The General Public has no clue just how far things have gone in these fields. Reminds me very much of the scenerio outlined in the Terminator Movies
from UCLA Website
Genetic science, animal exploitation,
and the challenge for democracy
This article draws on work from Steven Best and Douglas Kellner The Postmodern Adventure (2001) and is part of a larger project we are developing on cloning and stem cell research.
Thanks to the editors of this journal for helpful remarks in revising the paper and Richard Kahn for help in formatting.
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world
That has such people in’t.”
William Shakespeare, The Tempest
“We’re ready to go because we think that the genie’s out of her bottle.”
Dr. Panos Zavos
“Anyone who thinks that things will move slowly is being very naive.”
Lee Silver, Molecular Biologist
As we move into a new millennium fraught with terror and danger, a global postmodern condition is unfolding in the midst of rapid evolutionary and social changes co-constructed by science, technology, and the restructuring of global capital.
We are quickly morphing into a new biological and social existence that is ever-more mediated and shaped by computers, mass media, and biotechnology, all driven by the logic of capital and a powerful emergent techno-science. In this global context, science is no longer merely an interpretation of the natural and social worlds; rather it has become an active force in changing them and the very nature of life.
In an era where life can be created and redesigned in a petridish, and genetic codes can be edited like a digital text, the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” has become greatly complexified.
The new techniques of manipulation call into question existing definitions of life and death, demand a rethinking of fundamental notions of ethics and moral value, and pose unique challenges for democracy.
As techno-science develops by leaps and bounds, and as genetics rapidly advances, the science-industrial complex has come to a point where it is creating new transgenic species and is rushing toward a posthuman culture that unfolds in the increasingly intimate merging of technology and biology.
The posthuman involves both new conceptions of the “human” in an age of information and communication, and new modes of existence, as flesh merges with steel, circuitry, and genes from other species.
Exploiting more animals than ever before, techno-science intensifies research and experimentation into human cloning.
This process is accelerated because genetic engineering and cloning are developed for commercial purposes, anticipating enormous profits on the horizon for the biotech industry. Consequently, all natural reality – from microorganisms and plants to animals and human beings – is subject to genetic reconstruction in a commodified “Second Genesis.”
At present, the issues of cloning and biotechnology are being heatedly debated in the halls of science, in political circles, among religious communities, throughout academia, and more broadly in the media and public spheres. Not surprisingly, the discourses on biotechnology are polarized.
Defenders of biotechnology extol its potential to increase food production and quality, and to cure diseases, endow us with “improved” human traits, and prolong human life.
Its critics claim,
that genetic engineering of food will produce Frankenfoods, which pollute the food supply with potentially harmful products that could devastate the environment, biodiversity, and human life itself; that animal and human cloning will breed monstrosities
that a dangerous new eugenics is on the horizon
that the manipulation of embryonic stem cells violates the principle of respect for life and destroys a bona fide “human being”
Interestingly, the same dichotomies that have polarized information-technology discourses into one-sided technophobic and technophillic positions are reproduced in debates over biotechnology.
Just as I believe that critical theories of technology are needed to produce more dialectical perspectives that distinguish between positive and negative aspects and effects of information technology (Best and Kellner 2001), so too I would claim that similar approaches are required to articulate the potentially beneficial and perhaps destructive aspects of biotechnology.
Indeed, current debates over cloning and stem cell research suggest powerful contradictions and ambiguities in these phenomena that render one-sided positions superficial and dangerous.
Parallels and similar complexities in communication and biotechnology are not surprising given that information technology provides the infrastructure to biotechnology that has been constituted by computer-mediated technologies involved in the Human Genome Project, and, conversely, genetic science is being used to push the power and speed of computers through phenomena such as “gene chips.”
As the debates over cloning and stem cell research indicate, issues raised by biotechnology combine research into the genetic sciences, perspectives and contexts articulated by the social sciences, and the ethical and anthropological concerns of philosophy. Consequently, I argue that intervening in the debates over biotechnology require supra disciplinary critical philosophy and social theory to illuminate the problems and their stakes.
In addition, debates over cloning and stem cell research raise exceptionally important challenges to bioethics and a democratic politics of communication. Biotechnology is thus a critical flashpoint for ethics and democratic theory and practice.
Contemporary biotechnology underscores the need for more widespread knowledge of important scientific issues; participatory debate over science, technology, values, and our very concept of human life; and regulation concerning new developments in the biosciences, which have such high economic, political, and social consequences.
New genetic technologies like stem cell research contain positive potential for medical advances that should not be blocked by problematic conservative positions.
Nonetheless, I believe that the entire realm of biotechnology is fraught with dangers and problems that require careful study and democratic debate. The emerging genomic sciences should thus be undertaken by scientists with a keen sense of responsibility and accountability, and be subject to intense public scrutiny and open discussion.
Finally, in the light of the dangers and potentially deadly consequences of biotechnology, I maintain that the positive potential of biotechnology can be realized only,
in a new context of cultivating new sensibilities toward nature
engaging in ethical and political debate
participating in political struggles over biotechnology and its effects
1 – Brave new barnyard: the advent of animal cloning
The idea is to arrive at the ideal animal and repeatedly copy it exactly as it is.
– Dr. Mark Hardy
From its entrenched standpoint of unqualified human superiority, science, typically first targets objects of nature and animals with its analytic gaze and instruments.
The current momentous turn toward cloning is largely undertaken by way of animals, although some scientists have already directly focused on cloning human beings. While genetic engineering creates new “transgenic” species by inserting the gene from one species into another, cloning replicates cells to produce identical copies of a host organism by inserting its DNA into an enucleated egg.
In a potent combination, genetic engineering and cloning technologies are used together in order, first, to custom design a transgenic animal to suit the needs of science and industry (the distinction is irrevocably blurred) and, second, to mass reproduce the hybrid creation endlessly for profitable peddling in medical and agricultural markets.
Cloning is a return to asexual reproduction and bypasses the caprice of the genetic lottery and random shuffling of genes. It dispenses with the need to inject a gene into thousands of newly fertilized eggs to get a successful result. Rather, much as the printing press replaced the scribe, cloning allows mass reproduction of a devised type, and thus opens genetic engineering to vast commercial possibilities.
Life science companies are poised to make billions of dollars in profits, as numerous organizations, universities, and corporations move toward cloning animals and human stem cells, and patenting the methods and results of their research.
To date, science has engineered a myriad of transgenic animals and has cloned animals such as sheep, calves, goats, bulls, pigs, mice, and cats. Although still far from precise, cloning nevertheless has become routine. What is radically new and startling is not cloning itself, since from 1952 scientists have replicated organisms from embryonic cells.
Rather, the new techniques of cloning, or “nuclear somatic transfer,” from adult mammal body cells constitute a new form of animal reproduction. These methods accomplish what scientists long considered impossible – reverting adult (specialized) cells to their original (non-specialized) embryonic state where they can be reprogrammed to form a new organism.
In effect, this startling process creates the identical twin of the adult that provided the original donor cell.
This technique was used first to create Dolly, the first mammal cloned from a cell from an adult animal, and subsequently all of her varied offspring.
2 – Dolly and her progeny
Traditionally, scientists considered cloning beyond the reach of human ingenuity.
But when Ian Wilmut and his associates from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, announced their earth-shattering discovery in March 1997, the “impossible” appeared in the form of a sheep named Dolly, and a “natural law” had been broken. Dolly’s donor cells came from a 6-year-old Finn Dorset Ewe.
Wilmut starved mammary cells in a low-nutrient tissue culture where they became quiescent and subject to reprogramming. He then removed the nucleus containing genetic material from an unfertilized egg cell of a second sheep, a Scottish Blackface, and, in a nice Frankenstein touch, fused the two cells with a spark of electricity.
After 277 failed attempts, the resulting embryo was then implanted into a third sheep, a surrogate mother who gave birth to Dolly in July 1996.
Many critics said Dolly was either not a real clone or was just a fluke. Yet, less than 2 years after Dolly’s emergence, scientists had cloned numerous species, including mice, pigs, cows, and goats, and had even made clones of clones of clones, producing genetic simulacra in mass batches as in 1931 Huxley (1989a) envisioned happening to human beings in Brave New World.
The commercial possibilities of cloning animals were dramatic and obvious for all to behold. The race was on to patent novel cloning technologies and the transgenic offspring they would engender.
Animals are being designed and bred as living drug and organ factories, as their bodies are disrupted, refashioned, and mutilated to benefit meat and dairy industries. Genetic engineering is employed in biomedical research by infecting animals with diseases that become a part of their genetic make up and are transmitted to their offspring, as in the case of researchers trying to replicate the effects of cystic fibrosis in sheep.
