Foto do autor
19 Works 504 Membros 4 Reviews

About the Author

Gregory E. Pence is professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an expert in medical ethics. He is the author or editor of numerous books on bioethics including Medical Ethics, Elements of Bioethics, Who's Afraid, of Human Cloning? and Cloning After Dolly.

Includes the name: Gregory E. Pence

Obras de Gregory Pence

Etiquetado

Conhecimento Comum

Sexo
male

Membros

Resenhas

What We Talk About When We Talk About Clone Club by Gregory E. Pence is an excellent book for both fans of Orphan Black and students of bioethics. Pence discusses enough science to make the bioethics discussion understandable while also displaying his love and knowledge of the TV show for illustration purposes.

While using popular culture to help make various subjects more accessible has been common for decades (at least since my days as a student in the 80s and teaching in the 90s and 00s) within academia it is mostly within the past decade or so that the connections have been put to wonderful use for the general public. The key is to have an author who can explain the science and philosophy clearly and use make pertinent examples from popular culture. Pence succeeds quite admirably on both counts. In addition he provides a bit of a history through his use of other works from HG Wells through Jared Diamond.

This is an extremely accessible work for anyone with an interest, the explanations are not complex and he simplifies his explanations so that the reader grasps the key elements in order to then discuss the ethics behind the science. This is less a science book than a philosophy book, the science is included in service to the philosophy. Through it all Pence never loses sight of Orphan Black, bringing both the science and the philosophy back to the show frequently and effectively.

In addition to fans of Orphan Black (the graphic novels as well as the show) I think this would be a wonderful book for those who teach in any field and want to learn new ways to engage your students. I am thinking everything from literature to science and the social sciences. Psychology is heavily included in this volume because of the ethics issues brought to light from early experiments.

Reviewed from a copy made available through Goodreads First Reads.
… (mais)
 
Marcado
pomo58 | 1 outra resenha | Jun 11, 2016 |
A fascinating look at the science behind Orphan Black.

(Full disclosure: I received a free electronic ARC for review through NetGalley.)

"Bioethics is one of today’s most exciting new fields. Orphan Black is one of the most exciting shows on television. Bioethics explores ethical issues in medicine and science. Orphan Black dramatizes ethical issues in medicine and science. What could be more appropriate than a marriage of the two?"

Even casual fans of BBC America's hit television show Orphan Black have no doubt wondered about the science that drives the plot: How much does the show get right, and where does reality diverge from the fictional world of our favorite sestra orphans? What are the moral and legal implications of cloning? Is it possible to own a person - or a piece of one, in the form of DNA patenting? If the Ledas (and Castors) share the same basic building blocks of life, how could they look, behave, and think so differently? What (if anything) does the creators' choice to write Cosima as a lesbian, and Tony as a trans man, say about the idea that gender identity and sexual orientations are "lifestyle choices"? (Spoiler alert: it's not what you think.) How does cloning fit into the history of eugenics, and how does the show acknowledge this connection? WTF is the Castors' malfunction?

Well, wonder no more. Bioethicist and fellow Clone Club member Gregory E. Pence has got us covered. In What We Talk About When We Talk About Clone Club: Bioethics and Philosophy in Orphan Black, he examines the science and ethics of the show, giving us a greater understanding of both genetics and bioethics - and our favorite science fiction drama.

So here's the thing: when I fangirl, I go all the way. Comic books, novelizations, unathorized guides, and (especially) pop culture analyses from an academic perspective. Luckily, these days there's no shortage of such books, as television, movies, music, and the like have increasingly become legitimate avenues of academic exploration. Smart Pop is by far my favorite publisher of such books; Wiley's Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series also comes to mind, though usually they're a little heavy for me. (Philosophy, not my bag.) I've read a ton of Smart Pop's titles: The Girl Who Was On Fire, Inside Joss's Dollhouse, The Psychology of Dexter, Alias Assumed, Finding Serenity, Serenity Found, and (my favorite) The Panem Companion.

My enjoyment of these books seems to hinge on three criteria:

1. Does the author's (or contributors') enthusiasm for the show at least match, if not surpass, my own and

1b. Does her or his knowledge of the show put mine to shame? (Because, let's be honest, they're the experts here and I want to learn from them!)

2. Is the author able to explain their area of expertise in a way that's accessible to lay people - while still meeting us on our level?

Pence checks off all the boxes with WWTAWWTACC: he has a firm grasp of the show's plot, and is also attuned to more obscure details that us non-scientists might miss. For example, it's rather obvious that Dr. Aldous Leekie's name is a callback to Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, and paleontologists Louis and Mary Leakey. But did you know that the Cold River Institute is a reference to "North America's real eugenics headquarters," located at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island? Likewise, I never quite made the connection between the STD spread by the Castors and the sterilization of the Ledas - inasmuch as the former is a way of preventing the reproduction of clones (though in a more roundabout - and dare I say sexist? - way than the latter).

