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."
The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research...
Which stem cells? The ones that are gathered at the abortion clinics? The abortion clinics that preform the abortions that YOU'RE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO AND WANT TO SEE MADE ILLEGAL? Those abortion clinics?
Stupid fucking government.
In the defense of our idiot-in-chief president, he is Texan, so some leeway must be given.
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem, and the last thing we need to do is make it worse.
#define DRM chmod 000
A UN vote would not make any difference. It would only affect countries who sign up to the resolution. I do not think the UK would, the government is very keen on getting the biotech industry up and running.
There are a TON of anti-cloning supporters out there, but seriously, what is the big deal? If there is a path of technology that might allow us to grow spare body parts, rid the world of cancer, and anything else, then I'm all for it. I think a large percentage of people object to cloning because of the moral (read religious) ideas of a soul and other such nonsense. I wish people would just grow up already.
As for me more important are possible benefits - that is finding cures for some diseases.
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
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
That's great. If you believe in God, that is. The rest of us, meanwhile, need a solution based on that which we can observe, measure and prove. Don't forget that the God-fearing portion of the population is not the entireity, and that the rest of us don't typically like having Christianity shoved down our throats. Belive what you want. That's fine, but don't make us follow your morals.
#define DRM chmod 000
Nice troll, let me countertroll; so you condone murder?
Tell that to Superman, or my grandma who died of Alzheimers.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
Now flame away.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
bushy needs the religious right to keep the power and to hell with consequences. Just to keep the research alive for a cure for juvenile diabetes, the society had to fund their own research for 17 new stem cell lines of which none could be used in the US, the researcher has two kids with diabetes of his own and for the "SIN" of trying to keep his kids alives, has been hounded, threatened and abused. The research is moving overseas rapidly which is to be expected and in the end won't slow it down much. What doesn't get mentioned much, is that most of the approved stem cells are locked up in patents and too flawed for meanful research.
I think there would be allot to be learned from experimenting with cloning. We could even put it to good use with cloning organs and skin cells.
But I think this kind of thing should have the most stringent monitoring available, this is also the kind of thing which could do allot of damage to this world.
Imagine the repercussions if a world leader were cloned. Or worse yet what if we could speed up the process and steal other people's identities.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
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.
The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Bush administration is a world reknowned authority on ethics.
How about we let this hypothetical God decide about what he is willing to let us do.
Not pseuso-christian religious fanatics like you who so much like to spout nonsense in His name.
Personally talked to God about biotechnology, recently, have you? I'm sure Creator's just taking a little nap and forgot to throw fire and brimstone upon those EEEEEEEVIL scientists trying to stole His rightful place. He'll probably be back in few billion years or something.
We have a chance to end some of the most horrible debilitating deseases know and it largely comes down to semantics. When life starts. The attitude is better to flush the tissue down the toliet than find a cure to these deseases. It shouldn't come down to a religious issue of when life starts. People should be given the option of donating the unused tissue. I have major reservations about genetically modifying plants and animals but have no issue with stem cell research. Few of the same people show the same enthusiasm about banning nuclear weapons that can kill millions but become irrational when it cames to a line of research that can save millions. Cloning itself simply produces a twin. Deal with it. I oppose cloning of humans strictly because of the crude nature of the current techniques. Few it any would survive and any survivors would have severe genetic problems. There's enough genetic desease without creating more. Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans. Reproducing stem cell tissue is a completely different issue. A three or four day old cluster of cells lacks conciousness. There are no brainwaves. In fact no brain. Stem cells by definition lack defining characteristics. They are a blank slate waiting to be told what to become. It's why they are such a promising option for replacing damaged tissue.
/RANT For the last time cloning will not replicate people! No duplication of people is possible.
/RANT
No more than identical twins are the same person!
Doh!
i agree completely with you. period.
funny thing is that religion does have a *huge* influence on the way things are decided in the usa (and they are not the only government, let me add, but by far the biggest).
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state. in real life, true democracy doesn't exist, unfortunately. like any political ideology, we will never find out if it is the 'best way'. just because the implementation of democracy (or any political system) is miles away from what the original idea was. just like communism as it is and was applied was not communism, but just a dictatorship.
i know this rant is slightly OT, but i think it matters in this discussion. it is essentially about ethics, moral, religion and not about facts. which is a shame in my opinion.
Even that statement implies it exists in some sense where it can want or not want something. It's a few cells. How is that different than taking a sample of cells from the inside of someone's cheek and asking if it minds being scraped off?