Most infamously, Harvard University, with funding from Du Pont, has patented a mouse – OncoMouse – that has human cancer genes built into its genetic make up and are expressed in its offspring (Haraway 1997).
In the booming industry of “pharming” (pharmaceutical farming), animals are genetically modified to secrete therapeutic proteins and medicines in their milk. The first major breakthrough came in January 1998, when Genzyme Transgenics created transgenic cattle named George and Charlie. The result of splicing human genes and bovine cells, they were cloned to make milk that contains human proteins such as the blood-clotting factor needed by hemophiliacs.
Co-creator James Robl said,
“I look at this as being a major step toward the commercialization of this [cloning] technology.” 1
In early January 2002, the biotech company PPL announced that they had just cloned a litter of pigs, which could aid in human organ transplants. On the eve of the publication of an article by another company, Immerge Bio Therapeutics claimed that they had achieved a similar breakthrough.2
The new process involved creation of the first “knockout” pigs, in which a single gene in pig DNA is deleted to eliminate a protein that is present in pigs, which is usually violently rejected by the human immune system.
This meant that a big step could be made in the merging of humans and animals, and creating animals as harvest-machines for human organs.
Strolling through the Brave New Barnyard, one can find incredible beings that appear normal, but in fact are genetic satyrs and chimera
Cows generate lactoferrin, a human protein useful for treating infections
Goats manufacture antithrombin III, a human protein that can prevent blood clotting, and serum albumin, which regulates the transfer of fluids in the body
Sheep produce alpha antitrypsin, a drug used to treat cystic fibrosis
Pigs secrete phytase, a bacterial protein that enables them to emit less of the pollutant phosphorous in their manure
Chickens make lysozyme, an antibiotic, in their eggs to keep their own infections down.
“BioSteel” presents an example of the bizarre wonders of genetic technology that points to the erasure of boundaries between animate and inanimate matter, as well as among different species.
In producing this substance, scientists have implanted a spider gene into goats, so that their milk produces a super-strong material – BioSteel – that can be used for bulletproof vests, medical supplies, and aerospace and engineering projects.
In order to produce vast quantities of BioSteel, Nexia Biotechnologies intend to house thousands of goats in 15 weapons-storage buildings, confining them in small holding pens.3
As we see, animals are genetically engineered and cloned to produce a stock of organs for human transplants. Given the severe shortage of human organs, thousands of patients every year languish and die before they can receive a healthy kidney, liver, or heart. Rather than encouraging preventative medicine and finding ways to encourage more organ donations, medical science has turned to xeno-transplantation, and has begun breeding herds of animals (with pigs as a favored medium) to be used as organ sources for human transplantation.
Clearly, this is a very hazardous enterprise due to the possibility of animal viruses causing new plagues and diseases in the human population (a danger which exists also in pharmaceutical milk).
For many scientists, however, the main concern is that the human body rejects animal organs as foreign and destroys them within minutes. Researchers seek to overcome this problem by genetically modifying the donor organ so that they knock out markers in pig cells and add genes that make their protein surfaces identical to those in humans.
Geneticists envision cloning entire herds of altered pigs and other transgenic animals so that an inexhaustible warehouse of organs and tissues would be available for human use. In the process of conducting experiments such as transplanting pig hearts modified with a human gene into the bodies of monkeys, companies such as Imutran have caused horrific suffering, with no evident value to be gained given the crucial differences among species and introducing the danger of new diseases into human populations.4
As if billions of animals were not already exploited enough in laboratories, factory farms, and slaughterhouses, genetic engineering and cloning exacerbate the killing and pain with new institutions of confinement and bodily invasion that demand billions of more captive bodies.
Whereas genetic and cloning technologies in the cases described at least have the potential to benefit human beings, they have also been appropriated by the meat and dairy industries for purposes of increased profit through the exploitation of animals and biotechnology.
It’s the nightmarish materialization of the H.G. Wells scenario where, in his prophetic 1904 novel The Food of The Gods, scientists invent a substance that prompts every living being that consumes it to grow to gargantuan proportions.
Having located the genes responsible for regulating growth and metabolism, university and corporate researchers immediately exploited this knowledge for profit. Thus, for the glories of carcinogenic carnivorous consumption, corporations such as MetaMorphix and Cape Aquaculture Technologies have created giant pigs, sheep, cattle, lobsters, and fish that grow faster and larger than the limits set by evolution.
Amidst the surreality of Wellsian gigantism, cattle and dairy industries are engineering and cloning designer animals that are larger, leaner, and fastergrowing value producers. With synthetic chemicals and DNA alteration, pharmers can produce pigs that mature twice as fast and provide at least twice the normal amount of sows per litter as they eat 25% less feed, and cows that produce at least 40% more milk.
Since 1997, at least one country, Japan, has sold cloned beef to its citizens.5
But there is strong reason to believe that U.S. consumers – already a nation of guinea pigs in their consumption of genetically modified foods – have eaten cloned meat and dairy products. For years, corporations have cloned farmed animals with the express purpose of someday introducing them to the market, and insiders claim many already have been consumed.6
The National Institute of Science and Technology has provided two companies,
Origen Therapeutics of California
Embrex of North Carolina,
…with almost $5 million to fund research into factory farming billions of cloned chickens for consumption.7
With the Food and Drug Administration pondering whether to regulate cloned meat and dairy products, it’s a good bet they are many steps behind an industry determined to increase their profits through biotechnology.
The future to come seems to be one of cloned humans eating cloned animals.
While anomalies such as self-shearing sheep and broiler chickens with fewer feathers have already been assembled, some macabre visionaries foresee engineering pigs and chickens with flesh that is tender or can be easily microwaved, and chickens that are wingless so they won’t need bigger cages. The next step would be to just create and replicate animal’s torsos – sheer organ sacks – and dispense with superfluous heads and limbs.
In fact, scientists have already created headless embryos of mice and frogs in grotesque manifestations of the kinds of life they can now construct at will.
Clearly, there is nothing genetic engineers will not do to alter or clone an animal. Transgenic “artist” Eduardo Kac, for instance, commissioned scientists at the National Institute of Agronomic Research in France to create Alba, a rabbit that carries a fluorescent protein from a jellyfish and thus glows in the dark.
This experiment enabled Mr. Kac to demonstrate his supremely erudite postmodern thesis that,
“genetic engineering [is] in a social context in which the relationship between the private and public spheres are negotiated.” 8
Although millions of healthy animals are euthanized every year in U.S. animal “shelters,” corporations are working to clone domestic animals, either to bring them back from the dead, or to prevent them from “dying” (such as in the Missyplicity Project, initiated by the wealthy “owners” of a dog who want to keep her alive indefinitely).9
Despite alternatives to coping with allergies problems and the dangers with cloning animals, Transgenic Pets LLC is working to create transgenic cats that are allergen-free.10
In 2002, the biotechnology company Genetic Savings and Clone showcased the world’s first cloned cat, named CC, for Carbon Copy.
Pandering to animal guardians’ misconceived desires to immortalize their cat, for a price of $50,000 each, Genetic Savings since has cloned additional cats, and hopes to cash in on what could be a booming market in feline simulacra at great risk for health problems and premature aging.
3 – Transgenic travesties
The agricultural use of genetics and cloning has produced horrible monstrosities.
Transgenic animals often are born deformed and suffer from fatal bleeding disorders, arthritis, tumors, stomach ailments, kidney disease, diabetes, inability to nurse and reproduce, behavioral and metabolic disturbances, high mortality rates, and large offspring syndrome.
In order to genetically engineer animals for maximal weight and profit, a Maryland team of scientists created the infamous “Beltway pig” afflicted with arthritis, deformities, and respiratory disease.
Cows engineered with bovine growth hormone (rBGH) have mastitis, hoof and leg maladies, reproductive problems, numerous abnormalities, and die prematurely. Giant supermice endure tumors, damage to internal organs, and shorter life spans. Numerous animals born from cloning are missing internal organs such as hearts and kidneys.
A Maine lab specialized in breeding sick and abnormal mice that go by names such as Fathead, Fidget, Hairless, Dumpy, and Greasy.
Similarly, experiments in the genetic engineering of salmon have led to rapid growth and various aberrations and deformities, with some growing up to ten times their normal body weight (see Fox 1999). Cloned cows are ten times more likely to be unhealthy as their natural counterparts.
After 3 years of efforts to clone monkeys, Dr. Tanja Dominko fled in horror from her well-funded Oregon laboratory. Telling cautionary tales of the “gallery of horrors” she experienced, Dominko said that 300 attempts at cloning monkeys produced nothing but freakishly abnormal embryos that contained cells either without chromosomes or with up to nine nuclei.11
For Dominko, a “successful” clone like Dolly is the exception, not the rule.
But even Dolly became inexplicably overweight and arthritic, and may have been prematurely aging. In February 2003, suffering from progressive lung disease, poor Dolly was euthanized by her “creators,” bringing to a premature end the first experiment with adult animal cloning and raising questions concerning its ethics.
A report from newscientists.com argues that genes are disrupted when cultured in a lab, and this explains why so many cloned animals die or are grossly abnormal. On this account, it is not the cloning or IVF process that is at cause, but the culturing of the stem cells in the lab, creating major difficulties in cloning since so far there is no way around cloning through cultured cells in laboratory conditions.
A team of U.S. scientists at the MIT Whitehead Institute examined 38 cloned mice and learned that even clones which look healthy suffer genetic maladies, as mice cloned from embryonic stem cells had abnormalities in the placenta, kidneys, heart, and liver.
Scientists feared that the defective gene functioning in clones could, wreak havoc with organs and trigger foul-ups in the brain later in life and that embryonic stem cells are highly unstable.13
“There are almost no normal clones,” study author and MIT biology professor Rudolf Jaenisch, explained.
Jaenisch claims that only 1%-5% of all cloned animals survive, and even those that survive to birth often have severe abnormalities and die prematurely.14
As I argue below, these risks make human cloning a deeply problematic undertaking. Pro-cloning researchers claim that the “glitches” in animal cloning eventually can be worked out.
In January 2001, for example, researchers at Texas A&M University and the Roslin Institute claimed to have discovered a gene that causes abnormally large cloned fetuses, a discovery they believe will allow them to predict and prevent this type of mutation. It is conceivable science someday will work out the kinks, but for many critics this assumes that science can master what arguably are inherent uncertainties and unpredictable variables in the expression of genes in a developing organism.
A recent study showed that some mouse clones seem to develop normally until an age the equivalent of 30 years for a human being; then there is a spurt of growth and they suddenly become obese.15
Mark Westhusin, a cloning expert at Texas A&M, points out that the problem is not that of genetic mutation, but of “genetic expression,” such that genes are inherently unstable and unpredictable in their functioning. Another report indicates that a few misplaced carbon atoms can lead to cloning failures.16
Thus, as suggested by chaos theory, small errors in the cloning process could lead to huge disasters, and the prevention of all such “small errors” seems to presume something close to omniscience.
Yet, while most scientists are opposed to cloning human beings (rather than stem cells), and decry it as “unacceptable,” few condemn the suffering caused to animals or position animal cloning research itself as morally problematic, and many scientists aggressively defend animal cloning.
Quite callously and arbitrarily, for example, Jaenisch proclaims,
“You can dispose of these animals, but tell me – what do you do with abnormal humans?” 17
The attitude that animals are disposable resources or commodities rather than subjects of a life with inherent value and rights is a good indication of the problems inherent in the mechanistic science that still prevails and a symptom of callousness toward human life that worries conservatives.
Despite the claims of its champions, the genetic engineering of animals is a radical departure from natural evolution and traditional forms of animal breeding. Genetic engineering involves manipulation of genes rather than whole organisms.
Moreover, scientists engineer change at unprecedented rates, and can create novel beings across species boundaries that previously were unbridgeable. Ours is a world where cloned calves and sheep carry human genes, human embryo cells are merged with enucleated cows’ eggs, monkeys, and rabbits are bred with jellyfish DNA, a surrogate horse gives birth to a zebra, a dairy cow spawns an endangered gaur, and tiger cubs emerge from the womb of an ordinary housecat.
The ability to clone a desired genetic type brings the animal kingdom into entirely new avenues of exploitation and commercialization.
From the new scientific perspective, animals are framed as genetic information that can be edited, transposed, and copied endlessly. Pharming and xenotransplantation build on the system of factory farming that dates from the postwar period and is based on the confinement and intensive management of animals within enclosed buildings that are prison-houses of suffering.
The proclivity of the science-industrial complex to instrumentalize animals as nothing but resources for human use and profit intensifies in an era in which genetic engineering and cloning are perceived as a source of immense profit and power. Still confined for maximal control, animals are no longer seen as whole species, but rather as fragments of genetic information to be manipulated for any purpose.
Weighty ethical and ecological concerns in the new modes of animal appropriation are largely ignored, as animals are still framed in the 17th century Cartesian worldview that sees them as non-sentient machines.
As Rifkin (1998, 35) puts it,
“Reducing the animal kingdom to customized, mass-produced replications of specific genotypes is the final articulation of the mechanistic, industrial frame of mind.
A world where all life is transformed into engineering standards and made to conform to market values is a dystopian nightmare, and needs to be opposed by every caring and compassionate human being who believes in the intrinsic value of life.” 18
Patenting of genetically modified animals has become a huge industry for multinational corporations and chemical companies.
The PPL Therapeutics, Genzyme Transgenics, Advanced Cell Technology, and other enterprises are issuing broad patent claims on methods of cloning non-human animals. The PPL Therapeutics, the company that “invented” Dolly, has applied for the patents and agricultural rights to the production of all genetically altered mammals that could secrete therapeutic proteins in their milk.
Nexia Biotechnologies obtained exclusive rights to all results from spider silk research. Patent number 4,736,866 was granted to Du Pont for Oncomouse, which the Patent Office described as a new “composition of matter.” Infigen holds a U.S. patent for activating human egg division through any means (mechanical, chemical, or otherwise) in the cloning process.
Certainly, genetics does not augur solely negative developments for animals.
Given the reality of dramatic species extinction and loss of biodiversity, scientists are collecting the sperm and eggs of endangered species like the giant panda in order to preserve them in a “frozen zoo,” such as exists as San Diego Zoo.
It is indeed exciting to ponder the possibilities of a Jurassic Park scenario of reconstructing extinct species (as, for example, scientists recently have uncovered the well-preserved remains of a Tasmanian tiger and a woolly mammoth). In October 2001, European scientists cloned a seemingly healthy mouflon lamb, a member of an endangered species of sheep. In April 2003, ACT produced the first successful interspecies clone when a dairy cow gave birth to a pair of bantengs, a species of wild cattle, cloned from an animal that died over 20 years ago.
One of the pair, however, was thereafter euthanized because it was born twice the normal size and was suffering. Currently, working with preserved tissue samples, ACT is working to bring back from extinction the last bucardo mountain goat, which was killed by a falling tree in January 2000.19
But critics dismiss these efforts as a misguided search for a technofix that distracts focus from the real problem of preserving habitat and biodiversity. Even if animals could be cloned, there is no way to replicate habitats lost forever to chainsaws, bulldozers and invading human armies. Moreover, the behaviors of cloned animals would unavoidably be altered and they would end up in zoos or exploitative entertainment settings, where they exist as spectacle and simulacra.
Animals raised through interspecies cloning such as the gaur produced by ACT will not have the same disposition as if raised by their own species and so, for other reasons will not be less than “real.”
Additionally, there is the likelihood that genetic engineering and cloning would aggravate biodiversity loss to the extent it creates monolithic super breeds that could crowd out other species or be easily wiped out by disease. There is also great potential for ecological disaster when new beings enter an environment, and genetically modified organisms are especially unpredictable in their behavior and effects.
Still, cloning may prove a valuable tool in preserving what can be salvaged from the current extinction crisis. Moreover, advances in genetics also may bypass and obviate pharming and xenotransplantation through use of stem cell technologies that clone human cells, tissues, or perhaps even entire organs and limbs from human embryos or an individual’s own cells.
Successful stem cell technologies could eliminate at once the problem of immune rejection and the need for animals. There is also the intriguing possibility of developing medicines and vaccines in plants, rather than animals, thus producing a safer source of pharmaceuticals and neutraceuticals and sparing animals’ tremendous suffering.
None of these promises, however, brighten the dark cloud cloning casts over the animal kingdom, or dispel the dangers of the dramatic alteration of agriculture and human life.
4 – Deferring the brave new world: challenges for ethics and democracy
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
– H.G. Wells
By summer of 2001, a technical and esoteric debate over stem cells, confined within the scientific community during the past years, had moved to the headlines to become the forefront of the ongoing science wars – battles over the cultural, ethical, and political implications of science.
The scientific debate over stem cell research in large part is a disguised culture war, and conservatives, liberals, and radicals have all jumped into the fray.
Coming from a perspective of critical theory and radical democratic politics, I reject conservative theologies and argue against conflations of religion and the state. Likewise, I question neoliberal acceptance of corporate capitalism and underscore the implications of the privatization of research and the monopolization of knowledge and patents by huge biotech corporations.
In addition, I urge a deeper level of public participation in science debates than do conservatives or liberals and believe that the public can be adequately educated to have meaningful and intelligent input into technical issues such as cloning and stem cell research that have tremendous human and ethical implications.
