Slashdot Mirror
Britain Approves Human Cloning
albat0r writes: "The scientific community in Britain scored a huge victory on February 27th. A very influential and powerful committee in the House of Lords ruled that embryo cloning should be allowed to proceed-but only under strict conditions. The United States currently has ban on all forms of human cloning."
I wonder if US scientists will start travelling to Europe and getting involved. This probably isn't a bad thing, after losing my best friend to cystic fibrosis, I'd give anything to see some sort of miracle...whether it's in the form of Jesus or embryo cloning.
The link seems to be dysfunctional. In any case, if my memory serves, UK is approving cloning of stem cells, not human beings. Sensationalism? Slashdot? Surely not!
That means, you can't have x copies of your favourite kid. On the other hand, you're allowed to use aborted foetuses to start new stem cell lines for research.. And probably transplants & stuff in future. I suppose if you feel abortion is wrong, no matter what, this won't make things any more reprehensible. As for me, I like the idea of "no waste". I just wonder why they don't recycle organs from executed prisoners..
"Human embryo cloning" is exactly what it says - the cloning of the human embryo. I do not believe they will be permitted to keep leving foetal clones. Though, the study of embryotic Stem cells is invaluable, in my opinion.
I could understand restrictions on labs based on liability, isolation, decontamination and the like, because of the remote possibility of loosing on the world a "mutant killer virus", but to say "You May Not Persue That Knowledge" is a religeous argument, and nothing else.
I'm sorry to see the politicians again using force to impose one view of "morality" on everyone. Too bad. Maybe if they impose enough one size fits all regulations, it will finally wake everyone up to the evil of a strong central government.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Britain Approves Human Cloning
February 28, 2002 8:10 CDT
The scientific community in Britain scored a huge victory on February 27th. A very influential and powerful committee in the House of Lords ruled that embryo cloning should be allowed to proceed-but only under strict conditions. The United States currently has ban on all forms of human cloning.
Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, chaired the committee making the historic decision. He said that cells extracted from embryos within two weeks of fertilization could prove to be critical for researchers in finding a cure for such degenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. They could not in clear conscience cut off any avenue of research that might aid science in curing these diseases, he said.
Britain is no stranger to the human cloning controversy. Last year, they became the first country to explicitly allow the creation of embryos as a source of stem cells. These amazing cells are known as "master cells", and can morph into other cell types and become almost anything the brain needs. They are considered integral to finding cures for a wide range of neuro-degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries, as well as those with acquired brain injuries.
Although this earlier ruling was hotly contested in court, it was eventually upheld by Parliament in that it was not officially revoked. The controversy was so severe that in essence it was effectively "on hold" pending the decision of the committee this past Wednesday. Critics of the whole idea are still outraged and adamant that this it tantamount to reproductive cloning and a short trip down a very slippery moral and ethical slope. The British Medical Association said they were thrilled with the committee's decision and the resulting hope that their action would bring to the families of patients who could benefit from the new technology.
The committee's decision was far from a cart-blanche approval for cloning. One of their conditions for granting a research license to clone human embryos was that it should only be done on the condition that any resulting cell line generated from it must be deposited in a stem cell bank. Future license seekers would first have to allow heath officials to make sure that there were no existing and appropriate cells lines already present in the bank's supply before proceeding.
The Medical Research Council applauded the Lords' suggestion to establish a stem cell registry, saying that it would allow researchers to explore the enormous potential of stem-cell research in a controlled environment. Actor Christopher Reeve was among those thrilled with the recent decision. Paralyzed since a horse-riding accident in 1995, he stated in an interview with the BBC that he would gladly travel anywhere in the world in order to receive "safe and appropriate treatment" that could aid in his recovery and help him accomplish his goal of walking again.
All the reaction has not been so glowingly positive. Critics are horrified at what they see as the evil potential of such a ruling. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children insists that the entire committee was stacked with supporters of human cloning and that many members on the committee have a vested financial interest in embryo research going forward, making the entire ruling "a farce".
The independent watchdog Human Genetics Alert pleaded that a moratorium on embryo cloning should be put in place, "at least until there is a ban on reproductive cloning in place."
Source: Reuters
Cosmiverse Staff Writer
Careful how far you take this argument - most laws are based upon some form of "morality" or another. This does not mean that all laws are intrinsically bad - it just reveals one of the limitations of political systems/justice systems in general. De-centralizing government will not cure all of our problems.
o/~ Do you want to see
Britannia rule the world
Again? My friends?
Follow the wombs! o/~
(The o/~ are music notes. Apologies to Pink Floyd.)
- undoware.ca
Why was this not posted on the front page? I think i speak for a large majority of the /. community when I say that a ruling in favor of cloning is both more interesting and more important than somebody's homemade PC case.
Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
I gladly take this to the logical extremes.
Like this: Social animals like Humans constantly compromise on physical matters in order to get along with others. We stop at stop signs, make room on the side walk, lift our feet out of the way of running children.
When someone violates the social standard, deliberately or ignorantly annoying people around them, they are shunned by that society.
If someone goes further and deliberately or neglegently causes harm, they are prosecuted for that harm according to the standards of the society. This is codified in the "common law" countries as "trial by jury."
The "common law" requires that in order for someone to be punished, there must be a demonstration of harm caused, of damage done.
However, "regulation" and laws of morality require no such thing. One is guilty for the "crime" for simple posession of an object or substance. One is guilty of a "crime" for investigation or disemination of certain kinds of information, the definition of which is based solely on the whim of the political masters.
