Human cloning - a bright idea?

Blog by Adèle Langlois: Genomics Forum Genomics Forum Bright Ideas Fellow

Coming to the Genomics Forum as a Bright Ideas Fellow is, for me, the perfect fit: I have a long association with the Genomics Network (I did my PhD through Innogen) and the book I am writing during my Fellowship will form part of the Network’s Genetics and Society series. And I’m in Edinburgh, which is not only one of my favourite cities, but also a place that will forever be associated with cloning—which the book is partly about—through Dolly the Sheep.

The book’s provisional title is Negotiating Bioethics: The Governance of UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme. UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) began its work in bioethics in 1993. Over the past two decades it has ‘negotiated’ bioethics in two ways. Firstly, it has navigated the twists and turns of a developing moral discourse, as science and technology, particularly in relation to the human body, have progressed. Secondly, at the formal intergovernmental level, it has hammered out three international declarations: the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, the 2003 International Declaration on Human Genetic Data and the 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. More recently, it has been investigating whether we need an international convention to ban human reproductive cloning.

I’m using my time at the Forum to get to grips with the scientific and moral arguments for and against cloning that have emerged over last 15 years or so, in the wake of Dolly and the completion of the Human Genome Project. As a student of international relations, my main concern rests with the legal implications. The UN tried for a binding ban on reproductive cloning back in 2001, but after four years of wrangling could manage only a vaguely worded, non-binding declaration, supported by only 84 of the 190-odd member states. This has left something of a ‘black hole’ in the international regulatory framework, which prompted UNESCO to see if it could come up with a stronger, less ambiguous legal instrument. It couldn’t. Realising that achieving international consensus is impossible at present, the organisation has instead decided to focus on promoting international dialogue on the issue.

There is question mark over whether all this really matters. Amidst the daily reality of the myriad challenges humanity faces—war, hunger, poverty, disease—is regulating the one-day-it-might-be-possible world of human cloning really a priority? Inmaculada de Melo-Martín articulates this point thus:

When one reads analyses of this technology, one has the impression that we live in a society where our most serious and pressing problems are the pleas of infertile people, or the requests of those who want to replace their dead loved ones; a world where genetic disease is the main cause of preventable deaths, where individuality is threatened, where one of the worst things that can happen to children is that their parents have too many expectations because of their genetic make up, and where resources are all but limited.[1]

And the UN Declaration on Human Cloning recognises it too:

Member States are further called upon, in their financing of medical research, including of life sciences, to take into account the pressing global issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which affect in particular the developing countries.[2]

In other words, declared (half of) the UN, there are better ways to spend scarce resources than funding research on human reproductive cloning, which would likely be of dubious benefit to a relatively small number of people. Yet we must be careful of assuming that such frontier technologies are of little interest to developing countries faced with addressing more immediate and basic needs than those de Melo-Martín lists. As part of my research, I have sat in on UNESCO’s discussions on cloning. One of the most striking perspectives came from the delegate for Madagascar. Cloning research, he said, is not about ‘playing God’, but about understanding him better, so that we can love him more. I have not come across this viewpoint in any of the (largely Western) bioethics literature on cloning, yet surely such voices need to be heard if the debate is to be truly global.


[1] de Melo-Martín, I. (2002) “On Cloning Human Beings”, Bioethics, 16 (3), pp. 246-265.

[2] United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, available at www.un.org/law/cloning/ (accessed 18 May 2012).

Genomics Forum seeking a Photographer-in-Residence

Have you recently (2011-2012) graduated from a higher-education photography course? Would you be interested in creating a portfolio of work inspired by the work of the ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum/Genomics Network, with a view to submitting this to the ESRC ‘Portraits of Britain’ photographic competition?

The ESRC Genomics Forum is seeking a Photographer in Residence to create a portfolio of photographic works inspired by the work of the Genomics Forum and its involvement with the wider Genomics Network.

Based at the Forum’s offices in Edinburgh, the residency will involve the photographer spending a minimum of 1-2 days a week working with Forum staff (and potentially those from other Genomics Network Centres such as Innogen) and attending Forum events, in order to explore the issues and topics researched.

The portfolio of work resulting from the residency, which will run from late June 2012 until late July/early August 2012, will be exhibited at various events in order to promote the Forum’s work. Selected photographs will also be entered into the ESRC Portraits of Britain photography competition, which has a closing date of 17 August 2012.

It is intended that the residency would provide an ideal opportunity for a recently-graduated photographer to gain experience working creatively in an education/research environment.

If you – or someone you know – might be interested in becoming the Forum’s Photographer in Residence this summer, further details on the position and how to apply can be found at the Genomics Forum website.