As I have shown, numerous issues are at stake in the debate over cloning, having to do not only with science, but also with religion, politics, economics, democracy, ethics, and the meaning and nature of human beings, and all life forms as they undergo a process of genetic reconstruction. Thus, my goal throughout this paper has been to question the validity of the cloning project, particularly within the context of a global capitalist economy and its profit imperative, a modernist paradigm of reductionism, and a Western sensibility organized around the concept of the domination of nature.
Until science is recontextualized within a new holistic paradigm informed by a respect for living processes, by democratic decision making, and by a new ethic toward nature, the genetic sciences on the whole are in the hands of those governed by the imperatives of profit.
Moreover, politicians beholden to corporate interests have no grasp of the momentous issues involved, requiring that those interested in democratic politics and progressive social change must educate and involve themselves in the science and politics of biotechnology.
We have already entered a new stage of the postmodern adventure in which animal cloning is highly advanced and human cloning is on the horizon, if not now underway. Perhaps little human clones are already emerging, with failures being discarded, as were the reportedly hundreds of botched attempts to create Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby, in 1978.
At this stage, human cloning is indefensible in the light of the possibility of monstrosities, dangers to the mother, burdens to society, failure to reach a consensus on the viability and desirability of cloning humans, and the lack of compelling reasons to warrant this fateful move. The case is much different, however, for therapeutic cloning, which is incredibly promising and offers new hope for curing numerous debilitating diseases.
But even stem cell research, and the cloning of human embryos is problematic, in part because it is the logical first step toward reproductive cloning and mass production of desired types, which unavoidably brings about new (genetic) hierarchies and modes of discrimination.
We thus need to discuss the numerous issues involved in the shift to a posthuman, postbiological mode of existence where the boundaries between our bodies and technologies begin to erode as we morph toward a cyborg state. Our technologies are no longer extensions of our bodies, as Marshall McLuhan stated, but rather are intimately merging with our bodies, as we implode with other species through the genetic crossings of transgenic species.
In an era of rapid flux, our genotypes, phenotypes, and identities are all mutating. Under the pressure of new philosophies and technological change, the humanist mode of understanding the self as a centered, rational subject has transformed into new paradigms of communication and intersubjectivity (Hayles 1999) and information and cybernetics (Habermas 1979, 1984, 1987).
Despite these shifts, it is imperative that elements of the modern enlightenment tradition be retained, as it is simultaneously radicalized. Now more than ever, as science embarks on the incredible project of manipulating atoms and genes through nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and cloning, its awesome powers must be measured and tempered through ethical, ecological, and democratic norms in a process of public debate and participation.
The walls between “experts” and “lay people” must be broken down along with the elitist norms that form their foundation.
Scientists need to enter into dialogical relations with the public to discuss the complexities of cloning and stem cell research to make their positions clear and accessible, as well as accountable and responsible, while public intellectuals and activists need to become educated in biotechnology in order to debate biotechnology issues in the media or public.
Scientists should recognize that their endeavors embody specific biases and value choices, subject them to critical scrutiny, and seek more humane, life enhancing, and democratic values to guide their work. Respect for nature and life, preserving the natural environment, and serving human needs over corporate profits should be primary values embedded in science.
This approach is quite unlike how science so far has conducted itself in many areas. Most blatantly, perhaps, scientists, hand in hand with corporations, have prematurely rushed the genetic manipulation of agriculture, animals, and the world’s food supply while ignoring important environmental, health, and ethical concerns.
Immense power brings enormous responsibility, and it is time for scientists to be awake to this fact and make public accountability integral to their ethos and research. A schizoid modern science that rigidly splits facts from values must give way to a postmodern metascience that grounds the production of knowledge in a social context of dialogue and communication with citizens.
The shift from a cold and detached “neutrality” to a participatory understanding of life that deconstructs the modern subject/object dichotomy derails realist claims to unmediated access to the world and opens the door to an empathetic and ecological understanding of nature (Keller 1983; Birke and Hubbard 1995).
In addition, scientists need to take up the issue of democratic accountability and ethical responsibility in their work. As Bill Joy argued in a much-discussed Wired article in July 2000,
uncontrolled genetic technology
…could create catastrophic disasters, as well as utopian benefits.
Joy’s article set off a firestorm of controversy, especially his call for government regulation of new technology and “relinquishment” of development of potentially dangerous new technologies, as he claimed biologists called for in the early days of genetic engineering, when the consequences of the technology were not yet clear.20
Arguing that scientists must assume responsibility for their productions, Joy warned that humans should be very careful about the technologies they develop, as they may have unforeseen consequences.
Joy noted that robotics was producing increasingly intelligent machines that might generate creative robots that could be superior to humans, produce copies of themselves, and assume control of the design and future of humans.
Likewise, genetic engineering could create new species, some perhaps dangerous to humans and nature, while nanotechnology might build horrific “engines of destruction” as well as of the “engines of creation” envisioned by Eric Drexler (1987).
Science and technology, however, not only require responsibility and accountability on the part of scientists, but also regulation by government and democratic debate and participation by the public.
Public need to agree on rules and regulations for cloning and stem cell research, and there should be laws, guidelines, and regulatory agencies open to public input and scrutiny. To be rational and informed, citizens must be educated about the complexities of genetic engineering and cloning, a process that can unfold through vehicles such as public forums, teach-ins, and creative use of the broadcast media and Internet.
The Internet is a treasure-trove of information, ranging from informative sites such as the Council for Responsible Genetics and The Institute of Science in Society, to lists serves such as hosted by the Sierra Club and various weblogs.
But to publicize and politicize biotechnology issues, social movements will have to take up issues like the cloning and stem cell debate into their public pedagogies and struggles. Movements like the anti-nuclear coalitions and organized struggles against genetically modified foods have had major successes in educating the public, promoting debate, and influencing legislation and public opinion.
It will not do, however, to simply let the market decide what technologies will or will not be allowed, nor should bans be accepted on technologies that can benefit human life. Instead, citizens and those involved in social movements should engage issues of biotechnology and aid in public education and debate.
An intellectual revolution is needed to remedy the deficiencies in the education of both scientists and citizens, as such that each can have, in Habermas’ framework, “communicative competency” informed by sound value thinking, skills in reasoning, and democratic sensibilities.
A Deweyean reconstruction of education would have scientists take more humanities and philosophy courses and engage ethical and political issues involved in the development and implementation of science and technology, and would have students in other fields take more science and technology courses to become literate in some of the major material and social forces of the epoch.
C.P. Snow’s analysis of the “two cultures” problem provides a challenge for a democratic reconstruction of education to overcome in an increasing scientific and technological age that requires more and better knowledge of science and humanities.
Critical and self-reflexive scrutiny of scientific means, ends, and procedures should be a crucial part of the enterprise.
“Critical,” in Haraway’s analysis, signifies “evaluative, public, multiactor, multiagenda, oriented to equality and heterogeneous well-being.”
(Haraway 1997, 95)
Indeed, there should be debates concerning precisely what values are incorporated into specific scientific projects and whether these serve legitimate ends and goals.
In the case of mapping the human genome, for instance, enormous amounts of money and energy are being spent, but almost no resources are going to educating the public about the ethical implications of having a genome map.
The Human Genome Project spent only 3%-5% of its $3 billion budget on legal, ethical, and social issues, and Celera spent even less.21
A democratic biopolitics and reconstruction of education would involve the emergence of new perspectives, understandings, sensibilities, values, and paradigms that put in question the assumptions, methods, values, and interpretations of modern sciences, calling for a reconstruction of science.22
At the same time, as science and technology co-construct each other, and both coevolve in conjunction with capitalist growth, profit, and power imperatives, science is reconstructing – not always for the better – the natural and social worlds, as well as our very identities and bodies. There is considerable ambiguity and tension in how science will play out given the different trajectories it can take.
Unlike the salvationist promises of the techo scientific ideology and the apocalyptic dystopias of some of its critics, I see the future of science and technology to be entirely ambiguous, contested, and open.
For now, the only certainty is that the juggernaut of the genetic revolution is rapidly advancing and that in the name of medical progress, animals are being victimized and exploited in new ways, while the replication and re-design of human beings is looming.
The human species is thus at a terribly difficult and complex crossroads.
Whatever steps we take, it is imperative that we do not leave the decisions to the scientists, anymore than we would to the theologians (or corporate-hired bioethicists for that matter), for their judgment and objectivity is less than perfect, especially for the majority who are employed by biotechnology corporations and have a vested interest in the hastening and patenting of the brave new world of biotechnology.23
The issues involving genetics are so important that scientific, political, and moral debate must take place squarely within the public sphere.
The fate of human beings, animals, and nature hangs in the balance, thus it is imperative that the public become informed on the latest developments and biotechnology and that lively and substantive democratic debate take place concerning the crucial issues raised by the new technosciences.
