THE MORALITY OF FRANKESTEIN’S CLONE

This article deals with Legal and ethical questions raised by cloning

‘Human Cloning had been achieved early in the twenty-first century. Even when the technology had been perfected, it had never become widespread, partly because of ethical objections and partly because there were few circumstances that could ever justify it.’
Arthur C. Clarke; Imperial Earth

FRANKESTEIN

It was a bright cold day in spring of 1814 when Shelley, the great romantic poet eloped for the second time1 With Mary Godwin first to France, then to Switzerland. There he was to meet Lord Byron his friend, another great poet of that era.

It was the time when the fundamentals of electricity were taking shape. Galvani had discovered that frog muscles could respond to two different metals. He thought, muscles had animal electricity. Volta soon disproved it by showing that two different metals could produce electricity. Volta had made the first electric battery. And then Humphrey Davy made a more powerful battery and carried other experiments. This happened in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Life and electricity were in every one’s mind.

One day, Shelly, Byron and Mary Selley together discussed, what was in everybody’s mind. They thought about writing a story. Mary encouraged by Shelly and Byron went on to write it. Frankestein is the name of that story. It is about Frankestein, a young scientist of Anatomy. He puts life into an eight foot tall creature through electricity. The creature, not accepted by the society, kills every one close to Frankestein including his bride and then Frankestein himself.

The story for the first time raised a fear of the unknown and of moral questions about scientific experiments. Creating life is God’s domain, who are we to tread there. The book is one of the most talked about and later inspired many movies. Frankestein’s monster has gone from realm of fiction to become a part of the English language. Shelly and Byron were not only great but rightly imagined themselves to be great. Imagine their plight; the dent to their ego, if they were to be transported in time. More people have read and debated Frankestein than all the works of Shelly and Byron put together. Frankestein was not the first time when moral and ethical questions about scientific experiments were asked. Rather, it was the first fiction to do so. It was not to end there. These questions arise: when principles conflict, facts are ambiguous and result uncertain. These questions are being raised at present more fiercely than at any other time. Cloning is the reason.

CLONE
Clone, also spelled Clon, means producing genetically identical organisms derived from a single individual by asexual methods. Amphibians were cloned in 1950’s but died before reaching adulthood. No mammals had ever been cloned. It fell to the Roslyn Institute near Edinburg; Scotland to clone first mammal in 1997. The present euphoria is all about that. The scientists at the Rosalyn Institute took cells from the udder of a female sheep and placed it in a culture of low concentration of nutrients. We know, cells divide and multiply; by this process the cells stopped dividing. They switched off their active genes and stopped multiplying. An unfertilised egg was taken from another female sheep. Its DNA was sucked out so that the egg was empty, then the cell taken from the first female sheep was placed in it with gentle push of electric pulses. This was now placed in the uterus of a female sheep, which gave birth to a sheep identical to the first one. Simple isn’t it. But the questions it raises are not simple.

SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD
Cloning has again raised questions of surrogate motherhood. Is xeroxing oneself proper? Will it produce better individuals? Who can clone? Will prostitutes be allowed to clone? Should gays be allowed? And we have had same sex marriages. Should they be permitted?

The dilemma of Surrogacy is not new. It was raised in 1979, the year the first test tube baby was born. Soon a committee chaired by Mary Warnock was appointed to look into the issues involved. Many of its recommendations were implemented by The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Not every one is happy with it. It is yet to be answered satisfactorily. Many find the idea of surrogate motherhood to be settle. Houses, rooms are taken on rent; but then will we permit wombs to be taken on rent?

SHOULD WE
Notwithstanding Howard Hughes’ In his Image: The Cloning of a Man2 , no human has been cloned as yet. At least there is no authentic proof. It has not happened since God performed that delicate surgery on Adams to create Eve. Well, if God could why can’t we.? May be precisely for that reason only can do it, we can’t. In fact it is the fear of the unknown. We might do something that we may have to repent for later. When will it come about? It is banned in England. If other countries do not ban it then do not encourage it either. Yet the first human clone may come about by the end of this century. And perfected as Arthur C. Clark says, in his science fiction ‘Imperial Earth’, in the early twenty first century:’ A sexual reproduction is not unknown. It does happen in nature; but only in the lower species. It does not occur in higher species. We have evolved from a sexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. There is no point in turning the clock back. We mix, we evolve, and otherwise stagnation, malfunction are the result.

