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.
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.
Why would the population problem matter?
What reason would there be for mass-cloning?
As I see it, cloning/stem cell/whatever research is a way to learn more about how we work.
And the more we know about how we work, the better we can work on small things like medicine. (genetic research seems very promising for a cure for cancer)
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
And besides it is unstoppable. Even if prohibited the kind of ``black-market'' shall develop, where some groups will make huge amount of money... Because there are people willing to pay that money for extending there life, replacing organs etc... And that is not strange. Prohibitting cloning may look ``nice'' but for sure it will not stop the cloning.
That were my 3 cents...
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
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.
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem
That's a strange argument. Cloning is not about creating a large number of individuals. You have been watching too much Star Wars. Creating individuals is far more cheaper if done the old-fashioned way, and I don't think cloning will ever be able to compete with that.
It might be able to help parents get a child if they are otherwise infertile, but I don't think that is a threat against population control.
Unless your argument is that we can control the population by not curing people with Alzheimers, parkinsson, etc. But I don't think you ment that.
)9TSS
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.
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!
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'?
who is more bigotted, the scientist or the Christian zelot?
;-)
who is more bigotted, the Christian or the scientific zealot?
You are phrasing your questions, and your thinking in a very bigotted fashion. Kind of an existence proof of my point.
sigs are a waste of space
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.
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
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!
Exactly. Good Christians can also be neutral observers. They just have to avoid letting the facts threaten their faith (and therefore their judgement). Sadly, many scientists feel (correctly or otherwise) their careers can be threatened if word gets out their ideas are inviable. Something that is far less likely a risk for a Christian.
The real problem is that frequently the leaders of any given "interest group" having a stake in maintaining the party line. Ultimately, you need a disinterested third party to make a call after hearing the arguments from both sides. In theory, that's where politicians and judges come in. In practice....
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
I have to point out that the order in which he phrased his question has no bearing on if he is a bigot.
No, but his assigning the zealot modifier to "christian" but not "scientist" does.
If you take a reasonable person from either group and compare them to a zealot from the other, the zealot will always look like more of a bigot. The statement also suggests that there is no intersection of the two groups, which is kind of ludicrous.
sigs are a waste of space
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
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