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."

Comments

Hmm..

[olman]

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..

"Embryo"

[Nyphur]

"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.

Careful? Of What? Of Offending My Masters?

[Bob_Robertson]

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-

Criminal's organs

[Caractacus Potts]

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.

No, it just continues

[Rui del-Negro]

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
~~~

Re:No, it just continues

[A coward on a mouse]

I didn't say genetic engineering was "wrong", I merely stated that natural selection is still operating.

You may be right that there are checks on its operation, but it *is* still operating. For instance, you say that smarter people reproduce at a lower rate than others. That leads to the conclusion that natural selection currently favors those who have lots of children without thought to the economic or social consequences.

I know several women who would like to have children, but are incredibly picky about their mates: either he's not interesting enough (read: he's a nice boy) or he's an asshole (read: he's not a nice boy). These women are old enough now that their chances of finding mates and reproducing are pretty low; they are being selected against for their inability to (a) have respect for men that show them respect, (b) put up with men that don't show them respect, or (c) take the risk of having children without the aid of a co-parent.

Considering the severity of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, not to mention other diseases (TB, West Nile, drug-resistant Flu strains, etc., etc.), it would seem to me that humankind is still locked in an evolutionary race with various pathogens. If half of sub-Saharan Africa dies of AIDS, those who were exposed to but never contracted HIV will have been selected for.

Another example is the steady decline in sperm count. Some couples that have trouble conceiving have the money for expensive fertility treatments, but they are the minority even in the developed world, moreso when you include the rest of humanity. So, those men with low sperm counts are being selected against.

You don't offer any evidence that we are genetically identical to the Ancient Egyptians, and even if we were, a few thousand years is as nothing to the process of natural selection. Using this argument would be tantamount to saying that the continents haven't drifted considerably since then so therefore tectonic theory is a crock.

Stephen Jay Gould and others have amply demonstrated that evolution operates in fits and starts; the idea that evolution proceeds at a steady pace is at odds with the best science we've produced on the subject. It may be that we are not currently evolving at a rapid rate, but to infer from that that natural selection has ceased operating is hubris in the highest degree.

Face it, natural selection is here to stay. Until we have eliminated murder, accidental death, and all diseases from the world, and legislated that couples will be paired randomly, that all couples will have exactly two children (this will necessitate advances in fertility medicine to allow sterile individuals to have children), that is. You let me know when all of this has taken place, and I will concede the point.