What if they clone stem cells in a way that doesn't prevent the fetus from developing, store it for 10 years while the person grows up, and then ask them if they mind their cells being used that way. If it had been done to me, I sure wouldn't mind.
Jason
ProfQuotes
The US wants to ban stem cell research internationally to ban competition for its pharma companies. They will do this research whether it is illegal or not, and the administration does not want to know about it, and it knows the competition won't break that rule.
When was the last time the US abided by a UN resolution it did not support, even if it was achieved by a 'vote'?
The present US administration has been attempting to bury stem cell research and therapeutic cloning - both fundamental technologies in regenerative medicine - since it came to power. Therapeutic cloning is essential to many stem cell therapies and much related research. Immense damage has been done. Christopher Reeve and many stem cell scientists (including the founders of the field) believe that the actions of this administration alone have set the field back by 5 years.
Some nasty math works out from here. There is currently an 80% effective stem cell therapy for heart disease that has been demonstrated in the US, Germany and Japan in human trials. It saves lives. 2000 people die EVERY DAY in the US from heart disease, yet the FDA is currently blocking any application of this working therapy. For more, see:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/protest_fda_ interference.cfm
A stem cell/therapeutic cloning cure for Parkinson's has been demonstrated in mice, as have stem cell cures for nerve damage, diabetes, cancer (yes, a cure for cancer based on stem cells has been demonstrated in mice:
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?article ID=2003-12-10-3
) and many other conditions. This isn't pie in the sky science! Real, working cures based on stem cell medicine are in the labs, only 5-10 years from being available for us. This is the science that the US administration is trying to drown. It's sickening that any group of human beings would try to enforce so much suffering...
The US house of representatives passed a therapeutic cloning ban last year, but the US senate has been sitting on it. More on that here:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_the_t herapeutic_cloning_ban.cfm
The Bush administration basically went over their heads to try and get what they wanted now from the UN, and damn near succeeded. You can read more about that here:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_globa l_therapeutic_cloning_ban.cfm
This stopped being about human reproductive cloning a long time ago - there is a large, influential group of organizations, politicians and factions who stand opposed to any medical progress that will lead to longer, healthier lives. If cures for cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and other things get thrown away as well...well, too bad. You can see these views in their raw, ugly forms in the pronouncements of Leon Kass and the President's Council on Bioethics:
http://www.bioethics.gov
In their view, living healthily for longer is bad. Working to cure suffering is bad. Medical progress is bad.
Time to kick these people out of power - if we don't stand up for our right to develop and use better medicine, we're all going to be paying for it in years to come. See more at:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/
Speak out!
Reason
Senator Tom Harkin (D - Iowa) is a proponent of human cloning (not just stem cell research, mind you, but human cloning). He was in a public discussion a while ago with Doctor Ian Wilmut (the guy in charge of the Dolly sheep-cloning experiment). Wilmut said "it would be quite inhumane" to clone people. Harkin blasted him:
... It holds untold benefits for humankind in the future."
"Human cloning will take place and it will take place within my lifetime. I think it is right and proper.
Article about it
The US blocking of clone research is pretty consistent with US denial of nanotechnology research funding.
A few weeks ago, the US effectively denied government funding of nanotechnology despite its public position of wishing to support it. The funding initiative (NNI) which was set up expressly to fund US research into nanotechnology was hijacked by US big business interests through a hilarious or appalling (depends on your point of view) technicality which resulted in nil dollars going to molecular nanotechnology. Yes, nil.
This sleight of hand was performed by first defining nanotechnology as being the application of nanoscience, and then positioning the huge US presence in chemical, biotech and materials sciences as already operating in nanoscience. As a result, 100% of NNI funds were allocated to those megacorps, and zero dollars to the small and powerless sector that currently does the real research into molecular nanotechnology.
It makes you wonder what the hell is happening in the US when such key research areas are blocked through government being concerned entirely with the protection of big business's current interests instead of being allowed to plan for the country's future.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
For all the people that don't take a religious stand on the issue I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who object most of all don't know anything about stem cell research and cloning technology. I bet most of them have never had to take care of someone with Parkinsons or Alzeimers.
Most of these people just take 1 look at the idea and speak up about how abhorant this idea is, basically because their first instinct is to screw up their faces and say 'yuck'. It's the 'yuck' factor that stops people from looking further into an issue and understand the real issues.
This is just another example of people talking loudly without putting in any effort into understanding more.
