Customer Reviews

In his image: The cloning of a man

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I read this book while doing research for a (yet unpublished) novel on cloning, and incorporated part of this peculiar bit of publishing history into my book. Rorvik purportedly was asked to make connections between an anonymous rich American and a nameless geneticist who would help the rich man to clone himself. The scientist/doctor would set up a clinic in an unnamed Southeast Asian country and use young girls who came as patients to the clinic as possible incubators. Rorvik's role was also, according to him, to make sure that this experiment was conducted ethically, under his eagle eye. Apparently using uneducated, uninformed, and unconsenting virgins did not present a moral or ethical problem to him or anyone else; the girls were poor, after all. Rorvik was (and apparently still is) a professional science writer, and Lippincott published this book as-is, seemingly without doing any fact checking. It was pretty controversial when it came out, both because of the editorial laxness of this respected publishing house and because of the story's improbability - though generally not because of its ethical shakiness. The science journal reviews when the book came out denied that human cloning was possible (though they tended to hedge just a little bit, with good reason, as we now know). Whether factual or not, this book demonstrates, apparently unwittingly, just why human cloning is a bad idea. It's just another way that rich people can buy poor people.

The book was a sensation back in 1978, but most who read it did not believe it. At the time of its publication, the US Senate held hearings on whether human cloning should be banned. A scientist mentioned in the book sued the publisher and the end result of the lawsuit was an apology from the publisher, J. B. Lippincott, and a court ruling that the book was a hoax.

But was it? The author, David Rorvik, has always maintained that the story he told was the truth. He included a great deal of technical descriptions of the techniques used to clone the mysterious "Max" as if he wanted future readers to know exactly how he claimed it was done. That can be compared to the techniques used today to clone mammals. Rorvik says in his Afterward to the book that he does not expect his story to be accepted, since he can offer no proof. He says he saw the baby, and it was a normal healthy baby. He was never shown the genetic proof that the baby was actually a clone, but he says that Max told him he had seen the verification that the baby was in fact his genetic duplicate.

I did an internet search on Rorvik and found many references to this book, and no consensus on whether it was fact or fiction. There are a number of references to it as fiction or a hoax, but in an interview with Omni magazine in 1997, Rorvik says the story is true and that he has continued to be contacted by people interested in cloning. However, he has nothing to say about Max, whether he has been in touch with him or seen the child, who would be a young man in his twenties now.

Why do people get so upset about human cloning? Why is it often described as "morally repugnant?" At the time of Rorvik's book, in vitro fertilization was still new and considered repugnant too. Rorvik describes how a friend of his, Dr. Landrum B. Shettles, was fired from his position at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital for creating a test-tube embryo for an infertile Florida woman. His superior destroyed the embryos and tried to discredit Dr. Shettles. That was the level of hysteria about a procedure now routinely done; there are probably thousands of people walking around who are the product of in vitro fertilization. They do not think of themselves as freaks because they are not.

Cloning is just one more way to make a baby, although it has little to recommend it. Isn't it better to use our new knowledge of our genetic make-up to eliminate defects and create better humans? It seems to me that the objections to cloning come down to a number of misunderstandings. People talk about cloning as a way to immortality, as if a clone of me is me. But that is not the case. The clone has the same genetic material, but is a separate person in the same way that identical twins are separate people. Someone who's been cloned, like Max, will die and his "immortality" is no more a reality than anyone who has children has a claim to immortality. We pass on our genes, but so what? We are each still responsible for our lives and how we live them. A clone would have his own life, his own soul, and be no less an individual than any of us. I find it interesting that in the experiments with multiple cloned cows, they were not even all physically the same. These were spotted cows and the spots had variations, attributed to the differences in the surrogate mothers and conditions of pregnancy. A clone, it turns out, is not necessarily an exact duplicate.

Human cloning will happen, if indeed it has not already happened. But it will not be popular, and the hysteria over it will eventually go away, as have the objections to in vitro fertilization. I would love to hear from anyone with more information about an existing human clone; see my longer review at my book review site, The Seeker Books.

