¹ Vercors, , Les Animaux dénaturés (Paris: Éditions Albin Michel, 1952)Google Scholar.

² For a discussion on this see Nancy L. Jones & Linda K. Bevington, “Human/Animal Transgenics: When is a Mouse Not a Mouse?”, online: The Centre for Bioethics and Human Dignity <http://www.cbhd.org/resources/biotech/jones_2000-spring.htm>.

³ There are of course moral, ethical and legal differences regarding the killing of a child and the destruction of an embryo.

⁴ See Le Bris, Sonia, Knoppers, Bartha Maria & Luther, Lori, “International Bioethics, Human Genetics, and Normativity” (1996–1997) 33 Hous. L. Rev. 1363Google Scholar; Suter, Sonia M., “The Allure and Peril of Genetics Exceptionalism: Do We Need Special Genetics Legislation?” (2001) 79 Wash. U.L.Q. 669Google ScholarPubMed. Consider also the gaps in the legislation regarding human cloning. Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2004, c. 2Google Scholar, prohibits the creation of a human clone (s. 5(a)). It also prohibits the creation of a human embryo unless it is for the purpose of “assisted reproduction” (s. 5(b)). However, there is currently no interdiction on cloning in the United States, though several bills have been introduced in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate since 1997 without being adopted. For a review of these legislative attempts see online: Centre for Genetics and Society <http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=305>. In the United Kingdom, human cloning is not prohibited per se, but placing a cloned embryo in a women's womb is. See Human Reproductive Cloning Act, 2001, c. 23Google Scholar.

⁵ Sex selection is of course, also occurring in other countries. See e.g. Johnson, Kay, “Vietnam's Girls Go Missing” Time (2 Nov 2007), online: Time <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1680240,00.html>Google ScholarPubMed.

⁶ Sandel offers the example of Micro-Sort, an in-vitro fertilization clinic in the United States, where most would-be parents “request” a female child, at 22-23.

⁷ Sandel at 86.

⁸ Somerville foresees the loss of such traits as “courage, hope, perseverance, balance, and acceptance” as well at 189.

⁹ Ibid. at 87.

¹⁰ See McGleenan, Tony & Wiesing, Urban, “Insurance and Genetics: European Policy Option” (2000) 7 European J. of Health Law 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Sandel at 74. “Liberal eugenics” have also been termed “positive eugenics,” see Somerville, at 188.

¹² There is also a case to be made that eugenics, as it intersects with population control as well as health, would inevitably fall into public and State purview. Its “voluntary” use would then be seriously put in question when coupled to State imperatives of reducing health-care costs, and increasing the health (and consequent ability to work) of the population. See Foucault, Michel, Naissance de la biopolitique (Paris: Seuil, 2004)Google Scholar.

¹³ Sandel at 6-7.

¹⁴ Ibid. at 80, quoting from Habermas, Jürgen, The Future of Human Nature (Oxford, Polity Press, 2003)Google Scholar. See also Somerville at 145.

¹⁵ Somerville at 146 & ff.

¹⁶ Sandel at 45, quoting William F. May. See “Comments to the President's Council on Bioethics” (October 17 2002), online: The President's Council on Bioethics <http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/transcripts/oct02/session2.html>.

¹⁷ See Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. It is interesting to note the similarity between Dawkins' «memes», and what Vercors described as a «quanta de sensibilité» nearly two decades earlier. See Vercors, , Questions sur la vie à messieurs les biologistes (Paris: Editions Stock, 1973) at 39Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Somerville at 98.

¹⁹ Vercors, Questions, supra note 17 at 30, 35.

²⁰ Thomas, Lewis, “The Tucson Zoo” in Thomas, L., The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher (New York: Penguin Books, 1995)Google Scholar [Thomas, The Medusa].

²¹ Somerville at 205.

²² Sandel at 26.

²³ It is interesting that though religion and religious ethics have explored this area, scholars seem perpetually concerned that their arguments will be assimilated to religious doctrine, and are quick to specify that they possess non-religious justifications if they oppose the new genetic technologies. For a religious perspective on this question see Mortensen, Viggo, ed., Life and Death: Moral Implications of Biotechnology (Geneva: WCC Publication, 1995)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Sandel at 110.

²⁵ Somerville at 95 & ff.

²⁶ Ibid. at 97.

²⁷ See Annas, George J., Andrews, Lori B. & Isasi, Rosario M., “Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations” (2002) 28 Am. J. of Law and Medicine 151Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁸ As Somerville explains, proteins are the “messengers” of the human body, accomplishing a myriad of functions. However, one gene may code for more than one protein, rendering any genetic changes potentially replete with consequences.

²⁹ Lewis Thomas, “The Wonderful Mistake” in Thomas, The Medusa, supra note 20, 27 at 29.

³⁰ James, P.D., The Children of Men (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1993)Google Scholar.

³¹ Variation plays a role in all aspects of human life from within genes (which can exhibit a behaviour termed “crossover” in which complementary parts of different genes switch over), during fertilization of the embryo (this is in fact a form of variation by which discrete genetic information from the mother is combined in a novel way with the genes of the father to produce a genetically unique human being), or between different populations. It is also worth considering the case of genetically modified organisms as a metaphor of what might occur to human beings if genetic manipulation became widespread.

³² Vercors, Questions, supra note 17 at 20.

³³ Furthermore, it shouldn't escape our attention that for all endeavours, including medical research, there is often more than one way of doing things. An example of this is Ian Wilmut, the scientist who pioneered human embryonic cloning, by “creating” Dolly the sheep. He recently stated (see online: “Dolly Scientist Abandons Cloning” BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7099758.stm>) that human embryos are no longer needed to pursue medical research into as yet incurable human diseases. A new technique which creates stem cells from somatic cells (such as skin) has shown significant promise. Shakespeare's injunction, “Diseases desperate grown / By desperate appliance are relieved, / Or not at all.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act IV, Scene 3) may not be so prescriptive after all. There may be a way to act ethically, while retaining the physician's drive to cure, and the scientist's drive to know. However, it is important to note that as a society we already have one very important limit to research protocols—namely the informed consent of the subject—which is independent from the importance of the disease being studied. In other words, it is not inconceivable to place limits upon medical research to protect important societal values—even when it may seem that barring such research a disease will forever go uncured.