1 – Cited in Carey Goldberg, and Gina Kolata, “Scientists Announce Births of Cows Cloned in New Way.” The New York Times. January 21, 1998: A 14. Companies are now preparing to sell milk from cloned cows; see Jennifer Mitol, “Got cloned milk?” http://www.abcnews.com/ July 16, 2001. For the story of Dolly and animal cloning, see Kolata (1998).
2 – See Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Breakthrough in Pig Cloning Could Aide Organ Transplants” (New York Times, January 4, 2001). In July 2002, the Australian government announced draft guidelines that would regulate transplanting animal organs into humans and anticipated research with pig organs translated into humans within two years; see Benjamin Haslem, “Animal-to-human transplants get nod,” The Australian, July 8, 2002: A1
3 – See http://abcnews.go.com/sections/DailyNews/biotechgoats.000618.html.
4 – See Heather Moore, “The Modern-Day Island of Dr, Moreau,” http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11703, October 12, 2001. For a vivid description of the horrors of animal experimentation, see Singer (1975); for an acute diagnosis of the unscientific nature of vivisection,see Greek and Greek (2000).
5 – See “In Test, Japanese Have No Beef With Cloned Beef,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/inatl/daily/sept99/japan10.htm. According to one report, it is more accurate to refer to this beef as being produced by “embryo twinning,” and not the kind of cloning process that produced Dolly; see “‘Cloned’ Beef Scare Lacks Meat,” http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,19146,00.html. As just one indicator of the corporate will to clone animals for mass consumption, the National Institute of Science and Technology has donated $4.7 million to two industries to fund research into cloning chickens for food. See “Cloned chickens on the menu,” New Scientist.com, August 15, 2001.
6 – See Heather Moore, “The Modern-Day Island of Dr, Moreau,” op. cit., and Sharon Schmickle, “It’s what’s for dinner: milk and meat from clones,”
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/868271.html, December 2, 2001.
7 – “Clonefarm: Billions of identical chickens could soon be rolling off production lines,” http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloning.jsp?id=23040300, August 18, 2001.
8 – Cited in Heather Moore, “The Modern Day Island of Dr. Moreau,” op. cit.
9 – The Missyplicity Project boasts a strong code of bioethics; see http://www.missyplicity.com/.
10 – See http://www.transgenicpets.com/.
11 – “In Cloning, Failure Far Exceeds Success,” Gina Kolata, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/science/11CLON.html.
12 – See “Clones contain hidden DNA damage,” http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.- jsp?id=ns9999982; see also the study published in Science (July 6, 2001), which discusses why so many clone pregnancies fail and why some cloned animals suffer strange maladies in their hearts, joints, and immune system.
13 – “Clone Study Casts Doubt in Stem Cells: Variations in Mice Raise Human Research Issues,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23967-2001Jul5?language= printer, July 6, 2001.
14 – See “Scientists Warn of Dangers of Human Cloning,” http://www.abcnews.com/. See also the commentaries in Gareth Cook, “Scientists say cloning may lead to long-term ills,” The Boston Globe, July 6, 2001; Steve Connor, “Human cloning will never be safe,” Independent, July 6, 2001; Carolyn Abraham, “Clone creatures carry genetic glitches,” July 6, 2001; Connor cites Dolly-cloner Ian Wilmut who noted: “It surely adds yet more evidence that there should be a moratorium against copying people. How can anybody take the risk of cloning a baby when its outcome is so unpredictable?”
15 – See “Report Says Scientists See Cloning Problems”, http://abcnews.go.com/wire.US/reuters200103525_573.html.
16 – The Westhusin quote is at http://abcnews.go.com/cloningflaw010705.htm; the “misplaced carbons” quote is in Philip Cohen, “Clone Killer,” http://www.newscientist.com/news.
17 – “Human Clone Moves Sparks Global Outrage,” http://www.smh.com.au/, March 11, 2001.
18 – Given this attitude, it is no surprise that in September, 2001, Texas AM University, the same institution working on cloning cats and dogs, showed off newly cloned pigs, who joined the bulls and goat already cloned by the school, as part of the “world’s first cloned animal fair.”
19 – See “Back from the Brink: Cloning Endangered Species,” Pamela Weintraub, http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/109/notes/ feature2, August 31, 2001. “Gene Find No Small Fetus,” http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41513,00.html
20 – See the collection of responses to Joy’s article in Wired 8.07 (July 2000). Agreeing with Joy that there need to be firm guidelines regulating nanotechnology, the Foresight Institute has written a set of guidelines for its development that take into account problems such as commercialization, unjust distribution of benefits, and potential dangers to the environment. See http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html. I encourage such critical dialog on both the benefits and dangers of new technologies and hope to contribute to these debates with our studies.
21 – See http://www.wired.com/news/0,1294,36886,00.html.
22 – On “new science” and “new sensibilities,” see Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Beacon Press, Boston, 1964) and An Essay on Liberation (Beacon Press, Boston 1969).
23 – For a sharp critique of how bioethicists are bought off and co-opted by corporations in their bid for legitimacy, see “Bioethicists Fall Under Familiar Scrutiny,” http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/health/genetics/02BIOE.html
Best S, Kellner D (2001) The postmodern adventure: science, technology, and cultural studies at the third millennium. Guilford Press, New York
Birke L, Ruth H (1995) Reinventing biology: respect for life and the creation of knowledge. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
Fox MW (1999) Beyond evolution: the genetically altered future of plants, animals, the earth, and humans. The Lyons Press, New York
Greek R, Greek JS (2000) Sacred cows and golden geese: the human cost of experiments on animals. Continuum, New York
Habermas J (1979) Communication and the evolution of society. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Habermas J (1984) Theory of communicative action, vol 1. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Habermas J (1987) Theory of communicative action, vol 2. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Haraway D (1997) Modest witness@second millennium Female meets oncomouse. Routledge, New York
Huxley A (1989a) Brave new world. Perennial Library, New York
Kass L (1998) The wisdom of repugnance. In: Pence G (ed) Flesh of my flesh: the ethics of human cloning. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham MD, pp 13-37
Keller EF (1983) A feeling for the organism: the life and work of Barbara McClintock. WHFreeman and Co, New York
Marcuse H (1964) One-dimensional man. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Marcuse H (1969) An essay on liberation. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Rifkin J (1998) The biotech century: harnessing the gene and remaking the world. Tarcher/Putnam, New York
Original contents HERE
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED GENETIC EVENTS
1890— A rabbit embryo was successfully transplanted to a foster mother rabbit’s uterus.
1944— A human ova was fertilized in vitro, that is in layman’s terms an egg was artificially inseminated in a test tube.
1952— Briggs & King in Indiana University clone a frog.
1970s— Rand Corporation predicts that “para-humans” will be genetically created to do menial tasks in the future. In a totally different affair, Lord Rothschild, who is a physiologist who has studied genetics, warned that self-centered fanatics might set up cloning shops privately. Lord Rothschild suggested to genetic scientists that a clone controlling organization with world wide jurisdiction to license cloning be set up to protect the world from evil men who might want to clone people for evil purposes. He called his suggestion ’Commission for Genetical Control.”
1977— Announcement of the first successful cloning of a person, which was done for someone very wealthy. This whole affair came under strong attack by the establishment. The book giving the shrouded details came out in 1978. The author went into hiding, and our Congress had a parade of establishment research doctors testify at a hearing to debunk the book and to reassure the public that medical researchers were too concerned about ethics to clone people. The author was convinced of the veracity of the cloning event, although the media/establishment doctors claimed the author wrote the book merely as fiction.
1980— Twinning (bisection of an embryo), which is a form of cloning was successfully done with horse foals, sheep and cattle had -already been cloned in this fashion in the previous years.
1981— Mice are cloned. And embryo transfer for cattle becomes a thriving business.
1983— A water buffalo embryo was successfully transplanted to a foster mother buffalo.
1984— A human embryo was successfully transplanted and born with a human foster mother.
1997–A successful human clone is publicly announced.
Scientists working in secret got serious about cloning in the early 1960’s. Abortions began to be performed wholesale at this time to provide fetal tissue for their cloning work. The young generation of Americans are asking, ’When will cloning of people take place?” The answer is that it already has long ago.
An article recently written by Andrew Kimbrell that was placed in many leading daily papers across the U.S. is quite revealing. He comes right up to almost telling people what has been going on. The article was entitle,
“Science is about to Deliver.” (June 22, 1993)
“…most Americans are unaware of the real-life exploits of current genetic engineers, science facts which in many cases are as chilling as any science fiction…. Pigs have been genetically designed to contain human-growth genes in the hopes of creating “super pigs” that would have more meat. “…
U.S. government and private researchers have expended billions of taxpayer dollars in the creation of tens of thousands of genetically engineered animals never before seen…. One prominent scientist predicts that we may soon see,
“five-ton cows and pigs 12 feet long and 5 feet tall.
