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."
The article states "the controversial procedure that would be banned by legislation now before Congress"
i'm diabetic, it's not a serious problem, but my grandma died while waiting on a list, it'd be great if they could start harvesting organs now so i don't get to that point
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
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
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
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.
What is the status of such laws in Canada? Could the professor in question transfer to a Canadian University and pursue knowledge in peace?
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
that when their droid army is finally complete, they don't want Yoda coming in to save the day. You're not naive enough to think that they haven't seen ATOC too, are you?
The research was conducted a few years ago, and the researcher moved out of the US to avoid restriction of the research he could do. This is so telling.Laws that restrict things like this aren't going to prevent it. They will just push it offshore or underground, and the US will lose it's opportunity to be a leader in this field.
Look, a cloning is a bad thing. If we allow cloning, we'll soon have a clone army. And while that might look like a good thing, since a clone army can fight an army of robots, it's actually bad, since it creates chaos and suffering. Cloning is just the start of a great struggle for the control of the empire, and we should not allow it.
I suppose that we will just buy our engineered tissue products from the Europeans and the Japanese (quite a bit of this research going on in India, too). But, it's a shame that this research isn't taking place here simply because a minority of religious extremists have the president in their pocket.
--
Socrates was asked where he was from. He replied not "Athens," but "The world."
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
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.
No. It isn't ethical but a religious one : it boil down to the definition of what is a "human being". A heap of 32 cell ? A full viable embryo ? Ethic has no answer on that. As you correctly said ethic is about the problem of bettering a human against the viability of another one. Religion come to define What is a human or When it is a human. Religious people tend to say the moment the ovula is fertilised with the spermatozoid. Others tend to say it is far later in the developpement, when at least there is a viable diferianciated central nervous system recognozable as an organ.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Nerd pride!
--
Socrates was asked where he was from. He replied not "Athens," but "The world."
Are you actually wagering that people are smart enough not to use this research for "less than benefical" purposes? I'll bet they were the same ones who wagered somebody wouldn't be stupid enough to wipe out an entire race of people because they were "genetically inferior". Damn right it's a slippery slope. Take a exerpt from Star Wars 2. No, really, as stupid as it sounds. I could easily see that slippery slope happening in todays world. You doubt that some mad man in power could resist inflating his armies by creating clones to augment his forces? They're willing to use nuclear and biologicals, why not clones?
"The slippery slope" is not simple assnine propaganda for the religious zealots out there. It's mentioned because people can be that extreme and it's been proven all throughout history...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Extremely low religious rates.
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.
The viewpoint that a clump of predifferentiated cells constitutes an actual *person* is pure superstition, and should *not* be enshrined in law. :)
Gawd Himself sheds these things all the time.
It often occurs during normal Menstruation. Or, later, (MUCH later) miscarriage.
Our legislators seriously need to get a clue.
But you already knew that
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
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
My mistake. I hereby withdraw all support of the ban....
Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
I haven't read the article, but this doesn't surprise me one bit. I'm sure this is a desperate attempt by the USCF to develop a human player capable of competing with the next generation of chess programs.
I just don't get it. Nobody complains that machines can lift more weight than the strongest men, and cars can go faster than the fastest runner, so why be bothered that a machine can play chess? Accept it and learn from it, I say.
All right, hands up all of you who read this as "USCF Acknowledges Tests on Human Cloning", and then wondered WTF the United States Chess Federation was doing messing around with cloning? Trying to clone a grandmaster?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Let's drive all reproductive and cellular research out of the US. Let's ban all biomedical research too. Let's ban organ transplants, blood transfusions, electricity and the wheel.
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!
"Alright, damn you!" hissed a clearly exasperated Pedersen "I admit that I've been toying around but it's for a good cause and, after all, no harm's been done!"
"We concur" giggled the 657 other Pedersens.
if troll is the proper moderation for this.
you see pro-life groups actually do compare cloning to to nazi research. this argument certainly doesn't fly with me, but it is one of the arguments they use.
And hey it's hard to refute idiotic arguments, unless you at least realize that they exist
It would be great to have a clone.
He could do all the housework and bring me beer whilst I sit about watching the telly and reading Slashdot.
Cloning is great.
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"
I used to work with a guy who told me on good authority that if they ever did clone a human being that it wouldn't have a soul. For you folks that think this not a religious issue I offer this: it's great to know that when clones are a part of society there will be plenty of people running around claiming they don't have souls as a basis for persecution. The cycle continues.
