Any normal species would be delighted at the prospect of cloning. No more nasty surprises

like sickle cell or Down syndrome—just batch after hatch of high-grade and, genetically speaking, immortal offspring! But representatives of the human species are responding as if someone had proposed adding Satanism to the grade-school Curriculum. Suddenly, perfectly secular folks are throwing around words like sanctity and retrieving medieval-era arguments against the pride of science. No one has proposed burning him at the stake, but the poor fellow who induced a human embryo to double itself has virtually recanted—proclaiming his reverence for human life in a voice, this magazine reported", choking with emotion".

There is an element of hypocrisy to much of the anti-cloning furor, or if not hypocrisy, superstition. The fact is we axe already well down the path leading to genetic manipulation of the creepiest sort. Life-forms can be patented, which means they can be bought and sold and potentially traded on the commodities markets. Human embryos are life-forms, and there is nothing to stop anyone from marketing them now, on the same shelf with the Cabbage Patch dolls.

In fact, any culture that encourages in vitro fertilization has no right to complain about a market in embryos. The assumption behind the in vitro industry is that some people's genetic material is worth more than others' and deserves to be reproduced at any expense. Millions of low-income babies die every year from preventable ills like dysentery, while heroic efforts go into maintaining yuppie zygotes in test tubes at the unicellular stage. This is the dread "nightmare" of eugenics in familiar, marketplace form—which involves breeding the best-paid instead of the best. Cloning technology is an almost inevitable byproduct of in vitro fertilization. Once you decide to go to the trouble of in vitro, with its potentially hazardous megadoses of hormones for the female partner and various indignities for the male, you might as well make a few backup copies of any viable embryo that's produced. And once you've got the backup organ copies, why not keep a few in the freezer, in case Junior ever needs a new kidney or cornea？

The critics of cloning say we should know what we're getting into, with all its Orwellian implications. But if we decide to outlaw cloning, we should understand the implications of that. We would be saying in effect that we prefer to leave genetic destiny to the crap shooting of nature, despite sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs and all the rest, because ultimately we don't trust the market to regulate life itself. And this may be the hardest thing of all to acknowledge, that it isn't so much 21st century technology we fear, as what will happen to that technology in the hands of old-fashioned 20th century capitalism.

We learn from the first paragraph that

A．nonreligious folks received cloning with open arms.

B．the scientist was encouraged to popularize his ideas;

C．some people moved strongly against cloning technique.

D．a technician was condemned and sentenced to death.