“Genetic engineers.. .have cloned higher mammals, including cattle….
One writer notes that “genetic engineering has the potential to create a vast army of identical clones, each produced to some preset specification. Canon fodder, scientists, opera singers, all could be manufactured to order…”
“The New York Times has editorialized, ’Life is special, and humans even more so, but biological machines are still machines that now can be altered, cloned, and patented.’ ” –(WOW! Readers do YOU REALIZE THAT BETWEEN THE LINES THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BIONIC ROBOTOIDS — the robots that are now being created to take the place of people in high places. And the chilling idea that human-like machines will be produced that will not be treated as anything but machines–that is a chilling idea too.
In this author’s September, 1993 newsletter there were two article by this author on cloning, one entitled “Clones, Synthetics, Organic Robotoids, and Doubles” and the other article “Dulce Genetic Research/Cloning Facility.” In the month following my September ’93 newsletter’s release, the establishment came out with stories about humans being cloned.
[I felt that this was confirmation that God’s had directed me to publish the information I had on cloning 1/2 months before the secular media came out with their stories about the “first” laboratory duplication of a human embryo.]
This ’93 cloning was the first publicly revealed & publicly accepted human cloning, but the truth is that it had already been done for about 30 years secretly. In December, 1993’s newsletter I had a followup article on cloning where I reviewed what the media was telling people about cloning after the ’first” human cloning had been announced. My article also discussed the novel Multiple Man which is about how exact copies of the President are made. The book has some surprising similarities with what they actually did with President Carter!
Finally in September of ’96, this author’s newsletter came out with its fourth article on cloning. This appendix is not the final word on the topic. The whole topic about clones, synthetics, robotoids and doubles could have a great deal more said.
This appendix is merely a review of what those four articles contained. Cloning also relates in a big way to the cranial/body manipulation that was introduced in this book. It also relates to the group mind/proxying that is being done.
Perhaps at some point this author can go into the deeper intricacies of cloning, but for now this appendix will provide its information in the following format:
Section A. The “Future Shock” that this topic subjects the common person to
Section B. Instructions on how to clone a person
1. actual clones
2. synthetic people
3. organic robotoids
a. How the memory of a person is transferred for the organic robotoids
4. doubles (look alikes)
Section D. Secret cloning sites (See also Appendix B, where D.U.M. bases are listed.)
The “Future Shock” that this topic subjects the common person to
What happens when a technologically backward people are suddenly confronted with a technologically advanced people? What happens is that people are called on to change, in many cases the stress is what Alvin Toffler described and called “Future Shock“. The over-stimulation of new ideas, new decisions, new ways of looking at things can cause great distress to the mind and body. Radical changes to adapt to the new situation are demanded. In the case of the Navajo, one can see pickups parked beside hogans. In Nepal where I lived, the Nepalese had never gone through a horse and buggy era, so they had no word for drive in their language. When cars suddenly appeared – the first was carried into Katmandu on the backs of porters -, they had no word for “drive”, so they used the words they had “sit and go.” So where we say “Let’s drive to town.” They would say literally, “Let’s sit and go to town.”
The American people have in general been kept in the dark about the limits of scientific developments. The known reasons people have not learned are varied. The Cold War was one reason. Capitalist corporate advantage is another reason. They call it trade secrets. Scientific pride and the ability to outstrip other researchers is another, and for the public just their technical jargon is enough to prevent people from closely watching the level of research going on. But underlying most of the coverup is this: that the overall satanic plan is to keep people ignorant of these scientific advances BECAUSE they are being used quite often to control and manipulate the world.
What has developed is a situation where the American people are no longer in touch with where the elite’s secret technology is. It is clear that the elite know this and are aware that some of the “Future Shock” needs to reduced if they don’t want to self-destruct society. You need to be aware (mentally prepared) that most of the readers of this will experience future shock when they read that cloning of humans is possible & has gone on for decades. The elite had a dilemma. If society isn’t moved forward to match their secret scientific advances, it will soon be like cave-men meeting modern-day men. Society won’t be capable of adjusting–only self-destructing. On the other hand they certainly can’t tell us what they are already doing, because they are using this technology against us to control us. For this reason they are giving us movies that show us things that they have already invented — but these are put forth as fiction in these Hollywood films. They hope to lesson the Future Shock, which their own secrecy has greatly contributed toward creating, while maintaining control over the general population.
SOME OF THE FILMS THAT SHOW EXISTING TECHNOLOGY:
Clone — cloning
Jurassic Park — cloning
Genesis II — underground genetics laboratories that are connected by tube shuttles
Terminal Man — brain stem implants
Star Trek — various items.
In addition to some of today’s secret technology being shown, the attitudes and beliefs shown on the two series, especially Star Trek the Next Generation are the attitudes the Satanic elite want people to have.
READERS PREPARE FOR FUTURE SHOCK
The Scriptures give strong indications that genetic monsters, the half-breed Nephalim will exist in the end times. God’s Word also forecasts that the mark of beast will be needed for buying & selling.
One item conveyed by the Bible’s book of Revelation is that totally unexpected sudden change will characterize the end times. Christians need to be prepared for unusual big changes. So great will these changes be that the nations will be distressed, and men’s hearts will fail them for fear (LK 21:25-27). The Bible predicted that knowledge shall increase in the last days before Christ returns. (DN 12:4) But that knowledge will be used for evil, because the Bible also says that the world will be totally corrupt as in Noah’s time (MT 24:37)–which was a time of the genetic monsters, the half-bred Nephalim. It also says men and horses will be out of work. (ZEC 8:10) And it is believed that Nahum 2:3-4 must be describing automobiles, and that Isaiah 31:5, and 60:8 are describing and prophesying airships in the last day. The description of the “mark of the beast” is startlingly accurate in describing the microchip which is being inserted into people’s hands and foreheads. The information that is allowed out for the public to access has been heavily censored.
Still in spite of all the intense secrecy, if a person takes the time to dig and to find key items written by scientists, enough of a shadow picture develops to allow a person to realize that they already can produce several things the public is unaware of. Many times the articles will discuss only a tiny aspect of a larger process, or will say we have the knowledge to do such and such but the actual doing is years away. And somehow people swallow that we could have the capability to do it, but aren’t.
For instance, in a book that was published in 1979, Robert Gilmore McKinnel, Professor of Genetics and Cell Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, wrote,
“It has been reported that mice and some large domestic animals have been cloned. Humans have not. Because the reproductive biology of humans… is similar to that of mice and other mammals, it is likely that humans could be cloned.”
Some of the men who know what is actually being done, are afraid to tell what they know. However, I do not have neither a professional reputation nor a job to guard. I have never taken any oath of secrecy to any of these organizations of the establishment. I can simply tell you the truth without fear.
Instructions on how to clone a person
For those who want the medical description of just one way that cloning of people can be done (and this capability has been around for at least a decade–and much longer secretly.) The idea that we don’t have the knowledge to do it is simply a myth for public consumption. Any microbiologist worth anything knows that we have the knowledge and the means–they can only claim that cloning of humans hasn’t happened because supposedly no one wants to do it.
A TECHNIQUE–INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO CLONE A HUMAN:
The ovulation and ovaries of the woman can be monitored. Just before natural ovulation, there is an increase of luteinizing hormone which is called the luteinizing hormone surge. This can be detected by either blood or urine samples. The growth of the follicle can be monitored by visualization with ovarian ultrasonography. Ultrasound diagnosis will reveal on which side of the woman’s ovaries the ripening follicle is found. This procedure will allow people to know when the follicle is ripe for the retrieval of the oocyte. When the time is appropriate a hollow aspiration needle is inserted into one or several ripe follicles under visual guidance of the laparoscope.
The oocyte is removed with some follicular fluid. Experienced laparoscopists have a success rate over 90% in recovering the oocyte. Prior to this, it is likely that the woman will have been given Clomiphene citrate, or this drug used in combination with another drug so that there will be several eggs that can be retrieved at one time. The oocytes obtained from the ripe ovarian follicles are not fertilized when retrieved, although another process would be to fertilize first, before extracting. If they don’t fertilize first, then they can take the harvested oocytes and incubate them in a culture medium for several hours to get maturation.
They need maturation because they have been taken from the ovary before ovulation, and are not as mature as spontaneously ovulated ova. Thawed or fresh semen is washed and centrifuged so that it will be diluted to the proper concentration to fertilize in vitro. The in vitro fertilization is carried out. After some amount of hours, (about 12) both pronuclei are identifiable for enucleation. The enucleation is accomplished with either one of two well-established methods. One method is to surgically enucleate it with a micropipette, another is with a bleb of cytoplasm containing both the male and female pronuclei. Either method has worked fine.
