marr seems to be arguing
that "almost anything goes." I hope that he will change his
mind.