ELIGIBILITY
The most troubling of all issues is who should be entitled to clone? What would be the criteria? Human body does not accept transplant of human organs from every one. Will a person, who needs human organs for a transplant, be entitled to clone. Surely his own body, his own carbon copy will be able to supply acceptable human organ.

Infertile couples who cannot even have test tube baby may be permitted. But then what about: unmarried couples, or common law Husbands and wives, or a single person? There is no prohibition for a single person to adopt. Who better to adopt than oneself - whom one can understand well.

Will we permit a prostitute to clone? Then will gay or lesbian couple be left behind? It was with this in mind that Section 13 (5) of The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in England provides, a woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father)

No two humans are the same. Clones will not be either. A carbon copy does not mean an exact replica, mentally or physically. Nurture does play an important role. Not only when child is in the womb but also when it is outside the womb. But the basic instinct will be the same. The world would be happy to have another Einstein But then what happens if he is Hitler or Jack the ripper!

'Cloning was neither good nor bad; only its purpose was important. And that purpose should not be one that was trivial or selfish’ (Imperial Earth; Arthur C. Clarke).

But there is no guarantee that cloning will not be trivial or selfish. One selfish clone may cost us heavily. The world that we know, as we understand, may have cloning for precisely those reasons - trivial or selfish.3

Should we ban human cloning? Fankestein was fiction. But the fears that it raised are real. Yet the world has progressed. Science has not stopped the world. It will not stop even if cloning is permitted. For if we do not permit it, surely it will flourish in ‘The Island of Dr. Moreau ’ (A book written by HG Wells).

1Shelly had earlier eloped in 1811 at the age of 19 with Harriet.

2In this book he has claimed to have made a human clone. This was latter found to be false.

3Sometimes I wish, I was wrong.

CHAPTER-V: LAW & SCIENCE

Science is progress. Its transcends all disciplines. It will have greater impact in times to come.


All articles in this book except one have already been published in different newspapers and magazines. The article GAY RIGHTS PARITY CONSERVATION-MIRROR IMAGES has not been published (see Endnote-1). I had sent it to many magazines and newspapers but no one was willing to publish it. May be the connection, which I have tried to build up between the ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘Parity Conservation & Mirror Images’ is too weak,(Endnote-2) or may be the article is controversial. I am neither Gay nor do I approve of it. Then why did I write it? Well, the bond between the two ideas operating in different spheres fascinates me. It is for this reason that the two articles in this chapter were written.


Endnote-1: It has since publication of the 1st edition, published after the controversy over the movie ‘Fire’.

Endnote-2: This is what Dr. Jim Samuelson, a high energy physicist from Sweden, has to say,

'The reason why Mr. Yatindra Singh uses the violation of parity conservation as an argument for the rights of homosexuals is, even if well intended, not entirely transparent. I guess one could use the same phenomenon as an argument against those rights: Since nature allows asymmetry, that might indicate that she also wants asymmetry in sexual relationships namely one representative from each gender not two from both ....
Apart from that, the author seems to have a fairly good grasp of the physics he is discussing. For example he does get the conservation of angular momentum in connection with ice skating right; not everyone does. The statement about symmetry of time is a bit dubious though. As he states it, it is correct – as far as we know: the laws of nature do not change with time.'

IN THE MATTER OF ‘A JUDGE’

Picture - courtesy Wikipedia

 In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra- AIR 1996 SC 2766 (the RP-Misra case), a young 19 years old wife, who was married five months ago, was killed in the night intervening 26-27th September, 1985. Her husband, an advocate, was the main accused. He was sentenced to death by the sessions court. His appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. 

The state filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. It was allowed, and observations were made against the High Court judges. 

 The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal also relied upon section 113-B of the Evidence Act that was inserted by Dowry Prohibition Act (43 of 1986) wef 19.11.1986 after the date of the incident. It is debatable whether section 113-B of the Evidence Act was applicable to the facts of the case or not.

Nonetheless, even if section 113-B was not applicable, the husband ought to have been convicted; he could not be acquitted—there was no necessity of taking recourse to section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

However, the observations made against the High Court judges were uncalled for; particularly, with the help of section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 

 This article was prompted because of the observations against the High Court judges in the RP-Mishra case and was written at that time, though some modifications have been since then. It was a protest against higher courts making observations against the lower courts. 

