|
by JONATHAN R. COHEN Creation and Cloning Jewish Thought The possibility of cloning human beings challenges Western beliefs about creation and our relationship to God. If we understand God as the Creator and creation as a completed act, cloning will be a transgression. If, however, we understand God as the Power of Creation and creation as a transformative process, we may find a role for human participation, sharing that power as beings created in the image of God. Some scientific revolutions change what people believe about the world. The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, while not significantly changing what people could then use science to achieve, forced people to re-examine their understanding of the universe, of humanity and its place in the universe, and of God's agency within the universe. Other scientific revolutions, like Faraday and Maxwell's work on the physics of electric fields, pose little challenge to fundamental beliefs but dramatically change society through their technological application. We are now in the midst of a genetic revolution that may both profoundly influence our beliefs and dramatically change how society functions. Will designing our offspring someday be as easy and common as "cut and paste" on a word processor? Are we on the cusp of an evolutionary advance toward being an "autocreative" species, or in attempting to "play God" has our hubris reached its zenith? Such are the questions we face. My purpose here is to explore how the genetic revolution could affect our beliefs. My strategy is to examine several challenges that human cloning and, to a lesser extent, genetic engineering raise for certain basic Jewish beliefs--though by no means exclusively Jewish beliefs--about humans and God, using as a lens for my thoughts the Biblical account of creation presented in the first few chapters of Genesis.[1] Not only are many basic Jewish beliefs about humans and God embedded in that account, but even if one believes that Genesis is inaccurate as a literal account of the world's creation, or even if one does not believe in God, Genesis provides an excellent framework for addressing some of the existential challenges posed by the genetic revolution. Although I address challenges human cloning presents for certain basic Jewish beliefs, such Biblically rooted beliefs influence much Christian and Western thought. Moreover, such beliefs play an important part in developing public policy toward human cloning. For example, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission devoted roughly one quarter of its report on human cloning to religious views, focusing in particular on the Biblical account of creation. The Biblical account is open to two different interpretations, of creation as a completed act and creation as a transformative process, which carry quite different implications for human cloning. Understanding creation in these different ways suggests different answers to how human cloning might impinge on our beliefes about the worth of a human life, about God's role as Creator and Sovereign, and about how meaning can be found in a human life. I want to suggest that if its implications are properly understood, human cloning can be integrated with many of our basic beliefs and can encourage us to view God's act of creation as a transformative process.
This is not to advocate that human cloning be permitted--that is a very different question. However, the possibility of human cloning challenges our beliefs irrespective of whether we ultimately permit or ban such practice, or of whether human cloning actually occurs. A note before I begin. Although for simplicity I use terms such as "Jewish beliefs" and "Jewish thought," I do not mean to suggest that all Jews do hold or should hold similar beliefs about these topics or that Judaism requires one to hold a particular view about these topics. Indeed, I pretend no special expertise in Jewish thought, but speak as a lay Jew who seeks to make some existential "sense" out of the possibility of human cloning. Completed Act or Transformative Process? The Bible begins, "Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim v'et haaretz ..." It is a mysterious phrase. Under one common interpretation, it is translated as a declarative sentence--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The import is that God created the universe out of nothing, and essentially all at once. In this reading, God engages in two primary activities in Genesis: bringing into existence various elements, and dividing them from one another, each to have a distinct role. Light is separated from darkness; land is separated from sea; birds are to fly in the sky while fish are to swim in the sea. The patterns of reproduction also appear Divinely set. Each form of vegetation is to produce offspring of its own type, and there are two genders of humans, with reproduction to occur through the union of a male and a female.