--------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the

Techno-Eugenics Email List Newsletter
Number 6
February 28, 2000

Special Issue on the Asilomar 25th Anniversary Symposium

Supporting genetic science in the public interest
Opposing the new techno-eugenics

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Issue Number 6 of the Techno-Eugenics Email List
newsletter, as far as we know the only on-line newsletter
focused on the politics of the new human genetic and
reproductive technologies. If you're receiving this news-
letter for the first time, please see the instructions for
subscribing, unsubscribing, and submitting items at the
end of this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS

I. SPECIAL REPORT ON THE ASILOMAR 25TH ANNIVERSARY SYMPOSIUM

1. Thanks to signators of the Open Letter
2. Report on the Symposium on Science, Ethics and Society:
The 25th Anniversary of the Asilomar Conference
3. Agenda of the Asilomar Symposium

II. UPCOMING EVENT

1. "The New Human Genetic Technologies and Social Justice,"
Santa Cruz, CA, March 1

III. NEWS AND POINTERS REGARDING TECHNO-EUGENICS

1. Annas, Caplan, and Elias criticize Geron's Ethics
Advisory Board
2. Wired Magazine: Prestigious researchers at Extropy
Institute conference
3. New book and website from Gregory Stock and John Campbell
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Recommendations on Human Germline Genetic Engineering

IV. ABOUT THE TECHNO-EUGENICS EMAIL LIST NEWSLETTER

V. ADDENDUM: OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE ASILOMAR SYMPOSIUM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I. SPECIAL REPORT ON THE ASILOMAR 25TH ANNIVERSARY SYMPOSIUM

1. Thanks to signators of the Open Letter

We want to thank the over 250 of you who responded to our last-minute
request to sign the Open Letter on human germline genetic engineering,
which was distributed at the Symposium on Science, Ethics and Society
held at the Asilomar Conference Center on February 15-17. As most of
you know, sixty-seven noted biologists, scholars, lawyers, government
officials and others gathered at this invitation-only event to assess
the experience of genetic engineering regulation in the U.S., and to
consider its future prospects.

The signators to the Open Letter are extraordinarily diverse. They
include scientists, physicians, public health experts, disabled
rights activists, environmentalists, African-American, Latino-
American and Native-American activists, women's health leaders,
artists, high school teachers, religious leaders, attorneys, nurses,
students and others. They come from North America, Europe, Africa,
Latin America, Asia and Australia. We believe that the Open Letter
successfully demonstrated that any attempts to move humanity down
a slippery slope towards a techno-eugenic future will arouse strong
opposition.

The text of the Open Letter is attached at the end of this newsletter.
We can email you a text-file containing the letter as distributed,
including the signators, or we can send you a hard copy of the document
itself. Let us know if you would like either or both of these. If you
would like a hard copy be sure to include your postal address.

A brief report on the Symposium at Asilomar follows. It highlights
those aspects that concern the politics of germline engineering. The
Symposium agenda is shown following these comments.

An official report is being prepared by Prof. Alexander M. Capron of
the Pacific Center for Health Policy and Ethics at the University of
Southern California, which sponsored the Symposium. Contact him at
<acapron@law.usc.edu> to find out how to get a copy.

Press accounts of the Symposium appeared in the Los Angeles Times
(2/19/00, page A3: "Gene Therapy Testing on People is Called Too
Risky"), the San Jose Mercury-News
<www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/gene021700.htm>, and
USA Today <www.usatoday.com/life/health/genetics/therapy/lhgth024.htm>.

Some signators to the Open Letter have not previously received this
newsletter. If you do not wish to remain on our list, please let
us know. See the instructions in "About the Techno-Eugenics Email
List newsletter," near the end of this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Report on the Symposium on Science, Ethics and Society: The 25th
Anniversary of the Asilomar Conference, Asilomar Conference Center,
Pacific Grove, California, February 15-17, 2000.

In February of 1975 nearly 150 leading molecular biologists and others
gathered at the Asilomar Conference Center to devise procedures to
oversee the development of recombinant DNA technology in the United
States. These procedures were adopted by the U.S. government and
largely remain in place today. Earlier this month another group of
molecular biologists and others met, again at Asilomar, to evaluate
these policies and to consider whether the "Asilomar process" might
be used to respond to new challenges regarding genetic engineering.
Participants included key organizers of the 1975 conference.