Pence is also a loud and proud member of Clone Club, and his excitement over the show - and what it can teach us about science - is infectious. He had me at "sestras"!

In terms of the science, Pence does an excellent job of explaining cloning, genetics, and the biology of reproduction in a way that's both engaging and (more or less) understandable. I learned some pretty surprising things about genetics. Chief among them: identical twins are more genetically similar than clones, thanks to environmental factors such as "small differences in contributions of mitochondrial genes in the egg that hosts the clone’s nucleus," "differences in gestation," and "forces that act on the expression of genes" (phenotype vs. genotype). Thus, while Sarah and Cosima might be 99% identical, genetically, Sarah and Helena are likely an even closer match (given that they're twins, and have the same mitochondrial genes and were subject to the same forces in utero).

That said, I couldn't read more than two or three chapters before my eyes started to glaze over and I needed a break. This isn't a light and breezy read by any stretch of the imagination. Though it is fun as hell - not a compliment I'm quick to dole out to nonfiction books, especially those on the "hard" sciences.

The title's a wee bit misleading, though; while bioethics forms the core of Pence's discussion, he touches upon a number of fields, including genetics, biology, history, psychology, sociology, literature, and (more briefly) politics and the law. I feel like he's at his weakest when he strays away from bioethics; the chapter on DNA patenting proved confusing at times (though, to be fair, this is due in no small part to shifting legal decisions on the matter) and, when talking about the personhood of clones, he relies a little too much on pop psychology to explain stereotypes and fears about clones and cloning.

On this point, Pence claims that people's fears of/for clones - that they'll be exploited as weapons, manual labor, sexual slaves, or sources of spare body parts - "tell us less about the future possibilities inherent to the existence of clones than they do about ourselves," on both an individual and societal level. Put another way: I'm concerned about the potential subjugation of clones because I secretly want my own sixteen-year-old Johnny Depp lookalike boy toy.

To the first point, well, I find it personally offensive. I'm an ethical vegan, so I don't even morally support the exploitation of nonhuman animals, let alone humans who were created by unconventional means. I relocate bugs when I find them in the house. I think the Cylons were justified in waging war against humanity (and have similar fears for the fate of sentient AIs, should we ever create them). I love watching the apes wreak vengeance against humanity in the Planet of the Apes reboots (and always cry harder over their deaths than those of their human oppressors). In alien invasion films, I typically root for the aliens, since by our own logic, they are mentally/physically/technologically superior to us, and thus totes justified in enslaving and exploiting us. The idea that I worry over how clones will be mistreated because, deep down, I'm a secret wannabe abuser is laughable.

The second point - that our fears are a reflection of society as a whole - Pence dispenses with quickly and rather naively: clones are clearly human people, and the law and society will be quick to recognize and accept this (e.g., "once a human fetus is viable and living outside the womb, it is a person"). Yet this ignores much of human history, in which various differences between groups of people have been cited as justification for their oppression. America was built on the backs of slaves, and though slavery was officially abolished in the US in 1865, it continues around the globe, in various forms, including right here in the good old US of A. Not all "naturally" created people are recognized as people, and it's naive to take the personhood of clones for granted.

All the legal shenanigans and corporate profiteering that rose from DNA patents (detailed in this very book) hardly gives me faith in humanity and its evil megacorpeoples, okay?

I wasn't entirely surprised to find myself disagreeing with Pence on some of the moral and ethical issues; I oppose animal testing, and that's hardly a popular stance with bioethicists. Even so, I sometimes felt like it wasn't that the chasm was so vast, as much as Pence just wasn't explaining himself as clearly as he could have.

Additionally, some of the chapters were a little briefer than I would have liked. In particular, Chapter 13 ("Kendall Malone, Chimeras, and Sexual Anomalies at Birth") seemed way too short given the material. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I LOVED the chapter on Helena, and why we love her (Chapter 19, "Helena, Freud, Henrik, and Foucault"), and Pence's suggestions for future storylines were fun too (Chapter 20).

Bottom line: WWTAWWTACC is a must read for fans of the show, and would also make an excellent teaching tool for you "cool" educators (Greg Raiewski, I'm looking at you) looking to make genetics and bioethics fun and accessible for high school and college students.