These nuclei by the way have been obtained from the inner-cell mass of an early human embryo. This again is a well established practice. Let us digress slightly and explain the method to obtain the nuclei. The zona pellucida must be removed from a cultured embryo, the trophectoderm separated from the inner cell mass, and then, the cells dissociated with an appropriate enzyme in a calcium-and magnesium-free salt solution. Going back to the cloning process, there are several methods for joing a donor nucleus (obtained from its source using the just mentioned method) with enucleated cytoplasm (obtained from the woman’s in vitro fertilized ovum).
One might be to surgically implant it with a micropipette, another is fusion with an inactivated Sendai virus. Whichever way is considered most viable by those performing this will be used. And then the human nuclear transplant will be cultured until it can be placed into a human foster mother. When the clone has reached the 8 – to 16 cell stage it will be transferred into the foster mother. If needed, the transfer can be done later, and the clone is simply frozen. When the transfer takes place, the clone is drawn into a fine plastic tube (a catheter) which, then in turn, would be introduced through the cervical canal into the interior of the uterus. — This is just one process for successfully cloning humans. Other more refined techniques may well be in use.
The four types of ’clones’ that are used by the Illuminati:
This is a person who has been grown from a test tube (called “in vitro”) or implanted womb, which has the identical genetic makeup to another person–an identical twin so to speak in terms of genetic makeup. The genetic coding has reproduced, and a new person who is an identical twin is now in existence.
These are “persons” who look every bit as real, as a real person, but simulate human beings. Certain tissues extracted from cattle are the starting point. (This is part of the reason for cattle mutilations.) The process is an advancement of a process discovered in the late 1950’s. This 1959 experiment was reported in a book in 1968 called The Biological Time Bomb by Gordon Rettray Taylor.
Taylor describes the experiment done in France,
“They had extracted DNA from the cells of the khaki Cam phells and had injected it into the white Pekins, thinking that just possibly the offspring of the latter might show some character derived from khaki Campbells. To their astonishment the actual ducks they injected began to change. Their white feathers darkened, and their necks began to take on the peculiar curve which is a mark of the khaki Campbell.”
The scientists working under the auspices of the Rothschilds, developed this process by working at secret breakneck speed. They developed an advanced development of the process they discovered with the DNA chicken experiment. By the late 1970’s, synthetic people could be produced by the Illuminati.
This is an “artificial life” form that is created through processes that are totally different than cloning or synthetics.
Organic robotoid technology is being made to make exact as possible copies of important people such as Presidents and some of their staff.
For instance, the Jimmy Carter who came to Portland a few years ago who I stood two feet away from and examined visually was not the Jimmy Carter that had run for President. On Easter, 1979 the first robotoid model of Jimmy Carter replaced the man Jimmy Carter. By the time “Carter” was seen by me, they must have been on at least robotoid no. 100. This is why a friend of mine who was recently in Washington D.C. almost bumped into President Clinton jogging. My friend was surprised by the lack of security.
Kaiser Aluminum News which is put out by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation put out a series of articles to a specialized audience in the 1960’s. This material was also published under the book title The Dynamics of Change (Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967).
Under the title heading “GENETIC MANIPULATION” we read,
“The ability to control the formation of new beings may be one of the most basic developments of the future. Recent discoveries about the nucleonic acids, the basic building blocks of life, have led to the belief that man may some day be able to treat genes in such a way that desired characteristics can be realized…”
Under the heading “MAN-MACHINE SYMBIOSIS” we read,
“…Computers exist which can learn, remember, see, seek goals, reason, walk, sing on key, talk, be irritable, play games, grasp, adapt to an environment and even design improvements in themselves… man-like computers may one day contain plasma circulating through a viscera-like envelope, allowing them to be self-healing.”
Under the heading “HUMAN ROBOTS” we read,
“…An electronic circuit that imitates two neurons, the cells of the human brain, has been built, and has enabled a robot to deal with some unexpected situations, but the neuron structure was bulky. The brain has billions of neurons, meaning an incredible miniaturization job will be necessary before truly ’human’ robots are developed.”
As the reader knows since the 1960’s when this was written an incredible miniaturization job has been done in computers. What the public knows of that miniaturization is incredible and that is only part of what has actually occurred. In fact, scientists are now able to manipulate DNA to create computers.
A basic thing that is needed to create a computer is material that will consistently change given some type of “signal”. This is because the computer works off of base two–or what is simply an on–off switch system, or a 0 or 1 system of numbers.
Living biological material is superior to other material for making computers because the heat created by the methods in conventional computers slows the speed. For super-computers to work at great speeds they need to use biological material that will not heat up. This type of miniaturization has already been done. It creates computers far beyond what we are familiar with.
Organic robotoids are amazingly humanlike, so humanlike that it is hard for the scientists who have created them to get used to the idea that they are not humans. Biological computer brains for the robotiods came as a result of research into holograms.
If you tear up a conventional photograph you ruin it, but if you tear up the film that produces a hologram, each piece still contains almost all the same image. This is why part of the brain of people can be removed and the brain regain what it had lost. A holographic image of a person’s brain is made, and then when the brain of a robotoid is made, the biological computer in its head is caused to form according to the holographic record of a person being copied. Some deviations from the holographic record are needed, because the “person” is a robotoid and not a person.
The brain of the robotoid has almost all of the correct memory of the person reproduced, but the robotoid brain is really a computer made from biological material which is programmed, it is not a human brain. First, “Clinton” has the energy to jog because it may well be a robotoid, and second thing, an assassination of a robotoid is not so serious. These robotoids have a biological computer-brain that is programmed. They can think in the sense a computer thinks, but secret advances in understanding the human brain, have allowed the makers of organic robotoids to have the memory of a person at a given point in time transferred to an organic robotoid. The key then for making what appears to be a clone –but they are not a real clone– is to capture the person to be copied and make a holographic copy of the brain memory and transfer that to the robotoid.
How the memory of a person is transferred for the organic robotoids
In order to successfully make human organic robotoids –in a sense to make bionic robots— the ability to simulate the personality of the person being copied was necessary.
The only viable solution was to learn how the brain coded memory and duplicate that process. The brain is entering into its memory about 10 million bits of information a second. The incredible storage capability of the human brain which weighs on the average 3.25 lbs in human males and 2.9 lbs in human females is incredible.
The brain can easily store 100 million billion bits of information. It’s no wonder we don’t use it all. All the computers in the world put together do not compare with one intelligent person’s brain.
Numerous tests and experiments from many different angles all showed investigators that the brain stored information as a hologram. The place in the brain where a memory is stored isn’t in just one location. Memories are stored in synapses in sequence, but they are stored in a holographic method.
From what I understand, rhythmic pulses radiate from a small area of the brain like a stone creates ripples in a pond. Waves go through the cerebrum, in the way that laser light is used to create a hologram. Different frequencies are used by the brain and different neuron impulses are used to reference (tag) the different details. These tags are the brain’s own codes or reference standards for cataloging information.
The brain has to be able to access the encoder/decoder (holographic code standards) for a particular piece of information to be retrieve for the conscious. Brain injuries can destroy one decoder, and leave other decoders for a memory intact.
When a multiple (a person with MPD/DID) is created layers and layers of amnesia walls (actual walls) are built into the brain, and then specific codes are created which cause the mind to bring these compartments of memory to the surface. Each compartment is built into an alter (personality) or a functioning part of the System (built somewhat like a series of computers). Where a normal person may be aware of a conscious and a somewhat subconscious track running simultaneously, the mind of a multiple runs several tracks at once.
On a local level within the brain, researchers have called a memories storage unit an engram. Polypeptidenucleic acid holds a piece of information, such as a trauma memory. Proteins and other substances are involved in the memory process. How a person eats can influence their mental abilities.
But it must be born in mind that a memory is retained holographically in countless locations in the memory storage area of the brain, just as the ripples of a stone dropped into water flow throughout an entire pond.
The mind will have a number of reference points from which a particular memory can be decoded. The information that is stored in the brain is both dynamic and holographic. It is not stored like a book. If the dynamic impulses of the brain cease, so do the memories. Freezing and reviving a human brain will serve to erase its memory. I will try to explain things in clear terms if the reader will bear with me.
The reason that we recognize objects so quickly is that the brain performs what is similar to what researchers call a Fourier transfer. Messages are transmitted through Fourier-transform messages. What is a Fourier-transform message? A Fourier transform is a mathematical method where a complex wave, or a complex pattern is broken down and converted into a basically longer, but precise signal of simpler frequencies. In other words a squiggly line is hard to communicate, but via the Fourier transform it becomes a string of numbers which is quite easy to transmit. In other words, a complex squiggly line and a straight line after the conversion are both just as easy to record. The brain stores information in a form similar to a Fourier transform, so that when it must look for similar patterns, it can quickly overlook everything but another identical Fourier transform pattern. A mental comparison is done so quick that it gives the ability to the brain to “instantly” recognize people who one hasn’t seen for years. The Holograms of memory that the brain makes are transmitted through Fourier-transform messages.