The Asilomar process is controversial. In the words of the organizers
of the February 2000 Symposium, "For some, Asilomar stands as a
singular example of scientific responsibility....Yet others see Asilomar
as an attempt by scientific leaders to maintain control in the face of
possible regulation...shielding science from the public and its
elected representatives." (Symposium announcement, p. 1).

The most highly charged discussions at the Symposium concerned
financial conflicts of interest and the safety of current human
gene transfer experiments. Some speakers argued that the credibility
of biomedical researchers claiming to act in the public interest has
been irrevocably forfeited as a result of these researchers' new,
pervasive, and deep commercial entanglements. One government official
suggested that scientists might be prohibited from having a financial
stake in any corporation that supports their clinical research.

Other speakers were caustic in their assessment of the "cowboy"
culture of much of the gene therapy research community. The recent
death of Jesse Gelsinger following gene experiments at the University
of Pennsylvania figured prominently in the discussion. Dr. Alan
Schechter of the National Institutes of Health charged that "gene
therapy has many of the worst examples of clinical research that
exist." Another participant noted that the term "gene therapy" is
grossly misleading, and suggested "gene transfer experiments on
human subjects" as the more properly descriptive phrase.

It is important to realize that statements critical of the current
state of affairs should not necessarily be taken as criticisms of
the project of human genetic engineering in general. In fact, those
at the Symposium who spoke most strongly against the financial
conflicts of interest, overblown claims, and shoddy research that
pervade the field today included some of the strongest proponents
of human genetic engineering overall, including both therapeutic
and enhancement applications of germline engineering. This is hardly
a contradiction. These scientists want to see these technologies
perfected and applied, and they are aware that current conditions
and practices could jeopardize that prospect.

Symposium participants were acutely aware that public support is
essential if human genetic engineering is to continue in a manner
that suits the researchers/corporate stakeholders, i.e., with health
and environmental concerns narrowly framed, and completely free of
any consideration of the longer term social impacts. For the most
part "the public" was portrayed as an uninformed, emotional, opaque
entity. Opposition to GMO foods was described as having arisen last
year "out of the blue." Environmentalists were ridiculed for "fearing
change." One participant suggested that cognitive scientists and
anthropologists should be asked to help them understand how "ordinary"
people form opinions about genetic engineering. The precautionary
principle came under sustained attack, with one noted scientist
saying, "No one can assure zero risk. Penicillin has risks. We fly
in airplanes. So I don't understand how anyone can put forward this
precautionary principle as something we all have to adhere to." A
minority of participants spoke up in opposition to this assessment
of the public, noting that the deepest public concerns draw on
normative values that lie outside the domain of scientific analysis.

Germline engineering

Although the Symposium agenda highlighted germline engineering as
a topic for discussion, it was addressed only minimally. Dr. Paul
Billings of the Heart of Texas Health Care System spoke articulately
against germline engineering, citing the near impossibility of
estimating the risks involved in manipulating human embryos at early
developmental stages, the lack of any overriding medical need, the
great expense and misallocation of resources involved, the profound
eugenic implications, and the fact that the U.S. would largely be
going against world opinion if it allowed germline engineering.
He said that scientific research needs to proceed within a larger
framework of societal approval, and called for a "radical
re-engineering of human genetic research," focused on social
well-being and democratic values.

The Open Letter was distributed to all participants on the morning
of the second day of the Symposium. At various points in the meeting
several participants, including Dr. Charles Weiner of MIT and Bishop
Pierre DuMaine of San Jose, called attention to the letter, but there
was no move by the group as a whole to address the issues it raised.

Private conversations revealed a range of opinions about germline
engineering. More than a few noted scientists attempted to avoid
taking responsibility for an opinion by invoking the claim that
"germline is inevitable." When pressed, most who held this view
were also of the opinion that germline engineering is desirable,
or at least not so undesirable that it needs to be banned. One
widely honored scientist quite seriously defended germline
engineering on the grounds that "poor families could engineer
their children to be basketball players."