As for people with religious objections, while have have respect for their views, there are a significant number who are making the debate very polarised. They will not allow any answers other than yes or no, leaving out all the important details in between. I don't like that style of argument, it generally sets my alarm bells ringing!
The current US administration acts as if they believe that the UN is an organization somewhere between the Three Stooges and the Devil Incarnate, and they usually ignore the UN's resolutions and dismiss its statements.
So, why are they taking this issue to the UN? Because they have been unable to get the Senate to agree to this ban. They hope that by using the UN, they can force through something that wouldn't be palatable to even US politicians.
Cloning of complete human beings is experimentation on humans who didn't consent. Cloning has a very high failure rate, with the failed cases resulting in miscarriages or life-ending deformities. I can't see how anyone can claim that human cloning is ethical if it results in 200 or more severely deformed babies for every healthy birth.
Maybe the failure rate could eventually drop to being close to the rate experienced by normal conceptions. But how would we get there? It is almost certain they would have to refine the cloning techniques by repeatedly failing on humans, because the differences between species indicates that you can't automatically make a jump from one species to an equal or better success rate with another. For example, years after the cloning of Dolly the sheep which took 297 attempts, it took 800 attempts to clone a horse despite the advantage of all the knowledge gained since Dolly.
Cloning of isolated organs or stem cells is a different matter which I don't have a problem with.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
"this helps maintain the sacredness of human life" And the sacredness of human death, disease, and suffering? While I respect your opinion, please realize its not only to "create life." It's to make life more bearable for many individuals: including Cancer , Alzheimers and Parkinson's patients and thier families. Openmindedness of everyone will help in curing many ills, and alleviating the suffering of millions of people.
Is there a plural for fetus? I dunno, anyways..
is a journal entry I did a few days before this article because I was thinking about this very subject.
I would LOVE stem cell research. To those that say the earth is overpopulated BOO HOO! Maybe the earth needs a few more superhumans and a few less troglodytes.
We have a ready waiting supply for stem cells. Say it with me now folks, ABORTED FETUSES. The fetus didn't make it to term? Tough luck, that's natural selection. What do you think dogs and other wild animals do with their stillborn? They eat them of course! No self respecting carnivoire on the food chain is going to let that tasty bit of protien go to waste. Why should we as humans, the smartest creatures on the planet allow perfectly good stem cells that could SAVE LIVES become ground up and flushed down the drain?
I see stem cell research leading to more than saving lives, I see a future with unimaginativable body modifications. As a side result I would imagine learning how to keep a fetus alive outisde the womb would be a major part of the research, which could lead to healthier babies being born.
- The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
- The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
- Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
- The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.sigs are a waste of space
Please do not equate moral viewpoints with religious viewpoints. It's quite possible to have morals without subscribing to any religion, and as has been seen over centuries it's equally possibly to subscribe to a religion without having any morals.
Cheers,
Ian
I am a Christian. Now before you start flaming me for believing in stuff, just hear me out. Another guy came off all rightous in response to this story, attracting some well-deserved flames for his views. I would like to offer the rational Christian view. I believe God created the universe, with all the physics that hold it together. However, I do not deem to tell God how He should do stuff. If He works through evolution, that's cool. It makes His design cooler for being self-modifying. If he works through subatomic particles that we haven't even discovered yet, that makes it evel cooler that He started it all.
Having said that, I think it's crazy how some fundamentalists still think they know that God is against science of any kind. They are OK with breeding dogs and horses to suit their needs -- even good with masturbating bulls to get their semen for artificial insemination. Some of them start to get squeemish when I mention these things, but we have been playing with genetics for the longest time, and have reaped the benifits. Now, I can't figure out how cloning or even forming living cells from nutrient-rich baths can be 'playing God' more than any other science.
In fact I can -- people use life as a 'proof' that God exists. Unfortunately, any proof of God's existance would negate the need for faith, so it is doubtful whether such will ever exist. In these people's lives, they need to be able to say: 'Look at that foal -- it is proof that God exists'. If we can create life, therefore, we will be like God. This is flawed, for God is so much more than just something that creates life.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
However, you're not in a morally superior position compared to them. You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic. See how you use the word "fundamental right". According to whom? Not according to them.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why? Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right? And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute? If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
We have things all wrong and backwards. Cancer, Alzheimer's, and Diabetes will affect so many more Americans than terrorism ever could. Our funding needs to be diverted -- stem cells or not, our priorities here are all messed up.