[2] We are also told that by the seventh day, "The heavens and the earth and all their hosts were complete" (Gen. 2:1). The structure of the universe had been set. Creation is essentially completed. From such an interpretation, an argument arises: if God created the structure of our world, who are we to tamper with it? Further, the Bible describes humans as created "in God's image" (Gen. 1: 27). If "in God's image" means "after God's likeness," how could that likeness be improved upon? If "in God's image" means "in accordance with God's plan," who are we to create a better plan? If God's stamp in creating the world and the life within it alone does not lead one to think that the structure of the world should be left as is, other sources might. The Bible depicts transgressing the boundaries God gave as the paradigm of sin. Eating the forbidden fruit leads to the expulsion from Eden, and the commingling of divine and human beings precedes the flood. Sex between humans and animals is prohibited, as is sex between two men (Lev. 18: 22-24; 20: 12, 15-16). So too crossbreeding animals and planting a field with different types of seed (Lev. 19: 19; Deut. 22: 9). The concern for nature's structure is even applied to clothing: it is forbidden to construct a garment of both linen and wool (Lev. 19: 19, Deut. 22: 12). Conversely, many Biblical passages, especially in Leviticus, indicate that holiness can be found by respecting boundaries. As Mary Douglas has argued, "Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong. And holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confused."[3] Against such a reading of the Bible, human cloning would be wrong. Although human cloning would not bring into existence a new species--a potential criticism of transgenic activities such as making hybrid plants or animals--it would transgress the structure of sexual reproduction that God created. Human cloning supplants the structure by which God designed humans to reproduce. Our current genetic quandary might be cast as a second fall from Eden. Driven by our lust for Godlike power, we have picked of the tempting fruit of the tree of genetic knowledge. We ought not to use that knowledge to pervert the structure of the world.[4] Like most great literature, however, the Biblical account of creation can be interpreted in different ways. A second, contrasting interpretation of Genesis may be offered that has quite different implications for how we view human cloning. Often the opening phrase of Genesis is translated not as a declarative sentence, but as a constructive clause--"When God began creating the heavens and the earth ..." or "At the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth...."[5] So construed, creation may be seen not as a completed act cast in a particular structure, but as a transformative process.[6] In this interpretation, the miracle of creation is not the specific world God produced, but rather God's moving the world from a chaotic nothingness to an ordered, light-filled, life-bearing place. Further, one might point to the Bible's repeated emphasis that God created things called "good" and "very good." Put differently, the miracle was that God improved what existed. Good purpose, rather than a particular form, lies at the heart of creation.[7] If God is seen as Creator, and if we are created in the image of God, then might we not have a role to play as creators ourselves?[8] Abraham is viewed as praiseworthy when, exercising an independent conception of what is moral, he argues with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.[9] Might we be praiseworthy if we put our technology to work to pursue our independently formed conception of the good?[10] People get sick naturally, and yet most feel that medical intervention to aid the sick is morally permissible, perhaps even obligatory, as in Jewish law. God, rather than nature, is to be worshipped. If creation is a transformative process of bettering our world in which humans are to play a part, then in assessing human cloning the normative focus would turn to whether we use human cloning to do good or evil. As Rabbi Elliot Dorff has written, "Cloning, like all other technologies, is morally neutral. Its moral valence depends on how we use it."[11] It is in this respect like our use of drugs: when used to improve health, they are a blessing; when taken by addicts, a curse. And some think that the use of human cloning would sometimes be merited, even obliged. Rabbi Moshe Tendler has declared, "Show me a young man who is sterile, whose family was wiped out in the Holocaust, and [who] is the last of a genetic line [and] I would certainly done him."[12] Other candidates include more common cases of infertility, such as parents who could not otherwise reproduce and want to done their recently deceased newborn, or of saving someone's life, such as cloning an infant who has suffered severe kidney damage in the hope that the clone might someday willingly donate a kidney to the clonee.