On the other hand, a few prominent scientists, including some
of the strongest advocates of somatic gene transfer applications,
expressed considerable doubts about germline engineering, and
indicated that they would be disposed to support a ban. If a
strong citizen campaign can be mobilized in opposition to
germline engineering, scientists in this latter group could
play an important role.

Another Asilomar?

An explicit purpose of the Symposium was to consider whether the
model of the 1975 Asilomar process might be applied to current newly
controversial genetic engineering technologies, including genetically
modified plants and animals, human germline engineering, cloning,
and stem cell technologies. As noted, under this model research
scientists assessed the risks, drew up proposals for guidelines
and for oversight committees comprised largely of the researchers
themselves, and had these proposals adopted as federal policy.

A majority of Symposium participants seemed to believe that such
a process was no longer tenable. In addition to recognizing that
their moral authority had been compromised by financial conflicts
of interest, participants noted that the issues were now more complex,
impacted more clearly on deep social and moral commitments, and are
regularly being addressed by a large number of advisory committees
and commissions.

It was observed that the 1975 Asilomar conference had been motivated
by the sudden realization that plans were underway to genetically
engineer pathogenic bacteria that could escape from laboratories,
creating a condition of quasi-emergency. One speaker suggested that
an analogous development would be the announcement of a successful
germline engineering procedure in a primate, and that this could
happen at any time. Other speakers suggested that fears concerning
xenotransplantation and DNA vaccines might be addressed through an
Asilomar-type process.

Although the balance of opinion was against the practicability of the
Asilomar model in its pure form, no participants suggested that they
should resign themselves to letting "the politicians" determine the
future course of genetic engineering research and technology. Rather,
they appeared to understand that in the coming period they would have
to be more conventionally political in the furtherance of their
interests, and of what they believe to be in the public interest.

-- Richard Hayes, Coordinator, Exploratory Initiative on the New Human
Genetic Technologies. Hayes is a co-editor of this newsletter and
attended the Symposium.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Agenda of the Symposium on Science, Ethics and Society: The
25th Anniversary of the Asilomar Conference

TUESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2000

OPENING SESSION: The Path to Asilomar and the Road Beyond
Welcome: Alexander Capron, University of Southern California
Keynote: Scientific Responsibility, Public Accountability
Donald Fredrickson, Former Director, NIH

Commentators: What Did the Asilomar Exercise Accomplish, and What Did
it Leave Undone?
Paul Berg, Stanford University; Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts; Robert
Sinsheimer, UC Santa Barbara; Maxine Singer, Carnegie Institution;
Stephen Stitch, Rutgers University; Hans G. Zachau, University of Munich

SESSION II: The Public: Alerted, Educated, Unduly Alarmed?
Reporting Recombinant DNA: Asilomar and the Press
Nicholas Wade, N.Y. Times

Commentators: Asilomar and the Media
R. Pierre DuMaine, former Bishop of San Jose; Dorothy Nelkin, New York
University; Charles Weiner, MIT

WEDNESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2000

SESSION III: Contending with Contemporary Issues in Light of the
Accomplishments and Shortcomings of Asilomar

A. Genetically Modified Organisms
Presenter: Peggy Lemauz, U.C. Berkeley

Commentators: Rebecca Eisenberg, University of Michigan; Willy de Greef,
Novartis; Rebecca Goldburg, Environmental Defense Fund ; Julian
Kinderler, University of Sheffield ; Peter Starlinger, University of
Cologne; Ulrich Trohler, University of Freiburg

B. Genomics: Genes, Human Diversity, and Ownership
Presenter: Aravinda Chakravarti, Case Western Reserve University

Commentators: John Barton, Stanford Law School; Troy Duster, New York
University; Henry Greely, Stanford University ; Michael Kaback, UC
San Diego; Margaret Lock, McGill University; Alex Mauron, Unite de
Recherche en Bioethique, Geneva

C. Somatic and Germline Gene Therapy
Presenter: Inder Verma, Salk Institute

Commentators: Paul Billings, Heart of Texas Health Care System;
David Magnus, University of Pennsylvania; Parris Burd, Maxygen;
Arno Motulsky, University of Washington Medical School; Anders
Nordgren, Uppsala University; Alan Schechter, National Institutes
of Health; LeRoy Walters, Kennedy Institute of Ethics; Susan Wolf,
University of Minnesota Law School

THURSDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2000

CLOSING SESSION: Asilomar, Then and Now: What Roles for Scientists,
the Press, Policymakers, and the Public-at-Large?
Chair: David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology

Commentators:
Daniel Kevles, California Institute of Technology; Harold Shapiro,
Princeton University & Chair, National Bioethics Advisory Commission;
Philip Sharp, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Daniel Singer,
former General Counsel, Federation of American Scientists; Lana
Skirboll, National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

II. UPCOMING EVENT

1. "The New Human Genetic Technologies and Social Justice,"
Santa Cruz, CA, Wednesday March 1

Two presentations by Dr. Marcy Darnovsky and Richard Hayes of the
Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies:

12:15 - 2:00 pm at University of California, Santa Cruz
Natural Sciences 2 Bldg., Room 221 (behind Science Library)

7:00 - 9:00 pm at Veterans Memorial Bldg., 846 Front St., Santa
Cruz, downtown next to main Post Office

For more information: Alexander Gaguine at 831-429-5507 or Kathy
McAfee at 831-459-4991.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

III. NEWS AND POINTERS REGARDING TECHNO-EUGENICS

1. Annas, Caplan, and Elias criticize Geron's Ethics Advisory Board

Writing on "Stem cell politics, ethics, and medical progress" in
Nature Medicine (Volume 5, Number 12, December 1999), bioethicists
George J. Annas, Arthur Caplan, and Sherman Elias say that the
Geron Ethics Advisory Board report on human embryonic stem cells is
"more like `ethical cover'...than ethics that can be taken seriously."

The authors cite the report's "final ethical principle," which
states that all research on human embryonic stem cells "be done
in a context of concern for global justice." Their comment:

"The ethics board seems to recognize what few, if any, Geron
stockholders would concede: If only the rich are likely to benefit
from stem cell research, it should not be pursued at all as a matter
of social justice. This principle follows from ideas of respect for
embryonic and fetal tissue that permit its instrumental use only to
`alleviate human suffering and to promote the health and well-being
of human populations,' but obviously begs the question of whether
for-profit corporations can ever have this as a realistic goal or
how the company could be forced to adhere to this principle. As
stated in the context of a policy that seems to have been created
to provide an ethical rationalization rather than as an ethical
guidance for research, it is not likely that it can or will be
taken seriously."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Wired Magazine: Prestigious researchers at Extropy Institute
conference

A feature story in the January 2000 issue of Wired describes
a conference last summer at UC Berkeley convened by the Extropy
Institute, a group that promotes an "ultrahuman revolution"
consisting of extensive human genetic modifications and human
immortality.

A number of prominent researchers spoke at the annual Extropy
conference. Among them were Gregory Stock, organizer of the
"Engineering the Human Germline" conference at UCLA in November
1998; Calvin Harley, chief scientific officer at Geron Corporation;
Cynthia Kenyon, a geneticist at UC San Francisco; and Judith
Campisi, a cell biologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Wired calls the scientists' participation "visible acknowledgment
that Extropian rhetoric isn't nearly as wild as it sounds." The
article, titled "Don't Die, Stay Pretty," goes on to describe both
Extropian ideology and the state of the art in longevity research.
It can be found at <www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/forever_pr.html>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

3. New book and website from Gregory Stock and John Campbell

Gregory Stock and John Campbell are the organizers of the 1998
"Engineering the Human Germline" conference at UCLA, the kick-off
event for the ongoing campaign to make human germline engineering
"acceptable" to the American public. Stock and Campbell have a
new website, <http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/germline>, and
a new book, Engineering the Human Germline: An Exploration of the
Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children
(Oxford University Press). We will be reviewing the book in a
coming issue of this newsletter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

4. American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Recommendations on Human Germline Genetic Engineering

On Monday, February 21, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) presented its "preliminary unofficial recommendations"
concerning germline engineering at a public symposium at the AAAS
annual meeting in Washington DC. The committees preparing the
recommendations are dominated by scientists and others who are
sympathetic to germline engineering.

Although the preliminary recommendations acknowledged many problems
that any successful application of germline engineering would need to
address before it is approved, they appeared to give the green light
to the concept of germline engineering, and in particular appeared
to reject a ban on germline engineering along the lines of the ban
approved by the Council of Europe.

