Do you believe cloning is ethical?

Javery

Javery

CAGiversary!
Feedback
20 (100%)
I'm all for it yet there seems to be quite a debate going on in religious/political circles of whether or not we should be "allowed" to clone humans. Any thoughts?

EDIT: I mean cloning human cells for medical advancements and/or cloning humans who will grow up and lead normal lives just like you or I...
 
Ethics shouldn't even be put in the same category as cloning. As humans, we are very limited in our ability to perceive. As technology grows, it becomes harder to understand what is happening. If we could prolong physical life, then we should, to better help the species grow.
 
Sure.

Besides, you're only cloning the genetics, and scientists will tell you that even clones are not completely EXACT to the original source. For instance, a clone of a cow may have different spots than the original. And say you cloned yourself -- Yes, your clone will physically be like you, but that's it. The clone will have completely different experiences growing up, and may have a much different personality than you.
 
I don't see why cloning is only thought of as cloning an entire human being. I thought most research in cloning was in the area of cloning organs and that type of thing. Even cloning cells could be beneficial. If you could clone blood cells their would never be a need for blood banks. How about cloning hair cells? Skin cells for burn victims? I don't see much difference in cloning than artificial insemination. Neither is natural. I think most people believe in the sci-fi thought that a full grown human can have a full grown duplicate within a matter of days. The governement probably sees that as some kind of security risk.
 
Well, I had to read Atlas Shrugged seven years ago in college. That article was more interesting than that book and thats about all I'll say.
 
Much too vague of a question. It's like asking if automobiles are ethical. In what sense? Using them to run down random pedestrians? Day to day transpotation? You need some circumstance.

Just throwing out the word cloning is insufficient. A specific application of cloning must be given. For instance, would it be ethically allowable to clone entire immature copies of yourself capable of becoming independent beings to serve as spare part sources as your own organs fail with age?

Now you have entities that may be perceived as victims of another's act and thus an ethical issue.
 
The Fountainhead was a wonderful book, but I feel that Rand comes off as a bit too extreme (I would presume out of over-compensation for the influence of the zany Christian right in this country) in her moralism, and that effect is amplified if anything in her fans (zealots.) This heavy-handed approach is pretty evident in that article.

I wouldn't go so far as to proclaim all cloning as highly moral, for example. I'd say that cloning is like any other aspect of medical and research technology. It is neither inherently good nor evil. Invasive surgery is generally considered a good thing and it undoubtedly saves many lives every day, but unnecessary surgery is commonly acknowledged as an awful thing. Adjectives aside, it's the same thing: surgery. I'm sure cloning could be used for wonderful and terrible applications, similarly. I certainly wouldn't advocate a ban on cloning, any more than I would've wanted to ban the development of surgery. However, legislation to prevent the abuse of either would obviously be necessary.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Much too vague of a question. It's like asking if automobiles are ethical. In what sense? Using them to run down random pedestrians? Day to day transpotation? You need some circumstance.

Just throwing out the word cloning is insufficient. A specific application of cloning must be given. For instance, would it be ethically allowable to clone entire immature copies of yourself capable of becoming independent beings to serve as spare part sources as your own organs fail with age?

Now you have entities that may be perceived as victims of another's act and thus an ethical issue.[/quote]

I think everyone knows what I mean... cloning human cells for medical advancements and/or cloning humans who will grow up and lead normal lives just like you or I...
 
[quote name='epobirs']Just throwing out the word cloning is insufficient. A specific application of cloning must be given. For instance, would it be ethically allowable to clone entire immature copies of yourself capable of becoming independent beings to serve as spare part sources as your own organs fail with age?[/quote]

Ha ha! That's great. A clearly defined question which, of course, would not be acceptable (any more than paying destitute, third-world people for the privilege of harvesting their children's healthy livers, eyes, etc. for the sake of a wealthy person in need, after he's drunken his own liver into a decayed lump, etc.) It's funny because this preposterous suggestion is exactly what Bush used as his objection to cloning (if you read that Rand article quoted earlier.) :lol: That man is such a damned bozo.
 
It better be ethical. I'm fully expecting to get Jmcc v2 up and running by the time I'm 50. I just hope neural transfers are working by then. I don't want to have to teach myself everything I know.

edit: not that I'd let ethics stop me, I just don't want to have repel government and church strike forces trying to stop my work.
 