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.
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
Now it doesn't take a genius to conclude from this that embryos fail this "test". And you certainly worded your version to help your argument, and why not of course!
Want more? This simple google search will help those who want to settle this in their own minds.
Unless I read it wrong (which is possible; it wasn't exactly in plain english), the court held that human life does not begin at a certain point but gradually develops through the trimesters. That sounds kinda wierd, I mean, is it alive or not? I have to admit, the possibility of being half-alive didn't really occur to me. But it definitely sheds new light on the subject.
For the record, my previous understanding was based on a conversation with a lawyer friend of mine. If I had any inclination it might be "nonsense," I wouldn't have posted it. But thanks for the info.
c-hack.com |
even if you received a new liver it would not cure your alcoholism which is a much bigger problem than your proken liver...
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
I must agree with the Devil's Advocate poster, and disagree with you.
The question is entirely ethical in nature, not religious.
"it boil down to the definition of what is a "human being"."
The definition of what is human is what has the capability of forming a human. I don't believe we've advanced so far as to create tangible humans out of computer renderings (despite what you can do on Linux, it's not there yet), and our ability is falling quite short of creating entire humans out of an organ or a few skin cells (only skin cells).
On the other hand, we have proven over the centuries that human embryos in fact create humans. Not only this, but the sole purpose of this combination between an egg and a sperm cell is the creation of a human being. Nothing more, nothing less. The human embryo creates a human.
"Religion come to define What is a human or When it is a human."
Read the preceeding paragraph again. Did I indicate when it was human? Did I use religion to prove it?
"Religious people tend to say the moment the ovula is fertilised with the spermatozoid. Others tend to say it is far later in the developpement, when at least there is a viable diferianciated central nervous system recognozable as an organ."
Doesn't one stage lead to another? And if I'm not mistaken, in about nine months time, a human is formed.
Following logical steps, it is easy to see why this is an ethical question. You just need to look at the sequence of events over a period of time.
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
Which appear to be mostly C's in an ABCDF scale
>> Then your children will get your hereditary conditions and will themselves need replacements from stem cells.
> Not necessarily. That implies that what we are and what we will become is completely determined by our genes. I don't buy that.
The decisions you make (regarding alcoholism, etc.) as an individual are not completely determined by your genes. But they are certainly partially determined by them.
Your personal decision to start or stop drinking alcohol may be influenced by many things. Maybe you're concerned about your health, or you're a salesman entertaining clients, or your wife threatened to leave you, or you're a bartender, or you found Jesus, or whatever. These are things that are important to you, but statistically, they don't have a well-defined effect on the population as a whole. As you look at the decision making of larger and larger groups of people, systematic factors like genetic predisposition and socio-economic status become more important and show a strong correlation to alcoholism. From a public health perspective, they are virtually the only ones that matter.
The cat has a Brian?
Oh, What you mean is Who or what is Brian, not who does Brian belong to...
but the original poster meant brain, not Brian.
Two men, a woman and a small cartoon rodent are sitting in a room
Alarmed Lady: "I asked him to bring home Brian, not to bring home Brain.
Insert rest of Cell-Phone commercial here, with the reqisite "Same thing we do every night..."
This whole argument is rediculous.
Spelling error.
Oh, the irony. Unless I'm very much mistaken, that would be an example of Argumentum ad Hominem...
Nothing is wrong with creating life to save life
What runs into problems is the possibility of decreasing net life
Thus destroying life is the issue here
> The only issue is whether life begins at conception.
No, that's a red herring. What if there is no conception? What if I turn a cloned adult human cell from a consenting donor into an embryo? Where's the conception? There is none. Where's the unique, new, special human life that the anti-abortion nutsacks want to protect? Not there, because it's the genetic material from a real live consenting human adult that never mixed with that of another person in the process we call conception.
So, what it's really about is what you claim it's not about. It's about people who want to push their religious views on the rest of us by claiming that a bunch of cells isn't just a bunch of cells, but a "human life"--not based on science, or reason, but on opinion. Why is it a human life, when it can't even feel pain since it hasn't even developed a primitive nervous system yet? Why is a five-celled embryo more of a human life than a hundred cells I scratch off my arm without even thinking about it? Because if left alone in a womb it will grow into a human baby? Well, what if it was never, ever in a womb, and was cloned from those hundred cvells I scratched off my arm? And how is that really scientifically any different from an embryo created not by lab cloning but by letting a sperm hit an egg outside a womb? What if we get the egg after it has naturally left the woman's body through menstruation, would that make it okay since that egg was already discarded by God, Nature, the woman, or whatever?