[13] In sum, different interpretations of Genesis have quite different implications for how we judge human cloning. If we believe structuring our world a particular way lies at the heart of God's creation, then we will likely view human cloning as transgressing that structure. In contrast, if we believe that transforming what exists for the better lies at the heart of creation, then our view of human cloning will likely depend on whether we use human cloning to accomplish good or evil. Cloning and Humanity Central to the Western conception of human nature is the Biblical view that we were created by God and "in God's image." The idea has been historically as well as philosophically important, for it has done much to protect and elevate the status of humans. Yet the genetic revolution, and especially the possibility of human cloning, deeply challenges that view. While humans have long produced other humans through traditional reproduction, they have never been able to control the exact genetic structure of their offspring. Traditional conception has always involved much randomness and uncertainty. Seeing God's hand in the uncertain and mysterious is relatively easy; seeing God's hand in what we can control may be difficult. Cloning and genetic engineering offer the prospect of removing that randomness and uncertainty, and so threaten to undermine the belief that humans are created by God, in God's image. Commenting on the Biblical account of creation, the Mishnaic Rabbis (c. 200 C.E.) explained: | |
For this reason was man created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a
single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes (guilt) to him as though he had
destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of
Israel, Scripture ascribes (merit) to him as though he had preserved a
complete world. Furthermore, (he was created alone) for the sake of peace
among men, that one might not say to his fellow, "My father was greater
than thine," ... [and] to proclaim the greatness of The Holy One, Blessed
be He: for if a man strikes many coins from one mould, they all resemble
one another, but The Supreme King of Kings, The Holy One, Blessed be He,
fashioned every man in the stamp of the first man, and yet not one of them
resembles his fellow.[14]
| | The commentary exemplifies the traditional Jewish view that three central values are imputed by the Biblical account of creation to every human life: pricelessness, uniqueness, and equality. Arguably, cloning could undermine each of these values. Consider pricelessness tint. Belief in the pricelessness of human life seems to fall naturally out of the belief that humans are created in God's image, for if each of us is created in God's image, then each of us is of infinite worth, indeed is sacred. The worry is that if we clone our offspring, then rather than seeing them as created in the Divine image, we might come to see them as mere objects of production, genetically replaceable like other products. The art market provides analogies: An original oil painting is typically much more valuable than copies of it, and objects that can be readily duplicated, such as photographs, usually sell for far less than those that cannot. In economic language, cloning increases the potential "supply" of each of us and so might cause our value to decline. Yet this fear should not be overstated. If someone were cloned a thousand times over, perhaps it would be hard to see each as a priceless being. But such use seems unlikely. In contrast, if cloning were used to make only one or two "copies" of a person, maintaining the belief that each has infinite worth would be much easier. Few would argue that natural genetic twins have diminished worth.[15] As interpreted by the Mishnaic Rabbis, the fact that God began by creating not a group of people but the individual Adam also shows that every human being is unique.[16] To this day, a belief in individual uniqueness has played an important part in Jewish thought. As was expressed by Rabbi Zusya of Anipol shortly before his death, "In the world to come I shall not be asked: `Why were you not Moses?' Rather I shall be asked: `Why were you not Zusya?"[17] Martin Buber also put great weight on the concept of human uniqueness: | |
Every person born into this world represents something new, something that
never existed before, something original and unique.... Every man's
foremost task is the actualization of his unique, unprecedented and
never-recurring potentialities, and not the repetition of something that
another, and be it even the greatest, has already achieved. (p. 17)
| | To many (myself included), the thought of being cloned is frightening. Indeed, the very thought that one could be cloned may be disturbing. If I can be copied, what is so special about me? Of course, as many have pointed out, two clones would not really be identical. Raised in different environments, perhaps at different times, they will become different people. Even if physically identical, each will have a different character--a different soul. Yet for many, this observation only ducks the question; even if a clone will not be in all ways identical to the one cloned, he or she will be similar in many ways and identical in one fundamental way--namely, in having the same genetic composition. Ultimately, cloning challenges us to consider how important our genetic structure is to our sense of self. Specifically, it challenges us to consider to what extent a person is more than a physical being--or, to the degree that behavior is genetically influenced, more than just a set of particular behaviors. The less one's sense of identity is based on physical being, the less threatening cloning becomes. If when one looks in the mirror one sees only one's physical being, then a genetic duplicate might destroy one's sense of uniqueness. Cloning also forces one to ask how important