Holograms are hard to destroy, for each piece contains the whole. Rip a holograph in half and you still have the same picture. Rip it in half again and the same picture remains. After a great many cuts in half the holograph begins to get a little fuzzy, as it loses some of its detail, but the entire picture is still there.
That is why memories begin to get somewhat fuzzy, because we are only puffing up a small piece of brain that recorded the memory. However, if we can pull up more of the holographic image of the memory we get a more distinct detailed picture.
It was secret research into holograms that gave Illuminati scientists the ability to copy the memory of an entire brain. A holographic image is made of the host’s brain and that is transferred into the biological matter functioning as a brain of the robotoid. Since the body and brain of the robotoid are not identical to the original person being copied, adjustments have to be taught and programmed into the mind of the robotoid. The entire process is sophisticated, but then so are many manufacturing processes today.
Doubles (look alikes)
There is an ongoing program to find look alikes for prominent people, as well as a program to create secret identical twins (which are separated at birth and never see each other). George Bush’s double was promiscuous, while George Bush is a pedophile. His double was living in France after Bush was no longer President. By the use of doubles, (or one of the synthetics or organic robotoids) the elite are able to sneak away and perform satanic rituals.
On certain occasions, if Clinton or Bush only needed to do low level tasks in front of the public, they could have their double substitute for them. The Illuminati working with several organizations has had a look alike operation where doubles of certain key people are found and then used.
In the book Desert Shield and The New World Order pub. by Northpoint Tactical Teams, Topton, NC, if you look on page 32 you will see a picture of the original FDR who had a mole over his eyes and then you will a see a picture of the double of Roosevelt who they used, who had no mole and had different ear lobes. Roosevelt may have died prior to when it was actually announced. Over the years I have seen numerous photos exposing either the Robotoids or the doubles that they use.
This author’s previous S’ ’93 article had some pictures about the dead Pope Paul VI, who my Be Wise As Serpents book said was murdered. This recent Pope was replaced with a double who had had plastic surgery. As a double gets older the plastic surgery will not look as convincing, because time changes people differently. One ex-Catholic said the whole thing sounded like science fiction. It does sound far out at first, but the evidence is there for people to see.
For myself, the ex-Illuminati have told me about the double’s program. From what I understand the double or look-alike program has been more successful than the robotoids and synthetics. The reason is that people live longer and are more dependable in some ways. The project to find look alikes for prominent people has been very successful. Plastic surgery has also been done to help touch up the doubles.
Secret cloning sites
(See also Appendix B, where D.U.M. bases are listed.)
Ada, Oklahoma’s underground facility is being used to clone humans. The other cloning facilities are turning out weird creatures. Due to the processes involved they give off lots of gamma radiation (Gamma is at the far end of the electromagnetic wave spectrum–it is even a longer wave than ultraviolet).
Because they give off Gamma radiation, these facilities must be deep underground. The cloning is done at level 7. The average depth (according to one of the men who built these Deep Underground Facilities – D.U.M.) is 5,600’. The secret government has been building them no stop since W.W. II.
I personally have only been in an underground city in Oahu, HA, but I have spoken to others who are wanting to save humanity and stop the NWO, and these witnesses know a lot about the underground facilities. One of the men who betrayed the human race and helped with the cloning was Austrian born Simon Wiesenthal.
Simon Wiesenthal, was a US intelligence agent with a photographic memory (perhaps a scarred brain stem). Wiesenthal seriously hunted Nazis that were not on the CIA’s payroll or CIA associated groups. Simon Wiesenthal, under the disguise of being a great Nazi hunter, actually assisted protecting the FBI’s and the CIA’s agents who were Nazi criminals. Wiesenthal tried to stop CBS from doing a show exposing the FBI-Nazi connection.
Jewish Intelligence (the Mossad) knew all about the hundreds if not thousands of Nazi War criminals that worked for American Intelligence and the FBI, but never went public about it. Instead they occasionally used the information as leverage against American intelligence.
One of the code no.s for Simon Wiesenthal given by a Monarch slave was something like 063 097. If someone else knows the full and correct code for him, go ahead and share it.
Unholy Trinity is a book written about how the Vatican, the US State Department, and MI-6 smuggled Nazis out of Germany at the end of WW II. An entire book could be written about the thousands of die hard Nazis who have been working for American intelligence, however Simon Wiesenthal’s name is mentioned here because he helped start the cloning for the worst elements of the NWO.
OREGON’S UNDERGROUND SECRET CLONING FACILITY
In at least one of my newsletters, the secret cloning facility at Bull Run near Mt. Hood, OR was discussed. Bull Run is a large tract of forested land with some water reservoirs/lakes that is set up to help provide water for the Portland Metro area. My house on Lincoln St. was also near 8 reservoirs that were built at nearby Mt. Tabor. These reservoirs at Mt. Tabor were for Portland drinking water too. The Mt. Tabor reservoirs have simple single fences on their perimeter, and people are able to throw garbage into these reservoirs if they want to be nasty.
However, the Bull Run water supply which is very isolated is extremely well protected. It is rare that people would stray up into the area anyway. People are told that this large tract of land is simply for Portland’s water supply, and yet several years ago a Patriot military unit reckoned the area after getting info from me. They were able to identify 3 strongly guarded rings of defense at the Bull Run reservoir. The area has lots of electronic surveillance, etc. It is either the most valuable water on God’s green earth, or there is something else in the vicinity of Larch Mountain (south of the famous Multnomah Falls which sit on I-84) — something besides a water reservoir.
Of course, those in the know, know that it’s an underground facility which the CIA use. It’s not an accident Tektronics here in the Portland area does work/research with holograms.
FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS AT DULCE’S UNDERGROUND CLONING FACILITY
My article about Dulce [which I investigated in person on foot] also sparked a small group of dedicated Christians to try to retrace my steps and find the Dulce facility. They reported back to me that they found nothing and that the reservation police and the local people claimed they’d never even heard of any underground facility. All I can say is that, doesn’t that strike you as fishy that all kinds of people have been up in that area looking for the site, interviewing the Jicarilla Apaches that live in the area for years, talking about Dulce over Art Bell’s Radio show, etc. and locals have never heard anything about it?? At the very least they should know that other people looked for the site.
The reservation and town of Dulce, NM have a small population. There is little that everyone doesn’t know about what goes on in the area, and yet they are surprised by the topic of an underground facility? The whole thing smells like the key people in the area have been convinced to keep their mouths shut & pretend they know nothing. My comments: sometimes when you’re looking for a rat, you’ll smell it before you see it.
According to someone who has worked in the Dulce Underground Facility the openings on the north and SW face (Aztec Cliffs) are still in use. Actually the cliff that has a face that looks like an Aztec on Mt. Archeleta has been cemented shut because hikers kept straying into the area. A deep needle detector which could detect metal or magnetism deep down could reveal the Dulce Underground Facility — but people who get this close often disappear.
SUMMARY OF THE FOUR METHODS
This Appendix covers 4 different methods that have been used to make copies of people, these were cloning, creating synthetic duplicates, creating organic robotoids, and finding look alike doubles. [Programs for all four of these methods have had almost unlimited funding by the intelligence/Illuminati elite.]
Next, the basic principles for creating a synthetic human were covered. Synthetic humans were in some ways found to be superior to the robotoids that were created. The first few years of robotoids were fraught with problems. [Since my inside information is somewhat dated, I cannot give readers the status of current robotoid abilities, however, I believe from what I’ve seen that the program continues.] The synthetics were people who had their genes altered to look more like the person they were to copy.
The robotoids were the formation of new beings that look human but are actually bionic robots. Their memories were created by using living “brain tissue” which is some type of programmable living biological matter, and programming this material as a sophisticated computer. In order to get the memory of the person being copied, a holographic image of the person’s brain is made and transferred to the robotoid. Because the robotoid “brain” is not functioning like a human (although the end result is nearly identical so that viewers have to know what differences to look for), there are of course some adjustments that have to be made after the holographic image of the host is transferred to the living biological matter that will function as the brain of the robotoid.
Lord Willing, this author may write some more on this topic later. The ability of the Illuminati to copy people using the 4 methods listed above, are not going to be the deciding factor in their moves to control the world, but it does give them a great deal of flexibility in their operations. This author frequently reflects on the words of the Illuminati Grand Master who told Cisco (Cisco Wheeler) who was then a child, while touring a cloning facility,
“Never, never think you are seeing who you think you are seeing.’