As you see, that's a lot of questions. That's a huge grey area. And yet, to the simplistic anti-abortionists/anti-embryo-researchists, it's black-and-white--because they're motivated by their religious precepts and religious thought, not by rational scientific thought. They are, therefore, pushing their religious ideals on the rest of us, to the detriment of science and the human future.
Here's a religious thought for you, though: instead of thinking human science is going against God's plan, why not embrace it as part of God's plan? Instead of God not wanting us to clone embryos to cure diseases and heal the sick, why not believe that God wants us to, since He let us have that technology? Jesus cured the sick everywhere he went, and then His apostles did--why would He not want us to do the same?
> Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally.
Sure, both the law and society's morality can be against you. But they are *not* one and the same, and modern law *theoretically* doesn't grow out of morality but rather out of the need to protect from harm while preserving rights. There was of course a time when the law was based on religious precepts including the morals of a particular religion, but in Western nations we have outgrown that concept and embraced the acceptance and tolerance of all religions and philosophies, and decided to base our laws on rational notions of human rights and constitutional rights. We made this choice during the Enlightenment, when the need for a seperation of religion and rational thought was posited. Since that point, "faith" and "reason" have been considered different, whereas before "reason" was supposed to be based on "faith". Look what the older notion of basing law on (religious) morality, rather than on rational interpretations of human rights and constitutional rights, has done for most Muslim nations in this day and age.
Our more modern legal system leads to cases which prove that morality and legality are entirely separate memes--although they *usually* intersect since most of us are rooted in a common Judeo-Christian moral heritage which has undoubtedly had an influence on the course of Western rational thought. For example, the recent Supreme Court case striking down laws against "virtual child pornography" struck the majority of Americans as being contrary to morality, and yet it is the law--and rightly, defensably so when you read the thoughts contained in the decision. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to do many things which are immoral--adultery is not illegal in my state, and yet it would be morally wrong on at least two levels for me to fuck my best friend's wife. It's also possible to do something which is illegal but not immoral--it's illegal for someone to give me a copy of DeCSS so that I can take my own DVD copy of *Phantom Menace* and do my own "Phantom Edit" for my personal use, but there's nothing immoral about it.
So, to say that society has the right to dictate what people do based on (religiously-derived) morals, is incorrect. Morality and legality may often intersect, but they are distinct. Society does *not* have the right to enforce morals, only laws. Society can shun you for being immoral, but that's a matter of personal choice on behalf of the people doing the shunning, not a matter of law or fiat. For doing illegal things, however, society can deprive you of life, liberty, or property. They cannot do so if you just do immoral things.
So yes, morality is derived from religion or religious philosophy, and law is derived from reason or rational philosophy. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work in our post-Enlightenment system; unfortunately, some people are too ignorant or too selfish, and want to foist their own moral beliefs on the rest of us.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Some country somewhere is gonna start fiddling with genetic engineering and cloning to make "super people". Imagine having to compete with a million Linus Trivold clones if you are an OS programmer by trade?
You can ban the daylights out of it in your *own* country, but we still may end up having to compete against people who are engineered in another country to be Economic Soldiers.
The only solution I see is perfecting AI before they perfect human diddling.
(Or maybe I watch too much Startrek and worry too much.)
Table-ized A.I.
Do you think UCSF might be trying to create a Clone Army?
So, just out of curiosity, you don't see it as possible that anyone could have a rational, non-religious objection to the harvesting of embryos for medical research?
And while we're on the subject, is their any reason the many breakthroughs in non-embryonic stem cell research don't get as much coverage as projects like this one?
Not to rain on your parade, I would recommend that people actually do follow the above link, so it's clear to everyone that Ms. Coulter was joking. I agree that the joke was in somewhat poor taste, but let's not create bogeymen here as a substitute for rational argument
Now, to try to get this thread back on a rational footing, let me ask: do you, then, believe that no one could possibly have a non-religious reason for opposing the harvesting of human embryos for research?
Amusing how you throw in the words `far-right' as if that worked as a substitute for any actual argument on the policies in question. But don't worry, I don't credit Clinton for these policies.
The top universities of our great nation are constantly telling up about the value of diversity. Our courts say, "We need diversity!!" Ford Motor Company says, "We need diversity!!" And from our great organs of public opinion, the same chant, "We need diversity, we need diversity!!"