Hey, what about the bigotted christian scientists, you insensitive clod?
The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains.
- Attibuted to the blind Syrian poet Abul'-Ala' al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Thats a very smart move on their part, one year isn't long enough for anything too alarming to develop in this arena, but it is long enough for the issues to become less clouded, by holding off the decision the UN gives things time to develop closer to a point at which the issues are clear enough for some thing closer to consensus to emerge.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
I always though ending a human life was unethical. How can creating a new life be unethical?
Personally my opposition to human cloning comes not so much from religious reasons as because I feel very very sorry for the clones. What would it be like knowing you are a clone? As stories I've read from people who were adopted show, people have very strong feelings about their origins eg. finding their birth parents. Where you come from is something that weighs heavily on people's minds. Think of how adopted children feel when they get told they aren't their parents' real kid. How would you feel being told you are a clone of your father? Or the clone of a dead brother or sister?
Also it is inevitable that clones will be stigmitised in human society. When they go to school they will be considered freaks of nature, their very existence deemed monstrous. They'd probably be turned down for jobs - essentially they will be marked from birth as societal outcasts. The only people likely to accept them will be the scientists who created them and even then only as experimental subjects.
But even that doesn't matter so much if they were loved, as guidance and acceptance and unconditional love from your parents can help people through the worse of things, but from what I read of the people who want clones as children, they don't seem to be entirely mentally stable. Many of the stories seem to involve a dead child who they literally want to bring back from the dead. Anyone grow up in a family and go to a school where you were continually expected to be as good as your older brother/sister? Same thing, except a million times worse. Your parents will be expecting you to *be* your dead brother or sister. Why else would they have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars cloning them when they could just have had another child? Other reasons also seem bad - as an organ bank for someone. Human bodies put in storage to have organs taken out to be used for spares (I've actually read a manga about that where a doctor feeling sorry for the clone and hating the selfish brat who is the original secretly switches the two so the brat's organs are harvested and the clone 'becomes' the brat albeit with amnesia). And making the child the clone of one of the parents seems to be firstly somewhat egotistical and brings up all sorts of emotional complications and feelings. You'd also have to question the mentality and ego of someone who wants to spend a fortune on a clone of him/herself rather than using a sperm/egg bank or adoption. Essentially all of the people who want clones (with perhaps the exception of those who want a clone to harvest organs for a dying child though even that is morally dubious by any standards) seem to be some of the most selfish mentally unstable people who either seem to have an ego problem (too large) or are too obsessive about the past. There is no way any of them could guide a clone child through a hostile world where their very existence is seen as wrong.
It all comes down to that blastula having a "soul". Sort of hard to have a rational argument with someone once that meme imprints them. Hey, my cat is possessed by a consciousness from the third planet around Vega. _Prove_ that I'm wrong, dude!
And those who lament "the life that would have been" seem unconcerned about the countless life ended early in agonizing disease. Presumably by rationalizing that God's cancer is the tourist class seat to the good land.
IANAL(||geneticist||politician) but doesn't cloning humans really screw up the ability of DNA to prove certain crimes? The White House motivation is more likely Orwellian though, in that if you cannot positively identify and track every person, you lose power and control over them.
Really? ...
CBS
And for you Canadians
CTV
All the permanent Security Council members (USA, UK, France, Russia and China) have broken or ignored UN resolutions over the years, as have many other countries for good reasons and bad.
I think the UN is generally a good thing, but it does come up with questionable policies from time to time. This is one of those times. There is no reason for the UN to get involved in the cloning debate at this stage. If individual countries want to encourage or ban cloning, then it should be up to them. This is not really a global matter.
The problem with all of that is that it flies in the face of Leon Kass. A lot of bioethics hate Leon Kass, though he is a university professor, philosopher, founding member of the Hastings Center, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... you name it. The main problem all those bioethicists despise about Kass is that he eloquently and forcefully believes that human life has intrinsic moral value simply because it is human. This flies in the face of the predominate ideology of contemporary bioethics that disdains human exceptionalism as arbitrary, irrational, human-centric, and indeed, an act of discrimination against animals known as "speciesism."
BTW, everyone dismisses Kass a "Southern Baptist" neo-con right-wing whacko, yet he's Jewish.
Neither Kass nor Bush has advocated outlawing embryonic-stem-cell research. (Both do wish to ban all human cloning, including for biomedical research. But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
Also, a lot of those issues you cite are banned in a lot of Europe, so it's not like it's unique to the "evil Bush administration".
