In the past few decades, knowledge and technology have expanded at a phenomenal rate. While our understanding of the world around us used to double every 30 to 40 years, conservative estimates now say it doubles every few years. But the exponential growth that has resulted from our research has not been mirrored in the style or structure of our government. As a result, our federal, state and even local governments have often been a step, if not a day’s walk, behind in their ability to govern the use and misuse of budding technologies. And while this governance gap usually results in minor disturbances, it occasionally tosses us into a full-fledged moral and ethical dilemma.

In February 1997, one such moral and ethical dilemma emerged. Her name was Dolly, and when her newborn ewe eyes struggled open early one winter morning, the face of reproduction changed. Three years later and less than a month ago, well-known fertility specialist Panayiotis Zavos of the University of Kentucky announced that he and Italian researcher Severino Antinori are forming a consortium to produce the first human clone. As a result, the face of humanity may or perhaps may not, change forever.

This past week, Republican Representative Brian Kerns of Indiana filed a response by introducing legislation to ban human cloning in the United States. The bill, HR 1260, or the “Ban on Human Cloning Act,” is the first to be introduced in the 107th Congress (though a similar bill failed in the 106th) to establish the U.S. prohibition of human cloning. Representatives were quick to add their comments and appropriate intellectual quips in bite-sized media-friendly formats.

Oklahoma Representative J.C. Watts, a House Republican leader, addressed the ethically explosive issue of cloning by stating, “Dolly the sheep will learn to fly before the U.S. House of Representatives condones human cloning.”

Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush showed precaution and an open mind matched only by the judiciaries of the Salem witch trials when stating “human cloning must be banned now and forever.”

Louisiana Republican Representative Billy Tauzin, chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, after being told of the issue’s relevance, offered the following summation of the human cloning process stating it “raises scientific, medical, moral and ultimately policy questions that we as a people must confront.”

And so a few hundred middle-aged and elderly men, more concerned with their images and re-election funds than the social relevance of the matter at hand, will get together to talk about whether or not something they don’t understand should be banned entirely. This is a mixture with historically bad outcomes.

In truth, the issue of human cloning is a pressing one of great importance and needs to be considered and discussed by more than a handful of authors and science-fiction enthusiasts. But when the philosophical question of what defines us as human beings hangs in the balance, we cannot call upon politicians to answer the question. Politicians are trained. They understand human interaction. They understand what to read into an opinion poll. They understand that image is the key to re-election. And while they may have some elementary understanding of the myriad of questions raised by the process of human cloning, they are not prepared to offer answers – only reflections of our own concerns.

As research and technology render our governing style antiquated, we must also begin to ask questions about how the structure of our government must evolve with us. For on the horizon there are questions much more complicated than the intellectual property rights violation of Napster and even those raised by human cloning. And these questions will not be answered in bite-sized wisdom, but volumes of brilliance and human understanding.

Andrew Hall is in his final quarter in the Ohio State University’s Electrical and Computer Engineering program. All final pot-shots should be directed at [email protected] prior to Spring commencement.