Wouldn't human cloning go against all of this??
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
We have done, from the beginning.
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
Tissue regeneration doesn't require genetic modification. By supplying normal stem cells to a location of injury or degeneration, you induce tissue repair. And since stem cells, by definition, can generate more stem cells, this repair is either permanent or at least long-term.
But fat tissue is a poor source of stem cells, and isn't likely to see therapeutic application. In order of likelyhood of utility:
1) Embryonic stem cells induced to differentiate into the desired tissue
2) Fetal stem cells collected from the tissue type of interest
3) Adult stem cells collected and purified from the tissue type of interest
Attack of the Clones.
I haven't seen the movie, yet. But, I can guess from the title what happens. And, it poses a question: Could clones be used as valueless, expendable shells of men for military purposes. I mean, could not some country say to itself "We'll clone people and raise an entire army really quickly (like the Brave New World batches)."
Forget Star Trek, the definitive series on this subject is the Beggars trilogy by Nancy Kress. Genetically engineered (genemod) humans completely turn society upside down, changing human existence beyond recognition. It's all quite plausible and very clever, and a good read.
C'mon, moderators, a comment like that deserves at least *one* mod point!
"The anti-religion bias in the US is staggering sometimes."
If anything there is a bias against the nontheist in this country. How do you think I feel as an agnostic when "our" president proclaims "a national day of prayer?" So many times when the religious types find out I am not so, they often tell me they will "pray for me" (as if I was deficient) or even actively proselytize me. Only approximately 14% of this country is nonreligious. Most of those in powerful political positions do not fall into this category. Can you think of a single, self-professed atheist or agnostic in Congress? I can't. I can name *a lot* of them who will gladly and loudly proclaim their faith in God though. It is only because of the wisdom of our founding fathers that specifically protected the freedom of and from religion in the US Constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority that I can live in this country without fear of undergoing a religious inquisition.
If Mr. Falwell is to be believed, we need not search baggage at airports, perform background checks on persons visiting the country, or take any other precaution apart from banning the ACLU, abortion and paganism; restoring prayer in school, et cetera, et cetera. We need not examine the ways in which our thirst for oil distorts our relations with the Arab peoples. We have only to join Mr. Falwell's cult, and pray. And, he most certainly was not joking when he said as much (follow the link).
This incident illustrates perfectly why we should not permit religion any role in the regulation of our polity.
--
Socrates was asked where he was from. He replied not "Athens," but "The world."
;)
--
Socrates was asked where he was from. He replied not "Athens," but "The world."
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
This incident illustrates perfectly why we should not permit religion any role in the regulation of our polity.
So I suppose the nuts who call themselves scientists and tell us about UFOs and ancient astronauts demonstrate why we shouldn't permit science any such roll? Come now...
Am I the only one here that can read? All of these people are ranting about cloning as if the idea is to produce human beings with it. That is the stuff of science fiction and bad movies. (for now at least)
The stem cell thing goes far beyond Parkinsons. I recently saw an interview with Christopher Reeves and he's livid about the cloning legislation. The most promising research in spinal cord injuries involve stem cells.
As to the other sources of stem cells, the simple fact is that hte most viable stem cells come from human embryos.
I bet if Shrub's wife or one of his kids were in an accident and were paralyzed like Mr Reeves, that there would be a big turn around in legal thinking at the Whitehouse.
The debate comes down to 'at what point do dividing cells become a human being' And I happen to believe, along with most rational (read:non fanatical religious loonies) people believe it's a lot later than is needed to create stem cells.
You aren't seeing the replied-to post, as it has been modded down. Check your settings.
I don't see why PETA would have a problem with this, as you indicated above (I didn't know that they did). It seems that this would prevent the senseless slaughter of many animals so that a single human could live.
If this research proves fruitful, then people with type 1 diabetes would have a potential cure that wouldn't involve "extraction" from a non-human creature. If this research starts being used for other evils, like extending the lives of people who are killing themselves by consuming meat, then that would be most counterproductive indeed.
The fact of the matter is (and this article proves it) that this sort of research is going to happen either way. We can embrace it and learn from it or we can illegalize it and leave the knowledge gained hidden for a future, more libertarian society to learn from. The choice is ours. Write your legislature and express your disapproval.
Keep in mind that there are many species where the haploid stage is larger and lasts longer than the diploid one...