-- TABLE OF CONTENTS --

01. Orphan Black and Bioethics
02. Personhood and Human Clones: The Orphans of Project Leda
03. Our Fears of Clones: And Their Reflections in Literature and Film
04. "These Crippled and Distorted Men": The Island of Dr. Moreau and the Scientists of Orphan Black
05. "Ipsa Scientia Ptestas Est": The Scientific Pedigree of Cloning
06. What's Wrong With the Ledas?
07. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology
08. Orphan Black and the Ethics of Patenting Human Life
09. "Things Which Have Never Been Done": Eugenics and Clonal Dynasties
10. Nature, Nurture, and Clonal Identity
11. Are the Ledas Really Genetically Identical?
12. Sexuality, Gender Identity, and Orphan Black
13. Kendall Malon, Chimeras, and Sexual Anomalies at Birth
14. Would Knowing You Were a Clone Damage Your Sense of Identity?
15. Kant's Personhood and the Formation of a Clone's Identity
16. "When Did I Become Us?": Group Identity as a Leda or as a Castor
17. Stealing and Swapping Identities: Twins and Clones
18. Clones and Free Will
19. Helena, Freud, Henrik, and Foucault
20. Top Five Ideas for Future Orphan Black Episodes

http://www.easyvegan.info/2016/05/20/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-clone...
… (mais)
 
Marcado
smiteme | 1 outra resenha | Apr 28, 2016 |
This book focuses PASSIONATELY on medical ethics issues around death, but it seems like a very good modern historical compendium
 
Marcado
vegetarian | Nov 6, 2012 |
In my ethics course, I recently gave a lecture on the moral status of human cloning. I didn't much care for the essays in the course reader, [Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics]. Especially bothersome was an unphilosophical scare piece by Jeremy Rifkin wherein much effusive language was used but no clear arguments were offered. The pro-cloning piece was better, but not *much* better.

Since I intend to use this course reader in the future (it's generally quite good) I came to Gregory Pence's book in search of material to use as a supplement in my class. I was also hoping to better understand the nuances of the debate around human cloning.

Having read the book, I think it certainly could provide helpful supplementary material for my classes; reading it also helped me to better think through the matter of reproductive cloning.

So why only 2 1/2 stars?

Well, I take the 2 1/2 star rating to be indicative of something like benign mediocrity. While parts of the book are helpful and it does a sufficient job of covering the basic issues, it really isn't anything special. In fact, its major arguments are not terribly compelling and Pence resorts to more sarcasm, ad hominem, and indignant preaching than is warranted or needed.

These worries wouldn't stop me from using it in a course, because intro students, on my view, need clarity and economy of scope more than anything. They don't need great works of philosophy to digest, since we're merely trying to whet their appetite. Thus, since Pence is a very good, clear writer this book would be fine for pedagogical purposes.

I should also note that in the early chapters, where Pence describes the basic biology behind cloning, the story of Dolly the sheep, and the cultural background from which our ideas about cloning have emerged, are quite good.

Furthermore, he is correct that many of those opposed to reproductive cloning are fear mongers, zealots, and ignoramuses. They lack good arguments and have a difficult time saying just why it is that cloning is something to take up arms against. Pence is understandably frustrated by the low intellectual level of the public discussion on cloning. Thus, it's no surprise that, and perhaps somewhat excusable, that he lapses into ad hominem and exasperated scolding.

Still, for all its good points and forgivable bad points, Pence's book is not especially good as a work of an sich philosophy.

I will briefly explain why.

First and foremost, Pence just doesn't seem to consider (or take seriously) the kinds of objections to human cloning that emerge from our religious traditions. If one assumes that God's free creative activity has actualized the universe and all it contains, one also tends to think that God had good reasons for actualizing the universe in the way that he did. Thus, skepticism is warranted when humans propose to significantly modify things. Pence thinks this view is fatalistic, but to the theist it is anything *but* fatalistic. It's not a matter of accepting the status quo because it is the status quo or because of fear of divine judgment, but, rather, the theist thinks that working from within the basic structure provided by God will produce better results than attempting to change the structure. If we want to improve humanity for the better we have to start with God's axioms rather than rejecting them in favor of others. Since many, many people, academics as well as men in the street, see cloning as somehow in violation of their religious principles, it would be more helpful to take them seriously rather than berating their purported fear and ignorance. Even if they are not doing the best job at articulating their views, Pence would do better to help them along a bit instead of attacking fundamentalist straw men.

Another avenue of opposition to cloning, one which Pence also effectively ignores, seems to be based on a broadly deontological moral theory. Kant of course has nothing to say about cloning, being a man of the 18th century and all. Still, present day Kant inspired deontologists can, I think, offer some serious obstacles for the clone proponent. In fact, I think that underlying nebulous talk about human dignity is the general Kantian sentiment that persons oughtn't be treated as objects or merely as a means to some other end. Persons are ends in themselves with intrinsic worth. Of course, personhood, for Kant, is based on rationality. No embryo, cloned or otherwise, will qualify for personhood . But perhaps Kant's grounding of moral worth on rational awareness is too narrow. If we accept that an embryo has *some sort* of intrinsic worth or value, that is perhaps all we need to oppose treating it as a mere means. For example, deontological arguments for animal rights, such as those offered by Tom Regan, tend to jettison the rationality criterion for moral status in favor of something more inclusive, such as the ability to be harmed and benefited. I don't think it would be much of a stretch, then, to say that embryos have a moral status by virtue of possessing the ability to be harmed. Even if one does find this line of argument persuasive, the notion that an embryo has some minimal moral status is compelling, and insofar as reproductive cloning involves fiddling with embryos in ways that do not obviously respect their moral status, there is reason to be suspicious of the project.