[quote name='RBM']The Fountainhead was a wonderful book, but I feel that Rand comes off as a bit too extreme (I would presume out of over-compensation for the influence of the zany Christian right in this country) in her moralism, and that effect is amplified if anything in her fans (zealots.) This heavy-handed approach is pretty evident in that article.[/quote]

Rand is not extreme, if you consider yourself an objectivist, as I do. And you have to realize, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the two books of hers that most people have read) were written in 1943 and 1957, respectively.. comparing them to today's Christian Right movement is a bit improper.

I would highly recommend picking up The Virtue of Selfishness, then picking up Philsophy: Who Needs It. If you're still interested, pick up Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology and Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Objectivism truly teaches you alot about this world, our place in it and how it works.

Also, referring to the members of the Objectivist Institute (as I am) as fans isn't really true. Although we may be fans of rand's work, we're more believers of the objectivist philosophy.
 
Officer Barbrady: "Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again."
Click to expand...

He's a wise man.
 
[quote name='jmcc']
Officer Barbrady: "Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again."
Click to expand...

He's a wise man.[/quote]

I hate to use this over-used trite pompous expression... but the majority of people don't understand Atlas Shrugged, you're right.
 
what do you mean in cloning... there is so many aspects... there is so many ways to clone.. are you talking about human cloning, animal cloning, or food cloning.. and what ppart of what... becuase the government has already deemes some ethical and some not.. it is really what you mean...
 
I most certainly think cloning is good and a necessary step forward in the progression of science. But then of course, I AM majoiring in bioengineering, so maybe I am a bit biased. The ethics of the debate seem to stem much more from religious beliefs than any true scientific reasoning, and imho, religion and science should be kept as far apart from each other as possible.
 
[quote name='jmcc']It better be ethical. I'm fully expecting to get Jmcc v2 up and running by the time I'm 50. I just hope neural transfers are working by then. I don't want to have to teach myself everything I know.

edit: not that I'd let ethics stop me, I just don't want to have repel government and church strike forces trying to stop my work.[/quote]

I feel the same way ;).

Think of cloning, like a twin, although they may appear the same, their lives shape who they are.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']I realize most people here probably do not understand objectivism, Ayn Rand, Leonard Piekoff and the others[/quote]

And some of us understand it all too well.

http://www.mathnews.uwaterloo.ca/Issues/mn9203/objectivism.php

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.htm


[quote name='GuilewasNK']Well, I had to read Atlas Shrugged seven years ago in college. That article was more interesting than that book and thats about all I'll say.[/quote]

Not surprising.... the average childrens book is better written.
 
[quote name='Zmonkay']. The ethics of the debate seem to stem much more from religious beliefs than any true scientific reasoning, and imho, religion and science should be kept as far apart from each other as possible.[/quote]


i totally agree. if we are to become a modern nation of equality... religion needs to die off and fast... i fully understand that out Government was set up witht eh intent of equality but religion has always been there... there has alway been the pope controling some portion of the united states...
 
[quote name='RBM'][quote name='epobirs']Just throwing out the word cloning is insufficient. A specific application of cloning must be given. For instance, would it be ethically allowable to clone entire immature copies of yourself capable of becoming independent beings to serve as spare part sources as your own organs fail with age?[/quote]

Ha ha! That's great. A clearly defined question which, of course, would not be acceptable (any more than paying destitute, third-world people for the privilege of harvesting their children's healthy livers, eyes, etc. for the sake of a wealthy person in need, after he's drunken his own liver into a decayed lump, etc.) It's funny because this preposterous suggestion is exactly what Bush used as his objection to cloning (if you read that Rand article quoted earlier.) :lol: That man is such a damned bozo.[/quote]

Not at all. This has been discussed in some circles since the 60's. (For instance, see Larry Niven's 'A Gift From Earth.') It's a variation on abortion but with the added complication of there being direct value to already living persons for preventing the development of a new mind. If you have no problem with abortion, then do you object to destroying the developing mind of your clone so that you can later harvest the parts as needed without feeling that you're killing a person at that point. At what point is it OK to destroy a potential mind? What if you need a working brain to develop the clone body properly? Is it OK to purposely induce severe retardation to avoid creating someone who might be eligible for citizenship and thus cannot be harvested?