We Want You! (And we promise it won’t hurt a bit)

Blog by Dr. Christine Knight, Genomics Forum Policy Research Fellow

This month I was extremely proud to launch the website for a new project designed to investigate the influence of literature on scientific thought and practice, What Scientists Read. If you’re a scientist, we’d love to hear from you about your reading habits and how these relate to your work. If you’re based in the Scottish Central Belt (Edinburgh, Glasgow or nearby) please consider signing up for a 1-hour interview. But no matter where you are in the world, you can contribute your thoughts and experiences via the online discussion. Please do get involved!

The project got off to a flying (if early!) start with an interview on BBC Radio Scotland in their breakfast programme on Wednesday 9 May. We’ve also been lucky enough to be covered on the New Scientist blog CultureLab, and the twitterati haven’t been silent, either – check us out @whatsciread.

For me personally one of the most exciting parts of the project is the opportunity to collect research data (scientists’ online contributions) at the same time as engaging with the public, scientists and other interested groups. By investing a relatively small amount of money in an online interface like this, we can create a genuinely international community and allow anyone, anywhere to keep up to date with what we’re doing. You can’t beat a traditional research interview for real-time, face-to-face discussion – but in practice any research project can usually only include a small number of interviews; they’re time-consuming to conduct and expensive to transcribe. In What Scientists Read we have the best of both worlds.

My fellow researchers on the project are Dr Sarah Dillon, Lecturer in Contemporary Fiction at the University of St Andrews, and Dr PippaGoldschmidt, the Genomics Forum’s Writer in Residence. Our scientific advisor is Miles Padgett, Professor of Optics at the University of Glasgow. What Scientists Read is funded by the Scottish Crucible, the professional development and leadership programme developed by NESTA for junior academics. Sarah and I were participants in Scottish Crucible 2011… which is how What Scientists Read got started.

Stem cell comic hits the spot, say scientists

European stem cell research consortium OptiStem yesterday launched Hope Beyond Hype, a short educational comic that tells the story of stem cells from discovery to therapy. The comic, now available online and as attractive hard-copy

'starts with the true life story of two badly burned boys being treated with stem cell generated skin grafts in 1983. We then follow the successes and setbacks of a group of researchers working together to use stem cells to cure blindness, whilst being introduced to knotty issues that are part of the process, including stem cell regulation and the controversial ethical issues surrounding the subject. Whilst some of the story lines sound like science fiction they are in fact all true, despite the fact the script was written by the well-known Scottish Science Fiction writer, Ken Macleod. Comic book artist Edward Ross illustrated the script with his clear, friendly and attractive artwork, whilst stem cell researchers from OptiStem provided the real-life examples of their research and experiences.'

The comic was produced by a team led by Cathy Southworth, Optistem and EuroSyStem's Public Engagement, Outreach and Communications Manager, who works at the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine. She came up with the idea, recruited the team, showed us around the marvellous building in which the Centre is housed, introduced us to her colleagues, and arranged the immense privilege of an hour for us all with stem cell pioneer Professor Michele De Luca.



Cathy and I consulted graphic-novel guru David Bishop at Napier, who explained how comics scripts are written and suggested books to read. I went off and read them, then wrote the script. Comics artist Edward Ross and his colleague, Glasgow University PhD student Jamie Hall, did the design and artwork. Meanwhile Edward and Jamie were just finishing a rather longer comic on malaria, and Edward and his wife were expecting a happy event (now happily eventuated, as you can see from the pram handle in the picture below), but they took it all in their stride. The script (and some panels - none of us will forget the blastocyst picture) went through several iterations, as we and some of Cathy's colleagues tore successive drafts to shreds.

For all that, we finished on time and in budget, and it was a proud moment when we all got the finished article in our hands.

"Are Scientists Human?"

Tania hosting the writers' workshop

Blog by Tania Hershman, Genomics Forum Bright Ideas Fellow

I had a fascinating two weeks at the beginning of April as a Bright Ideas fellow at the Genomics Forum in Edinburgh, which coincided with the Edinburgh International Science Festival. I could tell you it wasn't what I expected, but to be honest, I had no idea what to expect! On the day I arrived, I was shown my own office space, which was a first for me, a quiet room I could use to write in. And then I was swiftly invited to a conference that afternoon – organised by Gengage and supported by the Forum - on Sudden Cardiac Death in the Young.

It was a very interesting event, composed partly of speakers and partly of small round table discussions and even some voting on issues using a hand-held clicker! Participants in Aberdeen and Glasgow joined in via video conference. I learned an enormous amount about these kinds of mysterious deaths, many revealed by post mortem to be caused by symptomless, inherited cardiac problems - in the shadow of Fabrice Muamba's fortunately non-fatal recent collapse on the football field.

We heard from the Scottish Procurator Fiscal, the equivalent, I believe, of the English coroner/Crown Office; from two geneticists talking about the pitfalls and advantages of genetic screening; and from a bereaved father whose healthy 19 year old son had died suddenly mid-phone call, while he was sitting on his bed. I found that any opinions I may have had at the beginning of the afternoon pretty much underwent a 180 degree shift by the end. It was fascinating - and the next day I wrote a piece of flash fiction inspired by something the clinical geneticist said, and then a sequence of four prose poems inspired by the whole concept of genes and genetic screening.

Talking about writing, the other highlight of my time with the Genomics Forum was the science-inspired fiction workshop I ran on my last day, entitled "Are Scientists Human?" (the title coming from two members of the Forum staff!). The group - of writers, scientists and some writer-scientists - and I had a very interesting hour and a half - we did two writing exercises using science, scientific words, and extracts from New Scientist articles. We explored the session title using stimulating and fairly shocking quotes from Michael Brooks' excellent book, Free Radicals, in which he attempts to debunk the notion that science is purely rational, done exactly according to a rigid scientific method, but instead relies on insight, fudging results, hard drug use and some distinctly underhand behaviour on the part of the researchers!

The scientists in our group told us how they felt under pressure to conform to this "rational science myth", and they feel it does science and scientists a disservice, not painting a true picture of what it means to do science. We were greatly entertained by some of the highly imaginative stories written during the workshop, (I started a new story I'm excited about!), and I hope that the result of the workshop was that those who had never thought to use science in their fiction might look at it in a new light!

Back home now, I am champing at the bit to keep writing the story I started, although the imminent publication of my second fiction collection is taking up rather a lot of time... but I know I will get to it at some point. A thoroughly inspiring fortnight!

Tania Hershman is a former science journalist who now specialises in writing fiction.  Tania is currently writer-in-residence in the Science Faculty at Bristol University, and has recently published her second collection of short stories: My Mother Was An Upright Piano: Fictions.

A comfortable seat

Blog by Ann Lingard Genomics Forum Visiting Research Fellow (2010 - 2011)

"Are you sitting comfortably?" is the title of my Keynote Talk at the Genomics in Fact and Fiction conference on April 23rd. My talk is scheduled for the graveyard shift, the last talk in a long, parallel-sessioned day, and immediately before the conference dinner -- so I don't want anyone to sit too comfortably or they might fall asleep.

Maybe I should consider this as the 'cabaret slot' instead and sing the The Hermaphrodite Snail's Lament  -- a disreputable but scientifically-illuminating piece of doggerel, written by the character 'Allan', in my novel 'Seaside Pleasures'. Snail genetics - what could be more suitable?

Playwright-formerly-in-residence Peter Arnott has set the precedent for songs in his blog, so try singing this one (to the tune of 'Oh dear, what can the matter be?'):

(Note: Schistosomes are the parasitic worms that cause the tropical disease bilharzia; their larval stages live in some strains of the snail Bulinus)

(General chorus)
‘Dear, dear! What can the matter be?’
‘Oh dear! Two snails with aphally.’
‘See, dear - they’re hermaphroditidae.
Can they have fun at the Fair?’

(The aphallic snail puts its case.)
‘But I don’t need another, I’m father and mother.
No sexual behaviour’s an energy-saver.
A penis is silly, I don’t need a willy!
I have fun on my own at the fair.

(General chorus)
Hey ho! We’re Bulinus truncatus.
It’s so! Our sex-life’s the greatest.
Ho ho! Cross-breeders or self-maters,
We all can have fun at the Fair.

(The phallic couple’s case)
We’re both sisters and brothers, we’re like two paired lovers.
We each can inseminate, phallus can penetrate,
Not so! I am dominant, penis is prominent.
So which has most fun at the Fair?

(General chorus)
Ha ha! Our genetics are so complex.
Ooh ah! So too are our modes of sex.
Production of offspring
Is one of our main objects,
So the species can go to the Fair.
(The tetraploid’s lament)
With four sets of chromosomes, I’m host to schistosomes,
Humans would best avoid water near tetraploids.
A larva could bore in, through my unprotected skin -
Then I’d have no fun at the Fair.

(General Chorus)
Oh dear, this water’s too fast to drowse.
Help, dear, I just want to stay and browse.
Quick, dear! Stick your foot where the rock allows,
Or we’ll be washed away from the Fair.
 (Exit)

(The survivor’s lament)
I’m male and I’m female, but I am a lonely snail —
No-one to talk or play, they’ve all been washed away.
I’m alive and I’ll thrive, and I hope my own eggs survive.
I’ll be joined by my kids at the Fair.