Furthermore, even if we accept the rationality criterion for moral worth (which few of us really do; consider how we treat infants, demented old folks, and the mentally handicapped), we might say of embryos what Kant says about our obligations to animals. Strictly speaking, we don't have any such obligations. Still cruelty towards animals leads to a kind of hardness of heart that, more often than not, leads to cruelty towards other rational beings. This may just be a version of the slippery slope, but so what? Can't we rationally worry that the cavalier treatment of embryos as *things* can also lead to a hardness of heart? Further, is there any reason to suppose that human reproductive cloning isn't based on a presumption that human beings can, in the right circumstances, be treated as objects? I'm not endorsing this line, but I don't think Pence does a very good job dealing with these kinds of concerns.

Pence demands empirical evidence for the slippery slope arguments folks like to offer, and thinks he has a counter-example in the form of the not-obviously-bad effects of in vitro fertilization. The thought is that we've had IVF for thirty years and we've not yet descended to hell. But, of course, such a descent wouldn't happen immediately. The worries we have about cloning and IVF undermining our conception of human value are not like the alarmist cries of Chicken Little. Sane critics of cloning think the sky will fall subtly, bit by bit, as our children struggle to make sense of competing conceptions of the nature and ends of human beings. It's true that such worries are speculative, but most worries are. Pence's demand for evidence is based on what I take to be a false conception of the critics' worries and a false conception of what evidence supporting those worries would look like.

Of course, the speculative nature of our worries means that they lack a certain persuasive strength. Since we're in no position to say that cloning would, of necessity, lead to a bad end, perhaps we're in no position to demand that it be outlawed. This is precisely what Pence argues.

The problem is, for overall argument against the slippery slope to succeed, he also needs to offer a positive case for cloning (assuming that the Kant inspired argument that cloning is somehow *intrinsically wrong* has been dispatched). Pence does offer several arguments in support of reproductive cloning, but they are not terribly persuasive.

The main reason given for allowing reproductive cloning is that it would allow persons who are currently unable to reproduce to have children. But, of course, almost anyone can adopt a child if they are unable to conceive naturally. With cloning available, however, such persons could have children to whom they are genetically related.

Thus, if we grant that the desire for children to whom one is biologically related is rational and defensible, it seems we have a reason in favor of permitting sterile couples to clone children.

Yet, Pence (nor anyone else as far as I can tell) offers no reasons for thinking that the desire (or preference) for biological children is rational or defensible. He appeals to evolutionary reasons, thereby committing the naturalistic fallacy, and also appeals to the purported descriptive fact that families with genetic ties are more likely to be stable and in doing so comes perilously close to an is-ought conflation.

Further, when presenting his case for reproductive cloning, Pence uses emotionally charged, heart-breaking fictional scenarios wherein the reader is easily able to sympathize with parents thinking about cloning a child. The cases described are moving and compelling, but they are not evidence for the rightness or permissibility of cloning. In fact, by appealing to our empathy as a lead in to his arguments, Pence does exactly what he chastises folks like Leon Kass for doing, namely, appealing to emotionally laden hypothetical scenarios. Our sympathy shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in this discussion.

Thus, besides generating feelings of sympathy for childless couples (who can, of course, adopt) there seems to be little Pence can offer by way of argument for the importance of "the genetic connection."

Given that the genetic connection argument is the only real argument in favor of human reproductive cloning (there are, of course, other arguments in favor of therapeutic or research cloning, which are more difficult to refute) and that the case for the genetic connection seems to emanate from the same intuitive source as our widespread feelings of repugnance at the idea of cloning, it seems to me that Pence has, at best, only brought us to the point of a stalemate. If our difficult to articulate feelings about the genetic connection are evidence of its goodness, how could we deny that our feelings of repugnance at the thought of human cloning are evidence of its badness?

Since most people are against reproductive cloning, and since there is no pressing need for it, the burden of proof is on the clone proponent to make a positive case that rests on more than just our desire for offspring that look like us.
… (mais)
½
1 vote
Marcado
NoLongerAtEase | Apr 24, 2009 |

You May Also Like

Estatísticas

Obras
19
Membros
504
Popularidade
#49,151
Avaliação
½ 3.5
Resenhas
4
ISBNs
42

Tabelas & Gráficos