uniqueness is to one's sense of self. Why should one be a lesser person simply because there are copies of one? Contra Buber's view, perhaps a person's foremost task is not the actualization of his or her "unique, unprecedented and never-recurring potentialities," but simply the actualization of his or her potentialities, whether or not others possess those potentialities as well. When first exposed to photography, some people refused to be photographed for fear that a photograph--an inanimate, two-dimensional copy--would "capture their souls." Over time, most of us have learned to tolerate the camera. For those who do not mind being photographed but are repulsed at the thought of being cloned, a useful thought experiment is to ask at what point our repulsion toward cloning begins. Would we be repulsed by an inanimate, three-dimensional copy--a statue? A three-dimensional copy that is mechanically animated? That is biologically animated? That can think? The third lesson often tied in the Jewish tradition to the Biblical account of human creation is that of equality. If God initially created one person (Adam), and we are all descended from Adam, then we must all be equal.[18] Our common descent implies our equality. What are the implications of cloning--and of genetic engineering--for equality? Would lesser people be squeezed out? Would we produce a basketball team of Michael Jordans or a university of Albert Einsteins? Would neo-Nazis produce their "master" race? Would we breed docile workers? Would the rich become genetically advantaged? Would we see people produced by genetic engineering as better or worse than those produced by traditional means? Yet the challenge to equality, like the challenges to pricelessness and uniqueness, is also conceptually no greater than challenges we already face. Already there are significant genetic differences between people, and yet we view all people as equal. Already identical twins exist, and yet we view each as priceless and unique. Human choice, rather than genetic structure, has long determined the values we attach to human life. Theological Implications Just as the possibility of human cloning challenges our belief that mans are created in God s image, it also challenges our image of God as our Creator--our "Parent" or "Father." Of course, advances in genetic knowledge will not solve the great mystery of where the universe in toto came from, but because it suggests that we can "autocreate," it does seem likely to affect our own relationship to the creative power of God. Again, it seems, we could turn to the transformative view of creation, augmented by the view that we participate in the creation. And perhaps it can be admitted that we participate in the transformation. Perhaps, instead of seeing God as an agent who acted in the distant past, we will see God as the Power of Creation, and hold that we too share in that Power.[19] If asked whether we are "playing God" by engaging in human cloning, we might respond, "Yes, for God is in us too." We might even stress that creation lies not merely in changing the world, but in changing it for the better. A similar point holds for our image of God as Sovereign--as "Ruler" or "King." Under the view that creation is a completed act, our autocreativity seems to usurp God's sovereignty. But if our understanding of God's sovereignty can parallel the changed understanding of our relationship to God's creative power, it need not. If creation involves changing the world for the better, not merely tampering with it, then we might see God's sovereignty as requiring the responsible exercise of the Godliness within ourselves. Perhaps all this seems arrogant, but I do not find it so. Recognizing that responsibilities attach to the powers we have, and accepting those responsibilities, may form the basis of a more mature understanding of ourselves and of God and God's sovereignty. Children must eventually become adults, and works of art must stand on their own. Death and the Search for Meaning The Biblical account of creation concludes with expulsion. As punishment for eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden and blocked from eating the fruit of the tree of (eternal) life, lest they, like God, become immortal (Gen. 3: 22). Despite a presumed desire for immortality, death awaits, and Adam and Eve must live in its shadow. Some might think that cloning (and perhaps other new genetic technologies, such as those derived by replicating embryonic stem cells) offers a way to escape death--a way to make themselves "immortal." Through cloning a person might try to ensure that he or she does not really die; indd, one might suppose it possible to achieve immortality by spawning a series of clones over time. Others might seek immortality of a different sort by producing multiple replicates all at once, so as to spread their genes as widely as possible and ensure their perpetuation in the human stock. Or one might try to preserve oneself by creating clones to supply genetically identical, but more youthful, body parts. Of course, there are a variety of specific reasons that such attempts either must fail or are morally abhorrent. A general response is also available, however. As the author of Ecclesiastes asked, what point is there in living, if death awaits us all (Eccles. 