Less physical waste, yes, probably. But, look at the type of waste it produces. Radioactive nastiness that has to be wrapped in lead and buried deep within the earth, at least at the moment, with threats of accidental radioactive seepage into groundwater and plant life. (see WIPP, a project in southern New Mexico for radioactive wastes produced from the manufacture of nuclear weapons, to see what I mean) We're still trying to figure out what to do with the material from the past decades of nuclear power usage, and now we want to build dozens more reactors? I think we're jumping the gun a little here. Let's let the scientists, who, granted, know a hell of a lot more about it than I ever will, figure out what to do with the end product before we start junking up our childrens' planet.
Okay, so, Brazil gives IP rights the finger, steals the AIDS drug, and saves 40% of its money, correct? Controversy aside (I think what they're doing is wrong and an agreement should have been reached, but that's not my question), what happens to that 40%? If Brazil is as 'humanitarian' as I suppose it is trying to be with this patent violation, the money would go to health (and general) education, condom distribution, and further research into better AIDS medication. That would be an ideal world. My bet is that it goes to something completely non-related. Like, oh, upgrading the official car fleet, or redecorating the AIDS office headquarters. I want to know if Brazil is doing this to really help people, or just save a buck and get its name in the paper.
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but cloning seems to have 2 main reasonings behind it
1) back up organ production and,
2) children for infertile couples.
For case number 1, could they not perhaps focus their attentions on less ethically-questionable tissue culture methods, and if they ever resolve the stem cell debate I'm sure they could make some wonderful break-throughs there.
It's really 2 I'm wondering about. For years I've been hearing about all these fabulous technological improvements allowing infertile couples to have children of their very own. To me, this is silly. I'm adopted, my birth parents were younger than I am now, and my adopted parents could not have children, for no reason the doctors were ever able to discover. So, they went to the adoption agency, went through rigorous screening, and were able to adopt cute little ol' me. This is an option open to anyone. And, as the various international outreach groups point out, there are thousands of children in this world that would probably kill for a chance to have a family that loves them that much, and can obviously afford to take care of them if they can spend that much on all the infertility clinics. To me, infertility is nature's way of weeding out the species. If you can't reproduce, nature probably thinks you shouldn't. Nothing personal, no harm meant, but your genetic makeup is no longer needed in the genome. This system has been working for millenia, why mess with it? Oh, wait, we're humans, we're above nature... sorry, I forgot... Question, though, wouldn't a complete genetic clone have the exact same infertility problems as the parent or original? Why not just adopt, and give a child a chance it would otherwise not have. Would you love that child any less because it is not, in a genetic sense, 'yours'? I know my parents love me, I am their daughter, blood relation be damned. So, rather than add another, possibly 'flawed' individual to an already overcrowded planet, why not take in another, already living, fellow inhabitant, and make their world a better place?
Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, I must have missed it, but even if this patent holds in the US (which I doubt, and hope it doesn't, as I'm one of those who believes you should only be able to patent your own creations, and I don't think those scientists were around when stem cells were created (if they were, I think we'd have more important things to discuss than patent regulations!)) Anyway, even if the patent does hold for the US, what's to stop other countries from ignoring the patent? This has been brewing for a while, but Brazil has decided to go through on its threat to ignore a Swiss patent on AIDS medication, and produce it itself (see here). This just proves my point, a patent is, in truth, nothing more than something someone wrote down in a book (or in a computer file somewhere). It's not a physical block to anyone who, with more scientic sense than respect for a piece of paper, decides to use it. Especially in areas of questionable jurisdiction. So, if the patent holds, we might find a good portion of our scientists heading south of the border.
Slashdot Mirror
Less physical waste, yes, probably. But, look at the type of waste it produces. Radioactive nastiness that has to be wrapped in lead and buried deep within the earth, at least at the moment, with threats of accidental radioactive seepage into groundwater and plant life. (see WIPP, a project in southern New Mexico for radioactive wastes produced from the manufacture of nuclear weapons, to see what I mean) We're still trying to figure out what to do with the material from the past decades of nuclear power usage, and now we want to build dozens more reactors? I think we're jumping the gun a little here. Let's let the scientists, who, granted, know a hell of a lot more about it than I ever will, figure out what to do with the end product before we start junking up our childrens' planet.
Okay, so, Brazil gives IP rights the finger, steals the AIDS drug, and saves 40% of its money, correct? Controversy aside (I think what they're doing is wrong and an agreement should have been reached, but that's not my question), what happens to that 40%? If Brazil is as 'humanitarian' as I suppose it is trying to be with this patent violation, the money would go to health (and general) education, condom distribution, and further research into better AIDS medication. That would be an ideal world. My bet is that it goes to something completely non-related. Like, oh, upgrading the official car fleet, or redecorating the AIDS office headquarters. I want to know if Brazil is doing this to really help people, or just save a buck and get its name in the paper.
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but cloning seems to have 2 main reasonings behind it
1) back up organ production and,
2) children for infertile couples.
For case number 1, could they not perhaps focus their attentions on less ethically-questionable tissue culture methods, and if they ever resolve the stem cell debate I'm sure they could make some wonderful break-throughs there.
It's really 2 I'm wondering about. For years I've been hearing about all these fabulous technological improvements allowing infertile couples to have children of their very own. To me, this is silly. I'm adopted, my birth parents were younger than I am now, and my adopted parents could not have children, for no reason the doctors were ever able to discover. So, they went to the adoption agency, went through rigorous screening, and were able to adopt cute little ol' me. This is an option open to anyone. And, as the various international outreach groups point out, there are thousands of children in this world that would probably kill for a chance to have a family that loves them that much, and can obviously afford to take care of them if they can spend that much on all the infertility clinics. To me, infertility is nature's way of weeding out the species. If you can't reproduce, nature probably thinks you shouldn't. Nothing personal, no harm meant, but your genetic makeup is no longer needed in the genome. This system has been working for millenia, why mess with it? Oh, wait, we're humans, we're above nature... sorry, I forgot... Question, though, wouldn't a complete genetic clone have the exact same infertility problems as the parent or original? Why not just adopt, and give a child a chance it would otherwise not have. Would you love that child any less because it is not, in a genetic sense, 'yours'? I know my parents love me, I am their daughter, blood relation be damned. So, rather than add another, possibly 'flawed' individual to an already overcrowded planet, why not take in another, already living, fellow inhabitant, and make their world a better place?
Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, I must have missed it, but even if this patent holds in the US (which I doubt, and hope it doesn't, as I'm one of those who believes you should only be able to patent your own creations, and I don't think those scientists were around when stem cells were created (if they were, I think we'd have more important things to discuss than patent regulations!)) Anyway, even if the patent does hold for the US, what's to stop other countries from ignoring the patent? This has been brewing for a while, but Brazil has decided to go through on its threat to ignore a Swiss patent on AIDS medication, and produce it itself (see here). This just proves my point, a patent is, in truth, nothing more than something someone wrote down in a book (or in a computer file somewhere). It's not a physical block to anyone who, with more scientic sense than respect for a piece of paper, decides to use it. Especially in areas of questionable jurisdiction. So, if the patent holds, we might find a good portion of our scientists heading south of the border.