And no, this isn't what Bush had to say about cloning. He's largely avoided the issue in that form since it is highly speculative and it would inviting trouble to needlessly enter such an argument. Those issues have been left up to the likes of Leon Kass and other appointees to the comittee formed to do so. Where Bush has spoken is on the sourcing of fetal stem cells. The extent of his action has been to ban federal funding but not the research itself, which is proceeding just fine in the private sector. Certain people have long been too accustomed to holding out their hand to Uncle Sugar and expecting a wad of cash to automatically appear.

The stem cell issue is far removed from the issues underlying cloning to produce new entities. Cell level cloning is hardly worth discussing. It been used in labs on a daily basis since the 70's. You have to move farther out to find a real ethical question. It isn't the cloning of stem cells that is the question but the source of the initial cells to start the line.
 
it just amazes me when people talk about cloning and they automatically jump to human cloning... there is so many good things that could possibly come from it.. the world hunger problem could be fixed. people's lives could be saved because they could get a organ replacement... i am sure a lot of people's minds will change when they are put in a position favoring cloning.
 
[quote name='Theenternal'][quote name='jmcc']It better be ethical. I'm fully expecting to get Jmcc v2 up and running by the time I'm 50. I just hope neural transfers are working by then. I don't want to have to teach myself everything I know.

edit: not that I'd let ethics stop me, I just don't want to have repel government and church strike forces trying to stop my work.[/quote]

I feel the same way ;).

Think of cloning, like a twin, although they may appear the same, their lives shape who they are.[/quote]

No no, I want him to be exactly like me. He can get further life experiences after I transfer all my knowledge and experience. In this way, we will continue on through many generations, compounding interest over and over until we're ready for phase 2 of Project Hyperion.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']Rand is not extreme, if you consider yourself an objectivist, as I do. And you have to realize, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the two books of hers that most people have read) were written in 1943 and 1957, respectively.. comparing them to today's Christian Right movement is a bit improper.[/quote]

Well, rather than delve too deeply into that issue, I'll limit myself to the quoted article. I wouldn't agree that cloning is highly moral. Too much can be read into that statement. I would, however, say that cloning can be put to moral ends and immoral ends, and the pursuit of developing such techniques generally stems from a sincere desire to improve our lives.

[quote name='Zmonkay']The ethics of the debate seem to stem much more from religious beliefs than any true scientific reasoning, and imho, religion and science should be kept as far apart from each other as possible.[/quote]

No, I disagree. A simple and fundamental advantage of cloning is the cirucmvention of immune responses. Sidestepping of the host vs. graft disease which commonly complicates tissue/organ transplants. What if a stoned-out hippie wants to pay to have some cells engineered so that they are genetically compatible to his own body and are capable of secreting THC (the psychoactive agent in marijuana)? Basically, someone who wants a patch of weed grafted right onto him? There are no laws currently on the books against such a thing. Cloning--like anything else which can be abused...which is just about everything--requires legislation and legislation engenders debate.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='RBM']The Fountainhead was a wonderful book, but I feel that Rand comes off as a bit too extreme (I would presume out of over-compensation for the influence of the zany Christian right in this country) in her moralism, and that effect is amplified if anything in her fans (zealots.) This heavy-handed approach is pretty evident in that article.[/quote]

Rand is not extreme, if you consider yourself an objectivist, as I do. And you have to realize, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the two books of hers that most people have read) were written in 1943 and 1957, respectively.. comparing them to today's Christian Right movement is a bit improper.

I would highly recommend picking up The Virtue of Selfishness, then picking up Philsophy: Who Needs It. If you're still interested, pick up Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology and Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Objectivism truly teaches you alot about this world, our place in it and how it works.

Also, referring to the members of the Objectivist Institute (as I am) as fans isn't really true. Although we may be fans of rand's work, we're more believers of the objectivist philosophy.[/quote]

Which is a good thing considering what an utter lunatic Rand her last dacedes as, behaving in perfect cult leader fashion to the extent of forming and dissolving her followers marriages at will.

Also on the subject: http://www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cult.html
 
[quote name='epobirs']And no, this isn't what Bush had to say about cloning. He's largely avoided the issue in that form since it is highly speculative and it would inviting trouble to needlessly enter such an argument. [/quote]

..quoting from the article:
President Bush calls it "growing human beings for spare body parts."

[quote name='epobirs']This has been discussed in some circles since the 60's. (For instance, see Larry Niven's 'A Gift From Earth.')[/quote]

That is a science fiction novel. I'm afraid it's a bit misleading to claim that the issue of cloning "has been discussed in some circles" when referring to science fiction fans chatting over coffee.