3: 18-19)? Yet even if, arguendo, immortality or near immortality could be achieved through human cloning, rather than asking, "What point is there in living if death awaits?" a simpler question would remain, namely, "What point is there in living?" The Biblical author was well acquainted with the human search for meaning and well aware that personal immortality can be a seductive, yet fruitless, goal in that search. In contradistinction to other Near Eastern religions concerned with death and immortality (as seen, for example, in Egyptian embalmment and mummification), the Bible strictly limited contact with the dead (Numbers 19: 11-16). The approach advocated in the Hebrew Bible is to live in connection with the Eternal in the life one leads, rather than to seek eternal life. Indeed, death was later taken as an impetus for spiritual growth. As the Psalmist expressed, "Teach us to number our days so that we may maintain a heart of wisdom" (Psalms 90: 12). For many, the greatest human existential dilemma is not death but isolation and loneliness, and the greatest source of meaning comes from finding a mate and having children. In the Biblical narrative, shortly after Adam's creation but before Eve's creation--and before Adam's mortality or immortality is clearly established--God offers a rare comment on the human condition: "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen. 2: 18). God then creates Eve to be Adam's counterpart. Cloning would be a poor substitute for what is achieved through mating, understood in the richest sense, as involving bonding with another and sharing of life's joys and sorrows, and joining with that other to create an original and genetically intertwined life. By contrast, in cloning oneself one would be focused primarily on one's own life, trapped within one's own ego. Perhaps the Biblical verb used to indicate sexual relations--yodeah (to know)--hints at the deep role that bonding with another person, including joining physically and genetically, may play in finding meaning in life. At its best, joining with another to create a child is an act not merely of reproduction, but of love. While there are many sources of meaning in life, it is hard to imagine one greater than love. Wild Strains and Cultivars A Jerusalem rabbi once shared with me a story that I have found helpful, indeed comforting, in thinking about the genetic revolution. I had asked this rabbi about raising my children, may I someday be so blessed, in the United States, versus raising them in Israel. Would one option provide a better life for them as Jews than the other? He responded with a story that he attributed to the Ba'al Shem Toy, the mythical, eighteenth-century founder of Hassidic Judaism. The Ba'al Shem Toy taught that there are two types of fruit in the world: fruit that grows in vineyards, and fruit that grows in the wild. Usually, fruit that grows in vineyards is large, shapely, tasty, and consistent. Fruit that grows in the wild often has blemishes or defects, and much of it is lost to insects and disease. However, it may be quite strong in flavor. How do these two types of fruit compare? Both are pleasing in God's eyes. In time, we may well see a world in which many people will be cloned or genetically engineered, while others will be created through traditional means. Perhaps both will be pleasing in God's eyes. Acknowledgments I thank Elliot Dorff, Louis E. Newman, Barry D. Cytron, Ben Zion Gold, Glenn R. Magid, Gilly Nidal, Karen B. Cohen, Shlomo Z. Sternberg, Susan M. Wolf, and the editors of this journal for their helpful comments. An earlier version of this paper appeared in Journal of Progressive Judaism 10 (May 1998): 46-62. All errors are mine alone. References [1.] For an overview of religious issues raised by the possibility of human cloning, see National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville, Md.: 1997); Ethics and Theology: A Continuation of the National Discussion on Human Cloning: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 105th Cong. (1997). For analyses of genetic engineering from a Jewish perspective before the "Dolly" breakthrough, see Azriel Rosenfeld, "Judaism and Gene Design," and Fred Rosner, "Genetic Engineering and Judaism," both in Jewish Bioethics, ed. Fred Rosner and J. David Bleich (New York: Hebrew Publishing, 1979), pp. 401-408 and 409-420, respectively. For Christian perspectives on human cloning, see Ronald Cole-Turner, ed., Human Cloning: Religious Responses (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). [2.] Arguably, different accounts of how the genders arise can be found in the first and the second chapters of Genesis, which many have observed appear to provide not one but two accounts of creation. Traditional commentators have sought to reconcile these accounts (and thereby defend the view that the entire Bible is the word of God as transcribed by Moses). For one such recent work, see Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York: Doubleday, 1992). For the view that the Bible is composed of many documents, see E. A. Spieser, Anchor Bible: Genesis (New York: Doubleday, 1962), pp. xx-xxii, 3-28. [3.] Mary Douglas, "The Abominations of Leviticus," in Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Ark