You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why?
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right?
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute?
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Interestingly, based on our current understanding of space, time, and matter/energy being interdependent, we can conclude that the cause of the universe:
a) Exists outside of time.
b) Exists outside of space.
c) Is not composed of matter or energy (at least in the forms that we understand).
d) (From a, b & c) Is unlikely to be based upon any of the known laws of physics/reality.
This is an argument that, at minimum, makes it reasonably likely that some supernatural something exists (ie. something that cannot be figured out by science, since it is outside of space/time, and not composed of matter/energy). Whether you believe this supernatural something to be God or not should be something decided by examining the evidence.
Alphanos
I once asked my ex-wife: "How many dead babies does it take to achieve clinical imortality?"
Her reply? "As many as necessary".
Let me point some of you "youngsters" to a SF story called "Bug Jack Barron", by Norman Spinrad. In it a 5 year old child had to die for every adult made imortal. The twist to the story is the Bad Guys make Our Hero imortal instead of killing him. It's quite chiling to see the co-opting process go to work when Our Hero finds out he now is one of the lucky few, and how easy it is to rationalize the procedure (now that it's been done).
My point? Don't underestimate human greed and the will to survive. I also believe, along with another poster, that this move by the US is 1) a sop to the religious right at election time, and 2) a somokescreen for the US Pharma industry.
Just call me cynical, I guess ("Well, sure, Mr. Senator, we continued with our research dispite the ban. We only experimented on non-Americans, outside of America. So, do you want us to extend your life so you can run for another term, or not? Remember, you made this an illegal procedure..."). More Life. More seductive than more money.
But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
True, you can produce stem cells without cloning. However, as far as I know of the research, there are no known means for making general-purpose stem cells (IE, that could become either nerve, heart, or any other kind of cells) identical to Person X without making a clone of person X and harvesting it at around 1000 cells.
And while Bush has not outlawed embryonic stem cell research, he has banned the production of new stem cell lines. Furthermore, last I heard the extant cell lines have a major problem with them.
Now, mind you, I think cloning a human and bring the clone to term at this point would be a BAD thing to attempt. I also think that messing with embyonic-only cloning is something not to undertake lightly. But the blind bans are a Bad Idea.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
For a good article on people trying to save their sick kids, see the Atlantic Monthly's 2001 article Cloning Trevor. It provides a good overview of the intricacies of emotions surrounding the debate, and exactly how misunderstood cloning is; for example, how hard it is to work with and propagate cloned stem cell lines, and how this will eventually force the research overseas.
People fear what they do not understand. Sadly, in this case, it is the leaders of our government who do not understand.
Any time I see debate over anything like this, I see the fear in the "eyes" of one side. For the many who are against this because they fear mankind will play god, I can only extend my deep sadness. They fear for the validity of thier faith by the actions of mankind. Mankind will always strive for perfection and it always seems to create the fear in some that we may succeed. What then of our faith? This is sad, for these people will never know true peace.
Perhaps what they should really fear is the loss of the scientists who do any of this research. If we have a ban in the United States that the rest of the UN does not support, then the research will move to other countries. This is good for the other countries, but bad for the US. How long before other industries and researches follow? If the ban is lifted later, do we really think the scientists will return to our country to continue the research?
Bans on anything have historically been bad ideas (prohibition springs immediately to mind but history is riddled with other, better examples). But bans on scientific research seems to be particularly bad. When that happens, we loose a resource more precious than any metal or gem - the human mind!
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
Both the Umbilical Cord and and the Placenta are filled with Stem Cells. They are also both temporary organs ejected from the body after labor (afterbirth). Both are also essentially medical waste.
So, when having our child recently, we said, "Sure, why not donate them to medical science?" and checked the box on her medical forms asking us just that.
Without attaching ANY other arguements, you can reasonably say that if every woman engaging in hospital birth in the US checked that box, there would be more stem cells going around than researchers could use.
I'm mildly curious why I never hear about this tidbit of info in any stem cell debates, since it's the perfect human solution: Group A gets what they want without being in moral opposition to Group B.
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
I think it's illogical to fault conservatives for standing by their guns on this. I mean if you believe that an embryo is human, and if you believe killing that human is wrong, then it is only logical to oppose abortion in all forms- even if there are potential benefits from it. Think about it- there are many potential benefits from say, killing all elderly and genetically inferior people. Less world hunger, better gene pool, etc. We could even do research on their bodies and learn alot that could save lives. But most people, for one reason or another, realize that this would be still be wrong.