[quote name='epobirs']It isn't the cloning of stem cells that is the question but the source of the initial cells to start the line.[/quote]

Yes, I agree that the two are separate issues. The issue regarding the source for cell lines would be solidly rooted in religion, as someone earlier mentioned. A whole separate can of worms.
 
[quote name='killswitch64']Trying to play God is wrong.[/quote]

So we should never use vaccines, life saving methods, medicines or surgery? We should also not have bio-engineered food products that cut the number of starving people worldwide by half? We should just end artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization and any other sort of reproductive therapy?

Man can discover, develop, create and use life-saving devices and technology... there is no reason not to use them. God created mankind, not every man.
 
[quote name='epobirs']If you have no problem with abortion, then do you object to destroying the developing mind of your clone so that you can later harvest the parts as needed without feeling that you're killing a person at that point. At what point is it OK to destroy a potential mind?[/quote]

Every time I jack off in the shower I'm destroying a potential mind - should President Bush enact some legislation prohibiting my happy time? :D

[quote name='epobirs']What if you need a working brain to develop the clone body properly? Is it OK to purposely induce severe retardation to avoid creating someone who might be eligible for citizenship and thus cannot be harvested?[/quote]

Of course not. No one is suggesting that. Through stem-cell research there is speculation that one day specific organs will be able to be grown for those in need. I also don't see what retardation and citizenship have to do with each other - last I checked retards are still citizens.
 
[quote name='charcoalfeather']it just amazes me when people talk about cloning and they automatically jump to human cloning... there is so many good things that could possibly come from it.. the world hunger problem could be fixed. people's lives could be saved because they could get a organ replacement... i am sure a lot of people's minds will change when they are put in a position favoring cloning.[/quote]

The world hunger problem has not been one of agricultural technology for several decades. The US alone produces enough food to feed the entire planet's population. If you examine the bloody history of the 20th Century, most incidents of mass starvation were the direct result of insane government policies, most notably in the USSR and Red China.

Talking about organ replacement is all well and good but cloning only removes the rejection issue. It doesn't negate the fact that the only means we currently know of to produce a matching human kidney is in a matching human body. There are researchers working quite hard on creating individual organs for replacement but their current best is patches of cartilige to rebuild ears and other structures. Major organs like hearts present immensely greater difficulties. (This was a subplot in the aforementioned 'A Gift From Earth.') I keep an especially close eye on this because I havea neice who has a semi-normal life thanks to having her missing esophagus (birth defect) created from a section of intestine. This is a compromise at best and has a high cancer rate. The chances are much greater in her lifetime of her receiving a custom grown esophagus from her own tissues than anybody currently living and in need of getting a vat grown kidney or heart. The difference in complexity is that great.

The only currently effective factories for major organs for replacement in humans is other humans. If the other human cannot live without that organ this gets to be a problem. It's one thing for parents to conceive another child in hopes of it being a bone marrow donor for its ailing older sibling. This has little detriment on the new child regardless of the success or failure of the procedure. Donating bone marrow is a bit painful and uncomfortable but just a step up from blood donation. You grow it right back and a month later all you have to show for it is a memory and hopefully the satisafaction of being able to help. It's another thing entirely to create a new person with the sole intent of killing them for another's benefit.

Thus cloning is not a meaningful term at the moment, since it only properly refers to cellular processes. The real issues revolve around the product of that process and whether it is something deserving of consideration. If you can manage to create a machine that grows headless bodies to maturation as organ factories, then swell. Some people will be seriously freaked but most will want the benefits. But the likelihood of such a machine existing any year soon is very, very low. Meanwhile, the capability to create a true infant copy of an existing human is quite close.
 
Cloning and genetic manipulation worry me for one big reason... you have a person, or a group of people tinkering around in a very complex interdependant system. Right now, groups of talented, well studied people can't even program simple computer operating systems without inadvertantly introducing weaknesses and faults.

In a computer, this is no big deal, as you just reboot the machine, patch it up and go on your merry way.

But what if this happens in a human being?
You could introduces massive genetic weakness that would lie dormant for generations before triggering, or aid in the mutation of a virus to a point that it could act as a potential world killer.
 
What ethical problem could anyone (who does not rely on ancient religious texts to determine 'right' and 'wrong') have with cloning cells?
 