Paperbacks, 1984), pp. 41-57, at 53. [4.] A parallel argument can be made in evolutionary terms. The genetic structure of our world evolved over billions of years into an interwoven and equilibrated system. While we often use science to modify nature, such modifications function within an existing evolutionary structure. In contrast, human cloning (and genetic engineering more generally) changes the very rules of the game of genetic evolution. Such a profound shift may shatter the entire system. [5.] See, for example, Torah (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1962); Everett Fox, Five Books of Moses (New York: Schocken Books, 1995); and Robert Alter, Genesis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996). Under this second translation, a formless and void earth might, though need not necessarily, be supposed to have existed before God first acted by creating light. [6.] For a similar argument from a Christian perspective, see Ted Peters, Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 14, distinguishing between creatio ex nihilo and creatio continua; and Philip Hefner, "The Evolution of the Created Co-Creator," in Cosmos as Creation: Science and Theology in Consonance, ed. Ted Peters (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1989), pp. 212-33. [7.] To explain the textual claim that by the seventh day God had completed the structure of the universe, various points might be made. For example, the text stresses that God rested from the work he had completed (Gen. 2: 2-3), but does not explicitly say that God did not engage in further work later. Indeed, the second chapter of Genesis proceeds to offer a second account of creation. [8.] When describing Divine creation, the Bible uses two verbs: bara (to bring into existence) and yatzar (to form or shape). However, when describing creation by humans, the Bible uses only one verb: yatzar. Some might feel that even if we humans should view ourselves as creators, we should limit ourselves to yatzar, a category that might exclude human cloning. The questions would then become: (1) What does one mean by bara and yatzar? and (2) Where on that spectrum do the various uses of genetic technology fall? I do not seek to resolve these questions here, but I do believe that how one resolves them depends in part on the extent to which one views creation as a completed act versus a transformative process. [9.] Arguing with God is a recurrent theme in Jewish thought. See Anson Laytner, Arguing with God: A Jewish Tradition (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1990). [10.] Some may ask whether creation by humans should be judged differently from creation by God. If God created something, then we can presume that something to be good; but if humans create, we can make no such presumption, the argument would run. Yet the Biblical text supports a different view. The Bible suggests that the merits of God's creations must also be judged and cannot simply be deduced from their source or fully foreseen in advance. See Gen. 1: 3, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 30, where God assesses God's own creations as "good" and "very good." See also Gen. 5: 5-13, especially 12, where God's destroys most of the world by flood after assessing the earth as corrupt. Similarly, one might think that the merits of human creation cannot be fully foreseen but must await later assessment. [11.] Elliot Dorff, "Human Cloning: A Jewish Perspective," Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (14 March 1997), p. 5. Contrast J. M. Haas, Letter from the Pope John Center, submitted to the Nation Bioethics Advisory Commission (31 March 1997), p. 4. [12.] Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (14 March 1997), 10-11, at 10. [13.] See James F. Childress, "The Challenges of Public Ethics: Reflections on NBAC's Report," Hastings Center Report 27, no. 5 (1997): 9-11, at 10. [14.] Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, vol. 1, tr. Isidore Epstein (London: Soncino Press, 1935), pp. 233-234 (Sanhedrin 37a). Epstein points out that the term "of Israel" is omitted in some versions (p. 234, note 2). No doubt the editors of those versions were aware of the tension the phrase "of Israel" created with the ensuing verse proclaiming human equality. [15.] However, natural genetic twins, unlike clones, are not produced with the intention of achieving genetic identicalness. [16.] In one interpretation, God did not begin human creation with a single individual. See particularly Gen. 1: 26-28. [17.] Quoted in Martin Buber, The Way of Man (Chicago: Wilcox & Follett, 1951), p. 18. [18.] Scholars debate whether the Biblical accounts of creation reflect men and women as equal. See Gen. 2: 16. [19.] For such an approach, see Mordecai M. Kaplan, The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion (New York: Behrman's Jewish Books, 1937), pp. 25-29, 51-57, and 62. Jonathan R. Cohen, "In God's Garden: Creation and Cloning in Jewish Thought," Hastings Center Report 29, no. 4 (1999): 7-12. Jonathan R. Cohen teaches negotiation and evidence at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. His recent publications concern negotiation ethics, rationality in social interaction, and the use of apology in lawsuits.3 |
|