So, any talk about weighing potential benefits is really a smokescreen for the only real issue: When does human life begin? I'm not saying that's an easy question, but I think it's really illogical and unfair for people to bash those of us who believe it begins at conception and stand by the logical conclusions of that belief.
Just want to second the thought that there is a lot of damage to existing stem cell lines - here at (unnamed medical school with lots of NIH dollars), I had a class on therapeutic stem cell research, and according to the professor, most of the existing human stem cell lines have divided so many times by now that they have serious mutations, making them virtually unusable in some cases - good thing we can't ever make any more and still get government money...
When it comes down to it, you will never be able to prove or establish conclusively when "life" begins. Because "life" is a term and means whatever we want it to.
In all debates on this (and related) topics, we see many clever insights that play off of our linguistic tendencies and our gut reactions (these come from both sides of the debate: "Perhaps we have already killed the one who was to find the cure for Cancer", "The research that we could have done might have saved your dying grandma" etc.). Any progress in our understanding of opposing viewpoints that we can make through the mincing of terminology has already been long since exhausted -- we all more or less understand each others positions, we have all been subjected to the various explorations in the hypothetical on this topic. The next thing for us to do is to realize that we don't have to, and in truth never will, agree completely.
One of the natures of human interaction in community is that of compromise for the sake of pooling resources. We will always have disagreements about what is or is not moral -- it's a byproduct of freedom. Instead of repeating arguments, we eventually have to make what will ultimately be a largely arbitrary definition of what we are all trying to describe (I think that splitting the term "life"/"[a]live" into it's multiple understandings would be a good start, since it's been analyzed into ambiguity). After establishing a usable set of terminology, we can then proceed to establish policies (or choose not to establish policies) regarding these. Once the terminology is sufficiently well established to accurately describe the issue (read: once the bs is cleared away) the law making should become, in theory, largely just the of polling members of the community for what they want to do (or what freedoms they are willing to forfeit) and drafting policy to reflect this. If the outcome of this is disagreeable to you, perhaps you are, in fact, in the wrong community.
It is not unreasonable to look to other communities that may maintain a collective ethos that is more agreeable to yours. Often times, people will say something along the lines of "If you don't like the way this [community group] is, then LEAVE!"... Well the truth is, they may be right (it's usually more complicated than that -- the value of your community is often not swayed entirely by a single issue) -- and it doesn't need to be a dramatic or a violent, or even a particularly noteworthy occurrence for someone to choose to leave a community.
If you find yourself living in a nation that doesn't allow the scientific freedom (or lack thereof) that you desire, and if that is important enough to you, then of course you should explore alternate communities in which that would be allowed. But we really need to get past trying to "prove" that the law should be a certain way.
Morality has no place in community policy, except as a secondary influence. What the people in the community want and what they are willing to do/forfeit to that end is the only thing that is a valid explanation for law. For some (many?) people, morality might be the reason why they are willing to make a personal sacrifice for the community, but that is (or should be) secondary to the fact that they are willing to do so.
My point is that this debate has been exhaustively completed, and it seems like all that there is to do now is periodically poll public opinion and maintain the public policy to match that, and let those of us who are displeased with the outcome make our own choices on whether the community is one in which we want to participate. But at this point, the attempts at moral "proof" of the validity of community policy ends up just being ambiguous fluff that confuses the issues.
At least approach the debate with the understanding that your morality (or your purported lack thereof) does not give you any grounds for demanding a similar moral stance from anyone else in your community -- in pursu
The primitive superstitions of you and your kind cannot be permitted to force me and my kind away from the science which can liberate us from the limitations of our genes.
You don't want stem cell research, or genetic engineering? Fine, don't use it. Trust me, we won't try to force you to use our evil technology.
There's a non-argument. You can use "what if" to make anything look bad. "Oooh, what if your parents had used contraception, see, contraception is bad and should be outlawed to satisfy my superstitions, oooh."Eighty years ago your intellectual ancestors were claiming that flight was an offence to God, a few centuries earlier your kind claimed that Galileo's telescope was evil incarnate. Squat in a mud hut if it makes you feel better, the rest of us will be trying to improve things.
More importantly, who appointed you God's spokesman? If He/She/It doesn't like stem cell research let He/She/It speak for themselves. I haven't heard God tell me that stem cell research is wrong, and I'm sure not going to take your luddite word for it.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
He didn't say Christianity. Way to speculate.
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of