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
In the case of religion, no such testing is possible. Conclusions of a religious character are articles of faith, or simply matters of opinion, and vary widely from person to person. Therefore, all of these conclusions are on an equal footing with one another. Except, of course, in the minds of religious zealots who often disagree violently.
The question then arises as to which religious beliefs should be permitted to inform public policy. Should we base our social welfare policy on the hindu idea that any of us may be reborn into a lower social stratum? Should we take after the Zoroastrians, and prepare our nation for an ultimate battle between good and evil?
The ingenious people who crafted our constitution, cognizant of perils of theocracy, decided that such questions, as they may govern personal behavior, should be left up to individuals to decide. The Constitution contains no reference to god or religion aside from a single phrase stating that the government shall neither establish religion, nor prohibit its free exercise. The exclusion of religious doctrine from the sphere of public policy is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If you defend it when it is inconvenient, you will cherish it when it shelters you.
--
Socrates was asked where he was from. He replied not "Athens," but "The world."
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the US has had a "state religion" for some time now. It is called secular humanism. It is a religion according to the Supreme Court. It is taught exclusively in government schools. A priesthood of humanists has been created and is funded from public monies. And, guess what, the religion of secular humanism supports stem-cell research. Imagine that! Seriously, if the humanists would do what they say they do and question the existing moral authority, they would have to stop believing their own hype.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Please present one. I would be happy to discuss it.
I haven't observed this.
--
Socrates was asked where he was from. He replied not "Athens," but "The world."
Ok my comment was a bit vague. What I did mean was "two irresponsible short-sighted" people can breed, that is bring a life into the world they are not willing to guide and develop.
I don't think I am the only person to think that there are many many bad parents floating around.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
A lot of people are scared of cloning. That's pretty much what most of the comments I'm reading are. As I hold to no religion, and have such a lax view on government that I have trouble even looking at it with any sort of distaste, this makes it very easy for me to look more at the words of the people who are replying to this topic.
.. and, in that, maybe we find the true secret. People are afraid that they aren't important, that their connection to the global all is not as sacred and needed as they like to think. That life will go on without them, so they fight doggedly to make sure that if another person can come in ...
Cloning has great benefits, and great detriments. Look at automobiles, however. A technology that's been antiquated for, at the very least, 25 years, but we still use it daily, and it still clogs our atmospheres and causes a lot of other social trends that can be viewed as . . not-so-good. However, they're cheap to produce, reap great profits (fueling capitalism) and there are quite a few people out there who know quite a bit about them. The good with the bad, as it were.
This will seem a bad segue, but people are afraid of fantasy coming true. They're afraid of losing their identity, losing their sacred host as humans. After all, if humanity loses its sacred legacy of being only God-created, where will things such as religion be? They were, after all, created thousands of years ago, by people who were more often than not trying to either instill a set of morals to create a culture of happy, feeling ascetics, or ravaging savage hoardes who eventually needed a bigger fear than themselves to control their empires. They are afraid that once we begin to clone people, we'll forget that human is human, and begin to create a super race that's far superior to any homo-sapien, or that we'll begin to have duplicate 'us's running around. That would be the shows eXo-Squad and Bill and Ted's Bogus Adventure.
However, the problem lies in that people don't understand a lot of what will happen. There's no way, currently, to imprint a mind, so we can't transfer over memories or thought patterns. No worries there. We can't 'fast track' growth, so these embryos would still take quite awhile to grow, and then begin to learn. They couldn't replace us in any way, except some really faulty biometrics. But, then, people have been proving that the current biometrics systems are faulted. Scotch tape, after all, isn't that hard to get.
Then maybe there's the sentience angle. What's your first memory? I certainly don't remember any sperm against my egg. People who have memory regression can very rarely call up anything earlier than 2 years. Should a woman be shot because she has a miscarriage? Under certain views, after all, this could be considered an accidental homicide. There is no malice, but there is a definite killing of possibilities.
Of course, people bring up the point of 'what if that foetus was you?'. Would it matter? If you truly take a religious stance, what kind of God wouldn't allow a little recycling of souls to go about? Either that, or Heaven (and Hell, to be fair) will be synergistic. There's only say many ways a person can be different from another, after all, which means you'd have duplicate souls in the dietical planes. (Side thought: I wonder if it would work like DiabloII's anti-cheat. "A duplicate soul has been detected. Removing.")
