Letter: Cloning: the `experts' must learn to listen
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I know exactly what Professor Dawkins is complaining about in his article, for I have no doubt which radio discussion programme provoked it just two days before his article appeared.
In a three-sided BBC World Service discussion between myself, the professor and a distinguished rabbi, the latter slightly overstated his case about individuality being compromised by genetic identity between clones. Professor Dawkins was on to him like a shot, using the example of identical twins to show that clones already occurred naturally, and with consummate cross- examining skill drove him further out on to the limb which he had tentatively ventured on to.
Clearly the rabbi did understand the science correctly, and could have made the perfectly sound point (which he made to me immediately afterwards) that while identical twins did indeed occur in nature, it would be ethically questionable to create them deliberately.
For the record, Professor Dawkins did agree with me that if there were going to be laws on human cloning there had to be some public debate about what those laws should contain, and in a democratic society it was absurd to suggest that religious people should not be allowed to take part in such debates (or not take part as vigorously as they could in order to win the argument).
Thus was he forced to retract his earlier allegation that religious people were trying to "tell the rest of us how to behave". I suppose I could have written a supercilious article for you about how scientists like him do not understand the democratic process, citing something I had heard one of them say recently in a radio studio.
CLIFFORD LONGLEY
Orpington,
Kent
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments