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"
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.
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.
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.
It is already illegal here.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020304/6/kiki.html
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
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
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.
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.
Maybe they're not trying to develop human players, but human pieces. Eventually, you'll hear things like this at USCF cocktail parties:
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
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 |
>> 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 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.
Everyone knows only African-Americans have 'soul'.
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.
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
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.
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
the world is blessed by your gracious beneficience
blow me.
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).
According to Forbes, this is how much it will cost to clone a person.