Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Jumps Into Cloning Fray
smackthud writes "According to this article in the Minneapolis StarTribune website Stanford University is planning to clone human embryos. Story summary says it all: 'Stanford University announced today its intention to clone human embryos, becoming the first U.S. university to publicly embrace the politically charged procedure. The intent of the project is to produce stem cells for medical research.'" Stanford has released a statement distinguishing what Stanford is doing from reproductive cloning.
The intent of the project is to produce stem cells for medical research.
And why isn't everyone doing this? Oh right, it's against the presidents religious beliefs. Is it really suprising that people would rather pursue research that might aid in a cure for cancer, rather than follow a law set by Bush that stem cell research is against his religious beliefs?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I've always been of the opinion that cloning, genetic engineering, etc were Good Things. This is technology that can potentially cure genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease in people who already suffer from it as well as prevent it from ever showing up in the first place. Then of course there is cancer. Imagine treatments that would simply repair the sections of our DNA sequence that MUST be damaged in order for any cancer to form. Forget radiation and chemotherapy that are simply attempts to kill the cancer without killing the patient. Fix the anti-cancer genes in the cancer cells and they kill themselves.
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature. Human nature might not be perfect, but I don't trust anyone to try and make it better. This is where genetic engineering gets risky in my opinion, when it gives people with an agenda for who and what mankind should be the tools to warp human beings into their twisted model of human behavior. Just imagine if the looney left or the religious right were to become the keepers of the technology. How many bolsheviks and bible thumpers could they create? There are already enough idiots and brainwashed buffoons in the world without a breeding program to manufacture them.
Anyway I'm glad this is being done by Stanford. Of course you'll hear nothing but screaming from the idiots of the world, but such is the burden of scientific progress. At least nowadays you don't have to worry about the inquisition murdering you for daring to contradict the codified superstition that passes for mankind's understanding of the divine.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I imagine there are plenty of people who would limit stem cell research for non-religious reasons. After all, this quickly degenerates into an abortion debate.
Pro-life reasoning is that human life deserves protection all the way back to conception. Pro-abortion reasoning is that human life deserves protection only after some period of development (varying according to who's talking). Pro-life groups advocate protection all the way back to conception because they see no rational reason to draw the line anywhere else.
It is therefore not necessarily a religious motivation under which Bush limited stem cell research. Not that it wasn't a religious motivation. But an experienced politician at the top of the game knows better than to try to legislate his religious ideas without a separate rational argument.
If you don't want to protect human life as an embryo, why should your human life be protected now? What is your argument that your life is intrinsically more valuable than a human embryo to be used in stem cell research, or the Jews experimented on by the Nazis? Where and how do you draw the line at where the value of human life begins?
The question of when to begin protection of human life, embryo, fetus, child or adult must precede any argument for other uses of potentially adult human embryos, no matter how useful or convenient any use or disuse of the embyo may be. If a human life is deserving of the same rights as any adult or child then no one else has any right to determine how that life is to be spent.
There are few things I know within the core of my being. The idea that cloning etc. is somehow inherently wrong just isn't one of them. For me to believe it is wrong would require some evidence to that effect, or at least a valid argument against it. I'm sorry, but appeals to emotion just don't cut it.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I'm not sure I follow you. WHAT exactly are they doing that makes them criminals? You say that they are playing with life and the implication is that it is somehow wrong. Isn't playing with life exactly what biologists and medical researchers have been doing all along? I guess you'd rather we do without things like anti-biotics and vaccines, both of which were created/discovered by the process of playing with life that you seem to have a problem with.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Bush's decision was based on his own moral standard, which does happen to have a biblical base. Others may have a moral system based on other religions, or a professional standard such as the Hippocratic Oath, or some amorphous PC nonstandard that changes from day to day, depending on which special interest group wants justification for their "lifestyle".
As we move closer to the end of the age, look for more decisions to be made based on the "common good", "world order", and "tolerance" rather than individual rights and dignity.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Your use of the word "Pro-abortion" gives your position away immediately. No matter how rational you try to make yourself sound, you kill your argument by using such rhetoric.
To answer your question, you are not a human being until you have a functioning brain. An embryo is not a human but rather human tissue with the potential to become a human. Potential is not actual. I have a penis therefor I am potentially a rapist. I am not a rapist, however.
The difference is not as subtle as you believe.
"Added bonus: it doesn't involve creating a life just to destroy it and harvest parts."
Maybe I am cynical, but I really can't see the problem. Well, I can see why some people see it as a problem, but I can't really understand them.
My view on this is that as long as the blob of cells frow which the scientists "harvest" the stem cells isn't sentient, the problem doesn't exist. It is like picking a flower or using a beetle for the sake of science. A non sentient mass of cells beeing sacrificed for a better life with less suffering for an allready suffering human beeing is not much of a problem in my book.
I really don't care much for the viewpoint of the blob of cells beeing "a potential human life". If we walk down that path we might end upp where we want to condemn preventives and equals. Imho, resarch on embryonic stem cells is not even as bad as an abortion, since aborted featueses often (always?) are more developed than the ones used for stem cell resaerch (btw, I am not against abortions). Some might argue that the featuses do respond to stimuli and pain and therefore shouldn't be used. Well, so does beetles and flowers. We still wouldn't hesitate to use them for the sake of science.
Regarding bone marrow stem cells. Yes, there are studies showing that they might have the same potential as embryonic stem cells, but afaik no conclusions have still been drawn and embryonic cells still have the most potential, even though some drawbacks have recently been discovered there too.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.