We understand that the finalized set of recommendations should be
available in early March, and intend to include them in the next
issue of this newsletter, with commentary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

IV. ABOUT THE TECHNO-EUGENICS EMAIL LIST NEWSLETTER

This newsletter stems from the work of academics, activists, and
others in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned about the
direction of the new human genetic technologies.

We support technologies that serve the public interest. We oppose
those--including human germline engineering and human cloning--that
foster inequality, discrimination, objectification, and the
commodification of human genes and tissues.

This newsletter is intended to alert and inform concerned individuals
about the new technologies and the techno-eugenic vision. For at
least the next several months, the newsletter will be irregular
(a couple times a month), informal, and non-automated. We'd welcome
feedback, and suggestions about focus and format. A web site will
be coming soon.

Marcy Darnovsky will moderate. Send submissions to her via the email
address below.

Unless we hear from you, we'll keep you on this list. Please let
us know if you don't want to receive the newsletter--we won't feel
rejected! On the other hand, feel free to forward it to others who
may be interested, and encourage them to subscribe by reply to Marcy.
If you're a new subscriber, let us know if you'd like to receive
back issues.

Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D. Richard Hayes, M.A.
teel@adax.com rhayes@publicmediacenter.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------

V. ADDENDUM

Say "No" To Germline Engineering
An open letter to participants at the Asilomar Symposium on Science,
Ethics and Society

Pacific Grove, California
February 16, 2000

It is fitting that a symposium on the occasion of the 25th anniversary
of the Asilomar Conference consider not just the legacy of that event,
but also the controversies generated by ongoing developments in genetic
technology.

Our primary concern is with human "germline" genetic engineering -- the
manipulation of the genes passed to our children.

An increasing number of noted scientists, academics, and others are
saying that human germline engineering is an acceptable use of the new
genetic technologies. Some of their recent statements are shown below.

Many of these advocates have dropped any pretense that their interest in
germline engineering is limited to "therapeutic" applications. They now
speak enthusiastically of using germline engineering to "enhance" the
human species.

This is alarming, and demands a response. Human germline engineering is
a threshold technology which, if developed and used, would put into play
a wholly unprecedented set of social, psychological and political
forces. It would change forever the nature of human society, feeding
back upon itself with impacts quite beyond our ability to imagine, much
less control.

Some of the new proponents of germline engineering look forward to a
world in which parents select their children's genes, literally from a
catalogue, in order to give them a competitive "edge" in the quest for
success. They freely acknowledge that this could lead to profoundly
greater inequality, with humanity eventually segregating into genetic
castes, or even into separate species.

This vision of the human future is grotesque. Casually dismissing
principles of democracy and civil society, it celebrates nothing less
than the end of our common humanity. The fact that many scientists
appear ready to welcome it is deeply disturbing.

Equally disturbing is the eagerness of many scientists to
authoritatively declared that human germline engineering is
"inevitable." In fact, many countries have already banned, or have
agreed to ban, germline engineering. The United States and the rest of
the world can decide to do the same.

There is no compelling medical justification for human germline
engineering. Many existing alternatives allow couples at risk of passing
on a genetic disease to avoid doing so. Scientists who propose germline
engineering as a general means of preventing conditions such as cystic
fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia are abusing the trust the public puts in
them.

Citizen concern about genetic engineering is growing rapidly.
Controversy over genetically modified food has spilled into the streets.
Anixiety can only mount as the public becomes aware of the plans to
produce genetically modified humans.

The prospect of human germline engineering presents a point of
decision -- one that ranks among the most consequential that humanity
will ever make. We should acknowledge that human germline engineering
is an unneeded technology with potentially horrific risks, and adopt
policies to ban it. Such a decision will help clear the way for
support of those applications of modern genetic science that hold
promise for preventing disease and reducing suffering.

It is imperative that responsible scientists and others speak out in
opposition to human germline engineering. In the face of the concerted
efforts underway to promote it, silence implies consent.

Many of the participants in this 25th anniversary symposium are pioneers
of genetic science. Others are social scientists or policy makers who
have shaped its public perception and regulation. All of you have high
stakes in the future of genetic science and technology. Your response to
the effort to push humanity toward a techno-eugenic future will speak
loudly. It will shape the way you and your work are remembered.

