Slashdot Mirror
U.N. Delays Debate on Cloning
hedpe2003 writes "'The General Assembly on Tuesday ducked for a year a polarizing debate over human cloning that has set the Bush administration against some allies like Britain and much of the world's scientific community.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
Opponents say total prohibition would block research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
United States was happy to go along with the one-year consensus but would not alter its stance. 'We will continue to work for a total ban,' he said.'
I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. To tell the truth, I didn't know that the US was pushing so hard to ban stem cell research all together."
so don't flame me
:\
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped, even though it is sometimes questionable whether progress in knowledge helps humans a step forward.
i personally think the the ethics are too human-centric in this debate. as if we are a more special breed of mammals or something. factors enter this debate that should be separate from science IMHO, and definetely from governmental decisions (religious arguments for example - don't mess with God's creation...).
the benefits can be many, and cloned humans will be a rare phenomenon, even if it happens. just like genetic engineering in general, cloning human cells or tissues can be a good thing if applied under very strong restricions. think of the (now very sci-fi) idea of growing new organs, or tissues from a patient. no more rejection of transplanted organs by the patient's immune system because they (the organs) are made up by his/her own cells.
regulations should be strict though, to prevent some mad scientist from running ahead of the facts and doing things that have unpredictable effects. although i doubt that regulations will stop a mad man anyway, but that's a different discussion alltogether, so i will not touch that subject
Too much of the objection over stem cell use is concerned with the origin of some stem cell cultures in aborted fetuses.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
well i am a scientist, and although i try to stay a neutral observer, it is quite difficult at times.
;)
i have seen many debates in scientific meetings. i can assure you that many scientists are *huge* bigots, religiously debating their point of view, whether it is based on fact or not. many people do not like to be told they are wrong
i'm lucky enough: i don't care. and good scientists should be like that, leave an idea when it's inviable and don't try to prove something because you believe it is true.
But in the civilised world (Western Europe, Japan) the birth rate is at or below replacement levels.
That's currently. Imagine if the death rate went to 0. You think the birth rate would also go to 0? Even if it did, this would effectively kill the evolutionary process, either way you weaken humanity as a whole.
sigs are a waste of space
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings. The big picture: they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans [until they are proven to be sentient]. They should have about the same rights as those.
Ethical or not - it will be greatly beneficial to be able to do research using cloning and stem cells. With cloning, you can do nature-nurture experiments more easily. With stem cells, you can eventually figure out how to grow organs instead of transplanting them.
The first country that legalises cloning and stem cell harvesting for research will have many medical researchers flocking to it. And get lots of insults along the line of 'unethical' and 'immoral'... I wonder, if that will ever happen?
Yes scientists are often wrong, and it is expected. In the scientific field, it should be perfectly okay to be wrong most of the time.
In either a religious or scientific context, your beliefs should be challenged regularly, and so having to rethink your ideas should not be threatening.
However, a successful scientific career (in terms of wealth) can hinge quite significantly on whether or not your peers (and therefore the world at large) think that you are right, or that your thinking is not antiquated. Einstein would still be repairing watches if others hadn't become convinced he was on to something. Worse still what if new facts suggest your data is wrong (suggesting what? fabrication? shoddy work?)? Get any good grants lately for cold fusion research? How about perpetual motion machine research? How about for Newtonian mechanics?
Faith, by definition, is something that cannot be threatened by facts, because it exists regardless of the facts. Sure, church dogma can be proven wrong; even holy texts could be proven to be wrong; but this should not effect faith.
Regardless, unless you are employed by the church itself, chances are facts which contradict various religious matters, while they might keep you up at night, aren't likely to cost you your job. In that context, once you know you are wrong, there isn't much point defending your position. Indeed, for many folks doing so would be a sin.
sigs are a waste of space
The US government commits this error all the time -- you can only get a permit to research illegal drugs to prove they are BAD for you. A conclusion (drugs are bad) in search of a hypothesis.
Consider Einstiens famous quote "God does not play dice!" Einstien refused to believe the universe could operate on chance, and now it is largely thought to do just that. Consider the folks who came up with string theory, they were *ignored* for a decade, and now they are considered to be some of the most brilliant minds ever.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings. The big picture: they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans [until they are proven to be sentient]. They should have about the same rights as those.
So does that mean the "mother" can choose to "pull the plug" at any time, and then "donate" the eggs to this kind of research? Remember, the egg is braindead, it can't make decisions for itself...