History is riddled by attempts to get Eve to put the apple back by prosecuting consensual acts. Replace by the apropriate myth for your cultural background.
It would please me very much to be completely un-careful in this matter and completely remove all morality based criminal statutes. All of them.
Yes, anarchy. The same anarchy that shows when people are polite to each other and share the sidewalk.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
To answer the real jist of your comment, no of course it wouldn't "cure all of our problems."
It would, however, solve those problems caused by government, and remove government from its role as an impediment to peaceful progress.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I just wonder why they don't recycle organs from executed prisoners..
A couple sci-fi writers have addressed this issue. I can only think of Larry Niven offhand, and his novel "A Gift From Earth" or the Gil Hamilton stories. Hypothetically, if a society starts to use criminals for organs, blood, experiments, etc, AND people start living much longer lives because of transplants, corruption is inevitable. People with desirable cell types get framed, or if they're lucky, can just donate an organ for their "punishment". If they're unlucky, they just vanish, minus a few valuable body parts.
Strange, every one of your arguments is a religious one. Each and every one depends on some kind of implied damage, without actual damage being done. This is normal for someone who believes in censorship.
What? You say you're not a censor? But you just pointed out how there is information you don't want other people to have. Seems remarkably egotistical to believe that you are better able to decide what is or is not "worthy" information. To prohibit, you must already know the information. What kept the keepers of the Index from being corrupted by information too dangerous for anyone to know? Nothing at all. That is why powerful central government is so evil. Power corrupts.
And those awful twisted creature created in your imagination and in the movies? Again you fail to consider individual responsibility. If I create such a creature, by genetic manipulation or by hitting someone with a baseball bat, it remains my responsibility to deal with the reprocussions of that action. Simple liability, another field of "law" that has been thoroughly fleshed out for centuries.
But on the one single valid point you have: The abuse of someone elses DNA. That's so simple I'm surprised it hasn't already occurred to you: Defend your personal "copyright". Prosecute someone who copies your pattern without your consent.
Not only don't you need a new law, all the previous precidents for plagiaism, invasion of privacy, and the like apply.
Thank you for reminding me of this particular argument, it's been a while since I saw anyone post it.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The USA is becoming more and more a culture governed by religious fundamentalism. We're well on our way to a world in which scientific progress takes place in Europe and Asia, while it is stifled in the US by politicians who are either fundamentalists themselves, in the pay of the fundamentalists, or afraid to buck the fundamentalists. If this trend continues, we will live to see the end of the US as a first-world nation.
If you disagree, say so, don't moderate me as flamebait.
No sig? Sigh...
Last year, they became the first country to explicitly allow the creation of embryos as a source of stem cells.
In my opinion creation of embryos is equivalent to cloning of human beings. Cloning stem cells themselves is virtually impossible for now, since human cells are virtually impossible to culture, with HeLa-cells (and some other cancer cells) as an exception..
You do not exist. Go away.
That's just great, of all the people to start cloning, it had to be the british. Not that I have anything against them, I'd just rather see more of a different nationality. Perhaps sweeden, or spain; for me they're definately easier to look at.
[/. disclaimer: Yes, this was a joke]
-Space for rent
maybe we can take this baby and make sick people better, no, you want to put it in the ground and forget about it?
'Cause its not like im advocating that they skin babies alive, cause then i would say Noooo. No, you do not skin a baby alive!
"Once upon a time men were lions and machines were mice, but since it was so long ago, now its twice upon a time."
Yes, I want two o them, one to go to school, and one to make my room and some coffee ... that'd be great!
... pro's and contra's included.
But cloning seems to be a big subject nowadays, we're even talking in 2 different classes (at school) about it
Life sucks.
If you're born in the middle of Africa, chances are you'll die before 30 no matter how smart or strong or good-looking you are. If you're born in Europe or the USA, chances are you'll live to be 80, have children and grandchildren, no matter how stupid or weak or ugly you are.
Make-up, plastic surgery, lobbying, family fortunes, social trends, etc., all interfere with evolution through natural selection to the point of making it irrelevant. Intelligent people actually tend to have less children than average, and less partners than average.
The only things still evolving are ideas; genetically speaking, mankind has been standing still for a few thousand years (we live longer because of less disease and better drugs - not because we are genetically "superior" to, say, the ancient egyptians).
Most genetic diseases only manifest themselves late in life (after we've had children), so they keep passing from generation to generation. The only way to eliminate them is to use genetic engineering / therapy (or kill everyone born with those diseases - but I don't think that would be very popular).
Saying genetic engineering is "wrong" and that we should rely only on natural evolution is like saying antibiotics are wrong and we should wait for the body's natural defences to kill the infections.
Ultimately, genetic engineering is a product of our own evolution, so it's as "natural" as learning to throw rocks at enemies or using language.
RMN
~~~
Actually, I do insist that licensing car drivers is wrong, because it's another moral decision. It assumes that people will cause harm first.
In America, 40,000+ people die because of tested and licensed drivers every year. The argument for licensure of driving is specious, demonstrably false, and continues only because people are too stupid to imagine a world different from what they are already accustomed to.
BTW, if the owner of a road wishes to verify that each driver has liability insurance before they may use their road, I couldn't agree more. It's their road, they own it, they get to choose. If I don't like it, I can choose not to use their road. Taxes give me no such choice.
Laws of prohibition are morality force on everyone at gun point. Just because you happen to agree with the prohibition does not change that fact.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Has long slender fingers on the right hand for delicate work, thick, short fingers on left hand for grasping gardening implements and other tools. And since they get their own TV and refrigerator, they think they've got the world by the tail.