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."
Yeah, but it's not legal to perform the procedure using federal funding. And considering UCSF is a public university, there could very well be federal funds involved. It would be nice if the article were more clear on this point.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
Contrary to popular belief, the main arguement against stem cell research and human cloning is not a religious one but an ethical one. (There is a difference). Once you start creating humans for the sake of bettering other humans, you have made the judgement that certain humans are worth more than others. It does not matter that you never intend them to develop fully. Stem cells should be treated with the same respect as anything else human, because they could be part of a human.
Once you start developing human tissues for specific and commercial or medical use, it is only a matter of time before you jump to the logical conclusion that it would be easier to use an entire human. Maybe its a bum, maybe its an infant with a near zero chance of survival, but you are making your way down a slippery slope.
It might be beneficial to the vast majority of society, but for that minority, it is extremely costly. Here's a computer related example. You create a national ID system with a centralized database of all citizen's activity. Crime goes way down. So does privacy. So does freedom. It might look good at first, but you have to examine all the possible end scenarios, and you have to take the greatest care that the worst of those scenarios stays hypothetical.
Troll Like a Champion Today
Clone researchers rejoice! By making the market illegle, you can now charge exorbitant prices for any cloning research or procedures! Of course I can see why this company was doing it. Cloning has just been elevated to the status of drugs, and with it, the cost you can quote to those desperate enough to want it done to them. If not some underground lab, then in some island in the Pacific right by Kazaa's office.
That's not to say i agree with the entire cloning thing, just that it's a service with potentially huge demand. Laws won't stop it unless the price of getting caught is higher than the rewards.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Although it didn't make the news except for a couple smaller newspapers, the first human cloning was conducted in 1995 at the U of Massachusetts by James Robl and Jose Cibelli.
This wasn't published until 1998 - the Boston Globe ran a story on Nov. 14. Shortly afterwards, scientists in South Korea announced they'd done similiar experiments (Lee Bo-yon at the Kyunghee University).
All of these clones were - allegedly - destroyed after multiplying into a few dozen cells.
That you don't see it on TV doesn't mean it's not happening, it just means the news people couldn't find a fitting slot inbetween the ads.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?
I should've clarified, I don't like being told what I can do when it harms no one else. To protect the general welfare is the function of governments, to give me a moral code is not. That's the crux of that.
The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong.
Doesn't really have to be an issue, if we aren't harming the individual the stem cells are harvested from, as is the case when they are taken from say a liposuction patient. Then it comes down to whether it's okay to break us down into component parts and harvest us. Given the alternatives, I think it's better. This tech needs to develop, and it is a religious issue, unfortunately. They oppose it on ethical grounds, but those ethical grounds are grounded firmly in their theology. It's not saying all life begins at birth and is precious, it's more, do not strip me of the idea that I am special. It's hubris, on both sides.
Why is it....
Nobody has problems with two hicks with a combine IQ of 41 who breed.
But a set of medical doctors with the aims of advancing science and medical research cannot create CELLS WHICH ARE NOT SENTIENT BEINGS?
I mean we live in a society overrun with disfunctional families, delinquent children and pretty much underfunded infrastructure to host it all. Yet in such conditions people breeding is ok, and scientific research on the goop [goop == any living thing that isn't sentient] is horrific and grotesque.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Go read the article - the research was performed from 1999 to 2001, which means that it was mostly before Bush took his wishy-washy "stand" on stem-cell research, and indeed might even have been over by that point. Not to mention that the lab in question originated two of the approved stem-cell lines!
My son is a diabetic. He takes insulin several times every day to survive until the next, and has done so for 19 years. Today his insulin is produced by (horrors!) recombinant DNA production. 19 years ago it was produced by extraction from the pancreas of beef-cattle and pigs. I thank God regularly for scientists and researchers who refuse to accept the status quo or the blindness of those who will not see.
The same idiots that oppose the research and animal testing that produced the substances that keep my son alive are today opposing the stem-cell research that holds out the best promise for a genuine cure to his disease in his shortened lifetime. PETA, Bush, the assorted Churches and the right-wing demagogues should all be faced with the daily decision of whether their infant son should live or die for their principles. They'd soon find themselves more receptive to scientific advances and to other people's reasons for opposing them.
Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?
Technically, this type of law doesn't have to be supported on moral grounds. If the law simply states that each person has equal rights, then sexual assault can be made illegal without morality coming into it. The person committing the assault is taking away the rights of the victim (by restraining them against their will for a period of time, for example) which is not permitted within the doctrine that each person has the same rights.