I hope one or two of the audience will be shifting uncomfortably on their seats by now.

When Tony Mann, organiser of the London Maths Society's 'Maths in fiction' Oxford conference reviewed my novel, The Embalmer's Book of Recipes  - a mathematician, Lisa, who is also achondroplasic, is one of its main characters - he wrote that 'The novel is not always comfortable [reading]'. Later, when I asked him to clarify this, worried that he thought my writing was uncomfortably poor (novelists can be nervous creatures!), he explained that parts of the story had made him uncomfortable because he had been forced to "confront his prejudices" about someone with an obvious disability. Thankfully, despite this, "Lisa had become one of [his] favourite fictional mathematicians."

I say 'despite', but the right word might be 'because': perhaps if readers are challenged by a character who is outside the usual range of appearance or behaviour, due to a genetic or developmental mistakes, they have to make more effort to empathise and be interested in the character's story. (Of course, as with reading poetry, not every reader wants to make the effort: but there's no reason why an uncomfortable read should not also be a good read.)

Yet here too is the writer's challenge - because it's difficult to write about a character unless you, as the character's creator, understand him or her. For The Embalmer's Book of Recipes, the key to my own attempts to understand came when an achondroplasic friend of mine talked about the physical and metaphorical difficulties of  'seeing eye to eye'.

Without being too facetious, seeing eye to eye became very much more difficult when I was writing the stories of some of the exhibits in the Surgeons' Hall Museum, during the course of my Bright Ideas Fellowship at the Forum. Trying to understand what it was like to live as someone with such a huge developmental mistake as a third leg (so recently too - he died the year I was born), or as a woman with chronic pelvic and spinal collapse in 18th century rural Scotland, for example, was possibly the greatest challenge I have faced as a writer.

I can write about the sex-lives of snails; I could perhaps write about a lizard that lost its tail; a rook with one leg; a cat with 'wings' (google them); I've written about the 'man with three legs'. Where do you start to feel uncomfortable? And why? And is it important that you should?

Last Post from the Fly Room

Genomics – everyone keeps asking me to define what that means. I find it interesting that after a year as writer in residence with the Genomics Forum, I find that no easier to boil down into a few words than I did a year ago.

I can talk with a little more authority about a lot of STUFF to be sure. About a genetic viewpoint on the history of life on earth at one end of the field…and the industrial production of knockout mouse mutants at the other. Because genomics, I find, is a field rather than a thing, an arena rather than a single technique or idea. An awful lot depends on who you talk to.

Of course, as preminisced by Schrödinger’s “What is Life” in 1944, genomics can be said, among other things, to be the neat pink bow that unites the life sciences with all the rest of them…chemistry and cosmology included. And so it does…but so did, really, “genetics”…the atomic theory of inheritance as developed from the Fly Room of TH Morgan to the modelling of Crick and Watson (supported by the X Ray Crystallography of Franklin and Wilkins) and the phenomenology of Jacob and Monod…all the way through the beginnings of genetic engineering in the seventies to the “sequencing” technology of the 90s…to the current unruly explosions from biobanking to Nan robotics.

What is “new” about genomics as opposed to “genetics” seems to be something to do with nuance, with a kind of holistic, “soft” appreciation of life’s interdependencies and complexities. But this may have more to do with our contemporary zeitgeist of environmentalism plus fatality than it does to do with a classic paradigm shift in Kuhnian terms.

In any case, “arenas” of different and conflicting worldviews are where playwrights live, so I’m not unhappy that I’ve ended up pretty much where I began…with the caveat that there is something disabling about being open to too many possibilities. To going down the “cabaret” line we explored last week… writing a science fiction comedy about librarians getting a few laughs and playing the harmonica…maybe…or writing a “studio” piece about the guard room outside a genetic testing centre…(kind of Kafka esque) or maybe just writing about a family where a beloved son has died for reasons that no one is able to explain…

All these possibilities are still open, and in an ideal world, I’d be writing them all. But in an ideal world no one would need to write anything, would they?

Perhaps what this year has done for me more than anything is cement the duality that afflicts me with regard to understanding stuff while living with stuff as being the common currency of science as well as “real” life – that the duality of our nature is in us and always has been; that everything lives twice; that ambiguity is what life is…and for a playwright, what could be a happier conclusion than that?

Peter Arnott is Resident Playwright at the Traverse Theatre Edinburgh, Peter will be hosting a number of public engagements as he explores ideas and seeks inspiration for a genomics related play.