Slashdot Mirror
UCSF Acknowledges Tests on Human Cloning
David_Bloom writes: "The University of California at San Francisco has acknowledged that it has been illegally toying around with human cloning. They had been attempting to create an early-stage human embryo, with the aim of harvesting stem cells for the use to treat patients with disorders such as Parkinson's and heart disease."
Is anyone else getting the idea that laws aren't going to stop this at all anymore than laws can stop 14 year olds having sex or smoking up? Or am I just paranoid?
Time to put the tinfoil back under my toupe.
This may seem off-topic but with legislation opposing cloning on the footsteps of our capital, I think it bears mention. Why is it I can think of a thousand ways this could benefit people as a whole, but only a few where it would hurt a currently existing human being. While certain aspects of this fledgling science can seem grotesque I just can't help but think that a lot of the opposition comes not from fundamental human beliefs, but more from some kind of right wing perogative to tell me what I can morally do.
I'm really becoming that cynical, but I just can't reconcile religion and politics, or see it as having any place in a political scheme. Yet we have blue laws, nonsensical bans, and it influences policy all the same. Plus I'm sort of fundamentally opposed to Bush, and most republicans in general because of this alignment. Not so much because of their beliefs but because of this percieved and perhaps actual desire they possess to shove them down my throat. In the process they could cost me and my children a cure for cancer, HIV, half a million diseases... who knows. Why the heck is science these days a political issue anyway? It will occur, with or without the political support of those parties...
``The field of human embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy, and will require years of study in laboratories throughout the world, It is critical that scientists be given the opportunity to carry out a broad-based, deep examination of multiple experimental strategies, particularly at this early stage in the evolution of the field.''
I also don't understand the notion that cloning is such an awful thing. "Why doesn't the government just get off our backs?"
In reality, what this is about is religious fervor: don't let cloning happen because some religious fanatics believe it is "unnatural" and defies God. Just like in-vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and surrogate mothers.
For those who fear the creation of new breeds of super-babies, or other nightmares, cloning is NOT the thing to worry about. Genetic engineering is permitted in much more dangerous areas.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
The sad thing is not that cloning research is going on but that all the U.S. researchers who are any good at it are likely to leave the United States. That sucks for the U.S. because the end result will be a whole lot of people who know how to do these procedures but don't live here. It's not just a brain drain, but financial drain. And, if you are morally opposed to theraputic cloning, don't forget that if you want to legislate your morals you have to have jurisdiction over the people you want to control. An outright ban will just move these researchers to a country that will let them keep working -- just like the researcher at the top of that article.
One thing about many of these new treatments using stem cells (or any other new treatment) is the side effects. They're constantly telling us of all the possible good things that come from it, but I haven't heard anyone tell the bad about it. What Are the side effects? Are they worth it for the help it might do? I'd wish they'd be more open with the good and bad, so we can make a more informed decision.
Quoth mike_the_kid:
I think Monty Python said it best: ``Every sperm is sacred.''
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Is the question really whether life begins, or HUMAN life beings at conception? I don't see too many vegetarian abortion protesters.
We make, appropriately, a distinction between the kind of life we protect (human life), and that we don't. The distinction between them is enormously difficult to parse, without any obvious way to discriminate. PETA certainly hold that most animals deserve protection similar to humans. Others don't.
It has been argued that the capacity to suffer is the defining test, which means, say, protecting a dog is more important than a human in a persistent (irreversible) vegetative state. By that measure, an early stage embryo certainly doesn't qualify.
Now, if it's the POTENTIAL for sentience that matters, then you can claim that the human embryo is more important than, say, the adult chimp. However, does that mean that every unnoticed miscarrage of a 4-week old embryo is as tragic as an adult death? However about every unfertilized egg that goes to waste every 28 days?
The reasons why we don't have any consensus on these issues is that there aren't obvious answers. In the end, they'll be decided like most bioethical questions: by finding pragmatic answers to specific questions.
The questions that actually get answered aren't going to be "Cloning: good or bad." But "this particular model of stem cell treatment for Parkinsons: good or bad."
In the course of medicine, even in the lifetimes of our grandparents, many questions that seemed deeply philosophical turned out to have relatively simple answers. It wasn't long ago that we thought:
Death was synonymous with the heart stopping beating.
Cancer was an inevitable death sentence.
Blood transfusions are horribly unnatural.
Autopsies are horribly unnatural.
My video compression blog
"Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men." - GKC
Technically it isn't illegal, as the legislation to make it so hasn't gotten though congress yet.
Then you have the question of what constitutes as life. At conception or at birth? If science can declare a one celled organism as life, then obviously embryos should be considered life as well, right up to the point of conception --- thinking logically here.
Definition Of Life As Determined By Science:
1. Shows evidence of growth and replication - embryos grow, and it's cells replocate...(CHECK)
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer...(CHECK)
3. Responds to stimuli...(CHECK)
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation...(CHECK)
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment...(CHECK)
You don't need to be a religous right-winger to believe that enbryos and point-of-conception cells is life, a lifeform.
I'm very indifferent about this topic, and i'm sure there are others that feel the same way as well. There is enormous potential for stem cell research which could pave the way for cures and treatments. On the other hand, looking further down the road, could you imagine embryo farms of yet-to-be-born humans being harvested for parts?
The potental children of tomarrow being dissected and harvested to heal the people of today?
*shrugs* It's a tough decision to make because a few of my relitives died of cancer, heart attack and numerious others, and if there was cures/treatments for them i'm sure they'd make good use of that, As would I if i were in that situation.
On the other hand, stem cell research isn't the end-all for cures and treatments. It's just one path amongst others.
-- A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
If cloning masses of organic molecules is considered immoral by our leaders, you have to imagine what the future will be like. We might have to outlaw identical twins. How about mandatory sterilization of all females so no potential children will be "murdered" by a (biological) period? Hell, why don't we just outlaw mitosis? Well anyways, these laws will be the downfall of the United States. The country was built on the premise that the government will not adopt a state religion, and this seems to be rapidly coming to an end.
As said by Chairman Yang from alpha centauri:
"Why do you insist that the human genetic code is sacred, or taboo? It is a chemical proccess and nothing more. For that matter, WE are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool, simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself"
Perhaps they meant that the fetus' status as a human being gradually developes over the course of the trimesters. If so, then I have to agree -- much of the abortion debate springs from the invalid assumption that a fetus is either human or it isn't. Nice in theory, but in the real world it doesn't work like that. There is a gradually build-up of humanity, not a sudden light-switch flip at any one particular point.
(flamebait) of course when most of the population still believes in 'souls' and other such fairy tales, the above is a hard point to get across. (/flamebait)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why am I not surprised at this? I remember reading an article a while back that pointed out something amazingly obvious about legislating that studying something is illegal. (It was an article on Nanotech, and the grey goo disaster concept)
:-)
"If we legislate that studying nanotech is illegal to prevent these problems. Then these problems are more likely to happen. Why? Because the only people studying nanotech will be people who aren't concerned about those hazards since they are breaking the law already. If we let people study and legislate safety protocols, then the grey goo disaster will likely not happen. Plus, we are better off because we will have more knowledge to help humanity." (Not exact)
Replace nanotech with cloning and greygoo disaster with eugenics, and you have pretty much the same scenario.
Just an interesting thought.
~ kjrose