Intriguing and - even three decades ahead - its reading still maintains the possibility of being a real description of what could be the first human being cloning successful procedure. Just out of curiosity, considering it is true, I do believe this could have happened in the Northern region of my country, according to many similarities...

While attending Washington State University in the early 1980's I read this book as part of a class project. It was copyright 1978 by Lippincott and describes an allegedly true and fascinating tale of an American multimillionaire who craved immortality. The author of this book was contracted by this milionaire to document the cloning procedure which he inteded to use to gain this immortality. A willing doctor was also contracted and the procedure was described in the minutest detail. David Rorvik was described by the editor as a respected science writer with numerous prestigious periodicals. The editor makes no claims of autenticity and lets the author's reputation speak for itself. Rorvik asserts the that the details in his book are true and accurate and thus that the cloning of a human subject was going to be attempted and that in the end actually occurred. The details described were compelling and quite believable. As new information arrises in the cloning arena, the details put forth in this book become even more believable. In fact, the method of cloning the sheep in Great Britain is nearly identical to the procedures detailed in this fascinating tale of human cloning. After reading this book in 1982 I came away a believer that human cloning has taken place. Now after hearing the recent tales of animal cloning, I am more firmly entrenched in that belief. So will you believe after reading this story. If you can find the book, you will find it earily timely even 18 years after it's initial publication. Read this book and the hair on your neck will stand on end. This is a 5 star publication

I'm the one in the book which was apparently cloned off of a mid 50-60 ish man. I'm not sure who 2 talk 2 about this but hey you could spread the word around. Born in San Francisco , ca nov. 21st , 1978. Born in Childrens Hospital but my certified bc looks like someone was trying 2 pull a fast one. I grew up in central california then got put into some sort of spiritual quest. I used 2 get asked all the time - hey do you have an older brother - but i'm like not that i'm aware of . I've always felt as if i was brought up in a home away from home. Being intuitively watched from a distance & what not. I'm not sure how 2 contact David M. Rorvik in regards 2 this matter. I'm currently living in New York , New York . Please be free to contact me at voodoogodasleep@yahoo.com - if you could possibly assist me in this matter - it would be greatly & deeply appreciated . thank you . . gene s.

I had known the author for somtime before I read his work. It was after he assured me that it was a true documentation that I decided to read the first few pages. Well, 21 hours later (I slept 8), I had completed the book. I simply could not put it down.

Many will wonder where the child is now - I assure you he is alive and well.

The best book I have ever read by far. Michael is brilliant!

When I read this book when first published I was astounded. I had seen and read several articles in various journals debating this subject (including the shocking possibility of DNA Recombination), but was disappointed by those who challenged the theory of Cloning by heatedly debating the moral/ethical implications of it. It reminded me of several things - that Biology and Chemistry are the cornerstones of understanding Life As We Know It, it's well known that numerous forms of life on our planet reproduce themselves by cloning, that flight was impossible yet disproven by the Wright Brothers in 1903, that space travel was impossible yet disproven by Sputnik in 1957, and the spiritual conviction of Galileo for challenging the Christian belief that the Universe orbited Earth instead of vice versa.

If it weren't for the insatiable curiosity of science and technology we would still be living by way of spears, stone knives, bearskins, and fire. The knowledge of genetics isn't simply to clone humans, but to understand our existence as well as every living thing on our planet and the beneficial results of it. "In His Image" may or may not be a hoax, a better writer could have made Rorvik's story a little more gripping, but it's the suggestions this book reveals that is so phenomenal.

Instead of debating the pro's and con's of cloning, perhaps we should debate the pro's and con's of biological warfare. Read the book "Germs" and you will find that the proliferation of such deadly viruses as weapons is collossal. There is no match for such malevolence. They are so dangerous that it reaches the conception of biologic annihilation; it puts nuclear weapons to shame and makes cloning totally irrelevent. Most incredibly, research and development still goes on. THAT is where anti-clonists should re-focus their intent.