Slashdot Mirror
Harvard to Clone Human Embryos?
Lifix writes ""Harvard University scientists have asked the university's ethical review board for permission to produce cloned human embryos for disease research, potentially becoming the first researchers in the nation to wade into a divisive area of study that has become a presidential campaign issue."
...they just can't use federal money to fund it.
If you've read the article, you'd have seen this -
None of the proposed experiments involves attempts to produce a cloned person.
So, no. They're not going to have clones, atleat not yet.
Goodluck on your search, though.
Human cloning is scary stuff. What happens when we start to clone the "perfect" human for soldiers? Or when we clone too much that it leaves too little genetic diversity? Or worse, combining genetic manipulation with cloning, creating "super-humans", so-to-speak?
Personally I think those are questions best left to speculation, and not ones that should ever have their answers truly known by anyone.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
"We must allow this research, I mean some day this could allow Chris Reeve to.. oh.."
"Michael J Fox, you know him right? Well someday.."
I believe they should talk to people about the issues and the benefits instead of the constant name dropping of a few celebrities stem cells and cloning could *magically* heal. And since when is scientific research in line with religious dogma or morality? Science is the terrier that tugs at the great curtain. As we legislate based on dogma, many other countries are passing us by in science and technology.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My point is that as long as we keep the clones somewhat small - say less than 1024 cells, I have no moral problem with disposing them - that I'm not killing anything. Yes this has a HUGE grey area, but I think that a reasonable compromise can be reached.
Let the flame/holy wars begin...
..........FULL STOP.
Why is it that cloning so controversial?
Because of what might happen? Because we've seen some crazy science fiction movies?
It's ridiculous that people who least understand the research hold the strongest opinions about it and try to stop it from happening.
Now why exactly is any research involving embryos controversial? People aren't lining up at abortion clinics to make an easy 50 bucks by donating their unborn babies to research. Is it better to put the embryos in a landfill than to make use out of them?
Politics should not dictate research. It certainly should never prevent research.
The flip side is that people use superman as a political tool on the opposite side. "Let us do research. We'll make superman walk again!" I guess that won't be happening. If only he could have held out 'till election day...
It's quite amazing the hysterical reaction people have to clones when natural clones - also known under the technical term "same-egg twins" - are neither freaky nor the harbingers of a brave new world.
Anyone who is against cloning has to come up with better arguments than "it's unnatural".
Personally, I feel the discussion about cloning is largely provoked by people with political agendas, as are many divisive arguments around the world. People who have true feelings about the value of human life should better try to help the victims of war and famine, man-made disasters that kill millions.
But, I guess one clone is more of a danger to our claims of moral superiority than a million dead Sudanese or Congolese.
Call me a cynic but this debate is full of shit.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Remember, the goal of this is not to clone entire humans (although, someday, who knows what will happen) but instead to perfect genetic engineering.
People will likely look back one day on the movie Gattaca as amazingly prophetic. For those unfamiliar with the film, it did an amazing job portraying what society may be like when genetic engineering becomes perfected. Coming, sooner than many think, are the days when we can engineer the child of two parents; not to be a perfect child, but instead to be the "best" of those parents. The child is more intelligent, stronger, etc. than the average child produced by those parents would be, and will have a much lower likelihood of diseases and other problems. This will be a fantastic thing, but those children born the old-fashioned way are likely going to be disadvantaged. Because we'll be able to weed them out just by plucking a hair and checking their DNA.
Should we forbid someone from taking a certain job based on their genetic makeup? And how long can we breed the "best" children before the best become so far ahead of the worst, that the worst no longer have any "value" to society at all? Those will be the real ethical dilemmas. The so-called ethical dilemmas we're faced with today are just temporary hurdles created by people who are frightened of progress and/or don't understand what the goals are.
Hmmm, would the clone then be a native born citizen capable of running for president? Interesting indeed...
To everyone who feels like freaking out and telling me off, let me save you all some time and lay out my actual positions on this stuff, so you don't waste time calling me a religious maniac or whatnot:
1. Stem cell research: good.
2. Cultivating stem cells acquired from IVF sources: good.
3. As I've heard suggested in the media, cultivating stem cells acquired from aborted embryos, fetuses, whatever: good. DISCLAIMER: DO NOT PANIC. I AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF DOING THIS. IT IS JUST HYPOTHETICAL FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. Sheesh, People around here are too high strung.
4. Cloning stem cells: good.
5. Cloning entire embryos: touchy ground. I think it's different from using already cast-off tissue that would have died anyway. And, the phrase "cloning embryos" is too damn unspecific anyway. Are you talking about actual cloning, or just culturing cells? If cloning, I think it's a bad idea. Which is what this whole stupid argument thread is about.
I see an embryo, and of course a fetus, as an entire unit, a potential person. Therefore, if that potential person is already dead, as with castoff IVF material, or the clinic idea I've heard mentioned in the media, I don't see any harm in it. On the other hand, if you've just created a viable embryo just to disassemble it for the stem cells, that seems kind of ugly. And I do think it would be only a few steps from some much more serious nastiness down the road. I don't trust scientists as far as I can throw them, sorry. I've read too much about what they've done in the past. Like the guy who invented the lobotomy and then proceeded to inflict it on thousands of patients because he thought he was "helping" them.
6. I am not particularly religious, I have no desire to outlaw abortion, IVF, or any other such thing, I'm not an ignorant, evil redneck, and this is all just my opinion anyway.
Slashdot, people, is an OPINION SITE. Not necessarily the news.
Now, THIS is my WHOLE opinion on the subject, everybody relax.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Yes, it is different from killing prisoners to extract their organs. Blastocysts have no central nervous system, thus no concept of pain or existence. To be a human being, you need a central nervous system.
Others suggest that to be human, you need higher-order consciousness. That is why it is acceptable to "pull the plug" on hopelessly brain-damaged patients that have no hope of recovering consciousness, even if the brain stem survives and there is some level of autonomic respiration.
On the other hand, allowing REAL human beings to die by our inaction on studying blastocyst stem cells, I consider that unethical.