We place too much of an importance on our 'self' identities. No one of us is too important to not be here. No one is the pinion of human hope and human life. They are all ingested in what is becoming a more global society. Mother Theresa, who was touted as one of the greatest, most giving people ever, slipped into what ever happens at death, and no one gave it too much mind. Sure, some did, but not terribly much. More was done for Princess Diana, as she sped away from reporters with a boyfriend. Why? Who's to say. Di was more human, maybe. There was more of a connection for these people to relate
But we crowd a planet that's already too full. We waste its resources, recycle incorrectly its pieces, and harvest its life for our own. Disease, social and medicinal meanings, will soon plague us. What's to say cloning won't be, then, what saves us as a superhuman with super pathogens becomes the savior of the race?
But, then, I digress and ramble.
Which is all very well, except that you still haven't provided any justification for judging all religious individuals by Falwell's statements but not judging all `scientific' individuals by the statements of the flying-saucer crowd.
Certainly no one (and least of all our current president, if you actually listen to his statements is suggesting that religion is the direct source of policy. However, you have to acknowledge that neither can science suggest policy to us. Science can help us observe society, and make predictions about what outcomes various policies will lead to. It cannot make moral judgements about what outcomes we should favor or what means are acceptable to achieve those outcomes.
And this is where ethics and morality come in. And the fact remains that the proving grounds of which ethical theories actually produce desirable results are history and tradition, and religion is one part of that tradition.
Please present one. I would be happy to discuss it.
OK, the crux of the problem which many conservatives have with harvesting of human embryos from research goes something like this:
We already agree, as a society, that taking a life is killing, and is only acceptable in a very limited set of circumstances. So if (and that is what shall have to determine) an embryo is life, then destroying it is killing, and we are agreed that killing live humans for research purposes is not acceptable.
So now we need to determine when life begins. Let's look at a couple of possibilities:
- birth -- this is perhaps the hardest position to defend. The problem with saying that `life begins at birth' is that it is a purely geographic argument -- a just-born baby is alive, but five minutes earlier, when he was identical for all intents and purposes, but was still in the womb, he was not.
- some point during development -- this is perhaps the most tempting argument, as it solves a lot of legal problems, but the devil is in the details. At what point in development? How do you determine if the fetus has reached this point? Is it a concrete line, such that at one moment the baby is not alive, and the next moment it is?
- implantation -- this is certainly another tempting argument, but again, this seems to me to be geographic in nature, for it says an identical cell is or isn't alive based on it's location relative to the womb's wall. This definition also falls apart as soon as we can raise infants in a lab environment, for then a human will grow to age without ever implanting, yet surely such a human would be `alive'.
- conception -- this seems to be the best bet, for it can be clearly defined, and is the discrete start of the development process. Before this state, the specific dna of the infant does not exist. After this state, the specific dna, including all genetic characteristics and predispositions, is present, and need only develop.
This is why many of us believe, quite rationally, that life begins at conception, which is to say when the fertilized egg, with complete dna, begins to exist.And if life begins at conception, then of course it is killing to destroy an embryo. And, as I said, we are already agreed that killing humans for research purposes is wrong.
I couldn't agree more. I'm superstitious, and yet to the best of my understanding, the opposing viewpoint is that you have some number of cells which does not constitute a human life, and then a miracle occurs, and it does. When someone can persuade me that such a miracle does occur, and pinpoint when, I'll change my view.
Read the article. Human cloning isn't banned (yet).
For a concise summation of why I consider an embryo a human life, please go back and read the parent to your post (here) .
Which raises an obvious question: are the comatose then not alive? Are the severely underdeveloped `less' alive? Does any electrical activity count? If the baby is alive when the first neuron fires, why is that moment distinct from the previous moment, as the baby is not any more capable of thought or other neural activity that we associate with a human being.
I just came in from mowing my lawn, and I'm afraid I've committed a crime against ethics:
a mmals....What really makes the difference?
Grass:
1. Shows evidence of growth and replication...(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)
What have I done? Thousands of lifeforms died at my hands!
//end joke-->
According to a recent (Slashdot?) article I read, plants scream when harmed...that is, where do you draw the line? Ameobas...plants...microbes...insects...birds...m
Also, most of the conservatives who believe in preventing stem cell research I'd bet believe in this homicidal War on Terrorism - whether you agree with it or not, the death toll is high, meaning we're mass judging others and deciding their right to live...so...war for self-preservation is OK but stem-cell research for the same means is not? Someone please explain the difference to me.
If I had a sig, this is where it would be.
According to Forbes, this is how much it will cost to clone a person.