The Asilomar 25th anniversary symposium offers a historic opportunity to
speak out forcefully and publicly against human germline engineering. We
urge you to take it.

[The letter was signed by 247 persons. Organizations were listed for
identification purposes only.]

Selected recent statements from scientists and scholars concerning
'germline' genetic engineering

"And the other thing, because no one has the guts to say it, if we could
make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?
What's wrong with it?....Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say
that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity to it? I'd
just like to know where that idea comes from. It's utter silliness."

James Watson, Nobel laureate and founding director of the Human Genome
Project.

"[M]any people love their retrievers and their sunny dispositions around
children and adults. Could people be chosen in the same way? Would it be
so terrible to allow parents to at least aim for a certain type, in the
same way that great breeders...try to match a breed of dog to the needs
of a family?"

Gregory Pence, professor of philosophy in the Schools of Medicine and
Arts/Humanities at the University of Alabama.

[In the future...] "The GenRich--who account for 10 percent of the
American population--all carry synthetic genes....All aspects of the
economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge
industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class....Naturals
work as low-paid service providers or as laborers....[Eventually]
the GenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirely
separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much
romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for
a chimpanzee...But in all cases, I will argue, the use of reprogenetic
technologies is inevitable...whether we like it or not, the global
marketplace will reign supreme."

Lee Silver, professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at
Princeton University.

"[B]iotechnology will be able to accomplish what the radical ideologies
of the past, with their unbelievably crude techniques, were unable to
accomplish: to bring about a new type of human being....[W]ithin the
next couple of generations...we will have definitively finished human
History because we will have abolished human beings as such. And then,
a new posthuman history will begin."

Francis Fukuyama, professor of public policy at the Institute for Public
Policy at George Mason University.

"Some will hate it, some will love it, but biotechnology is inevitably
leading to a world in which plants, animals and human beings are going
to be partly man-made... Suppose parents could add 30 points to their
children's IQ. Wouldn't you want to do it? And if you don't, your child
will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood."

Lester Thurow, professor of economics, Sloan School of Management, MIT.

"[O]nce people begin to reshape themselves through biological
manipulation, the definition of human begins to drift.... Altering
even a small number of the key genes regulating human growth might
change human beings into something quite different....But asking
whether such changes are `wise' or `desirable' misses the essential
point that they are largely not a matter of choice; they are the
unavoidable product of...technological advance..."

Gregory Stock, Director of UCLA's Program on Medicine, Technology
and Society.

"Absolutely, somewhere in the next millennium, making babies sexually
will be rare,"[bioethicist Arthur] Caplan speculates. [M]any parents
will leap at the chance to make their children smarter, fitter and
prettier. Ethical concerns will be overtaken, says Caplan, by the
realization that technology simply makes for better children. "In
a competitive market society, people are going to want to give their
kids an edge," says the bioethicist. "They'll slowly get used to the
idea that a genetic edge is not greatly different from an environmental
edge."

ABCNEWS.com; Arthur Caplan is Director of the University of
Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics.

SOURCES OF QUOTES: Watson: Gregory Stock and John Campbell, eds., 2000.
Engineering the Human Germline (New York: Oxford University Press) pp.
79, 85. Pence: G. Pence, 1998. Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? (New York:
Roman & Littlefield) p. 168. Silver: L. Silver, 1997. Remaking Eden:
How Cloning and Beyond Will Change the Human Family (New York: Avon
Books) pp. 4-7, 11. Fukuyama: F. Fukuyama, "Second Thoughts: The Last
Man in a Bottle," The National Interest, Summer 9299, pp. 28, 33.
Thurow: L. Thurow, 1999. Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals,
Companies and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy (New York: Harper
Collins) p. 33. Stock: G. Stock, 1993. Metaman: The Merging of Humans
and Machines into a Global Superorganism (New York: Simon & Schuster)
pp. 165, 168.
ABCNEWS.com: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC2000/abc2000living/babies2000.html.

Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies, c/o Public
Media Center, 466 Green St., San Francisco, CA 94133; 415-434-1403.
Email: rhayes@publicmediacenter.org. Contacts: Richard Hayes, Marcy
Darnovsky.