 The article is written as a judgement of a court and deals with a case where a judge of the subordinate court (the Plaintiff) sued another judge of the higher court (the Defendant) for making an observation against him, after placing a different interpretation than the one, which was prevalent at the time when the Plaintiff decided the case. 

 In this process, the article traces the history of law relating to liability of a judge while acting judicially. It took some time to understand that independence of the judiciary is not possible unless judges are protected. There is no point losing it.

PRETTY ONES

Conelia Sorabji - courtesy Wikipeda

This article traces history of ‘Person’ clause cases where women claimed equal rights with men and the Allahabad High Court, which has the distinction of enrolling, Cornelia Sorabji, the first woman advocate under the Person clause.

CHAPTER-IV: LAW & HISTORY

History is as important to Law as the Law itself is.

Men often talk about women’s rights. It’s fashionable. So do I. In Pretty ones you will find history for equal rights for women in law courts.

One day, when I was talking about women rights, my wife innocently asked me, ‘You merely talk. But do you believe in it? My father practised it. When he came back from Harvard Medical School in 1963; he left his 28 year old wife in Toronto to do her Post Doctoral studies. Would you ever do the same?’

Not to be outdone I answered, ‘My father was a district court lawyer in Banda. He, in 1939 had permitted his 19 year old wife, married but a year ago, to live in a hostel, to do her BA and then LL.B. from Benaras Hindu University.’

The result was that my wife has been abroad many times in connection with her studies and I have yet to go abroad even once.

Aren’t they clever?

THALIDOMIDE BABIES AND RELIANCE PETROCHEMICAL

This article is a comment on the Thalidomide case in England (where newly born babies had flippers instead of hands and legs) and Reliance Petrochemicals in India, where two competing rights namely the right to know and the right to a fair trial were involved.

Thalidomide baby from BBC video clip

HONI ANHONI TV SERIAL AND THE MONKEY TRIAL

Doordarshan had come out with a serial Honi Anhoni.  It had episodes that encouraged belief in supernatural.  This was sought to be prohibited. Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court granted interim injunction restraining the Doordarshan to telecast it. But in Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lokvidayan Sangathan AIR 1988 SC 1642 (the Honi Anhonee case) our Supreme Court allowed the appeal and permitted the telecast.  

Scene from 'Honi Anhoni', where a dead girl comes back every year on date of his death.

Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was banned in US.  In 1920's Scopes, a biology teacher was prosecuted for teaching Origin of Species.  This case is commonly referred to as the Monkey Trial. 

There was another statute Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act (Creationism Act) in the State of Louisiana, US.  Its vires was challenged in Edwards Vs Aguilard (482 US 510).

This article is a comparative study of these cases. 

CHAPTER III: COMPARATIVE LAW - INDIA & ABROAD

One can not but be proud of the Indian Judiciary. It has come out well. But there are few cases for which such comments may be reserved. This has happened not only in India but other countries too. If we had the Habeas Corpus Case then England had Liversidge Vs Anderson. Here are some more.

DECISIONS ARE FROM THE HEART RATHER THAN THE HEAD

This article is about: American Supreme Court; the case Griswold Vs Connecticut 381 US 479; Family planning and Right to Privacy, and of course the decision making process.

Photograph - courtesy Wikipedia

BUT IS IT FAIR?

This article is about Miranda v. Arizona 348 US 486, Miranda Warning’ and the ‘exclusionary rule’ evolved therein and Chief Justice Earl Warren. 

Chief Justice Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was the 14th Chief Justice of USA and perhaps one of the greatest, ever to adorn the bench.

This article was written after I read 'Miranda: Crime, Law and Politics' by Liva Baker and 'Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court, a Judicial Biography' by Bernard Schwartz in mid 1980s. Both books are worth reading.

The article has been updated since then.

Mirand's Victim - Film based on the Miranda Case

THE ROSENBERG SAGA

This article is about the Rosenberg couple who were sentenced to death for leaking nuclear secrets to USSR during second world war and the interesting book ‘The Implosion Conspiracy’ about this case. This book is written by Louis Nizer, who was a leading trial lawyer of America.