It'd be dumb to clone a person, do you have an idea how much that would cost ? I'm sure someday it will happen, but your going to have to wait a long time. No one is going to sit silently while they try to clone a person. It takes alot of tries before you get a good clone. I think there would be a major uproar (UN Style) if someone was making half ass human clones that had to be killed to stop their suffering.

You have to realise making clones costs major bucks. No one is going to clone chickens or most other farm animals.

The pharmaceutical companies don't want to clone people, they want to clone parts. Do you have any idea how much an artifical heart costs ? Imagine instead of an artifical heart you could get a real one. How much would you or your insurance pay for that ?

Oh and yes I don't see a problem with the cloning of parts, I do have a problem with the cloning of people. But I know the price to clone a person will keep that from ever being an issue.

We in the US had better be more willing to accept science, otherwise the other nations in the world will do these advances and the US will be screwed into paying insane fees to use their discoveries.
 
JSweeney, your concerns regarding the consequences of tinkering is both legitimate and yet irrational. Tinkering occurs when someone pokes around with something he does not completely understand. What you are doing, in essence, is pointing at the scientific community and saying,"Living organisms are so complex you can not possibly understand them completely (or at least do not do so at this point.) Therefore, you can not predict any and all consequences of your modifications to those systems! Thus, you can not guarantee that disaster will not result from what you are doing."

The trouble is, all you are doing is coming up with "what if" scennarios. To discard a practically beneficial idea for the sake of a groundless "what if" is completely irrational. Dreaming up doomsday scenarioes is easy. It's a good thing Stephen King didn't publish his story about sentient cars taking over a small town in the midwest (forgotten what that was called) just as the automobile was being invented, or Lord knows where that could have led. "What if" scenarioes are too silly to consider unless you can offer some reason to believe that any given scenario is more than just a "what if."
 
[quote name='KingDox']Oh and yes I don't see a problem with the cloning of parts, I do have a problem with the cloning of people. But I know the price to clone a person will keep that from ever being an issue. [/quote]

I'd say that legal issues would be more relevant than price. You can't kill a human being or harvest tissue from one without consent. Everybody knows that. If you have a twin, he's may be genetically identical to you, but that doesn't mean you can kill him at will. If you paid to have him engineered and birthed by a surrogate, he isn't property when he's born. Why people even entertain such crazy notions really puzzles me. And they keep coming back to the same implausible scenario over and over again.

"Yeah, but say I paid to have me a clone of myself made, see, and then I paid for his upkeep and everything down at the lab, even though he'd be brain-dead, see? And one day I get into a car accident, see? And I need some organs from him.."

"Well, he'd still be a human being, right? And you couldn't harvest an organ from any brain-dead patient in any hospital regardless of who's paying his bill, right? So, what were you going to say?"
 
JSweeney, your concerns regarding the consequences of tinkering is both legitimate and yet irrational.

Actually, it depends to which level you suggest sanctions be placed on due to your concerns. If you suggest that all genetic research be halted because of the possible reprocussions, yes, that would be irrational.
But to suggest that people go through due diligence and make sure that they are conducting thier research and expermiments in a profession and rigorous manner is not irrational in the least.

Tinkering occurs when someone pokes around with something he does not completely understand.

I believe the human genome would easily qualify as one of those things.
Even the most repuatable scholar in the field would not know all of the reprocussions that would flow from the alteration of even one strand of an individual's DNA.


What you are doing, in essence, is pointing at the scientific community and saying,"Living organisms are so complex you can not possibly understand them completely (or at least do not do so at this point.) Therefore, you can not predict any and all consequences of your modifications to those systems! Thus, you can not guarantee that disaster will not result from what you are doing."

Well, they can't. That is why they move forth so slowly, and make sure that they are conducting thier experiments with the appriate amount of rigor and following the scientific method to the word.


The trouble is, all you are doing is coming up with "what if" scennarios.
The thing is, they are reasonable "what if" scenarios. The aren't completely ridiculous.. Those few reasons in themselves are enough that anyone studying the manipulation of genes will have the same concerns in the back of their mind.


To discard a practically beneficial idea for the sake of a groundless "what if" is completely irrational.

You've been the only person to mention "discarding" the idea.
To just discard the potential that genetic manipulation holds is ridiculous.
But to just charge into it with reckless abandon without concideration of the possible consequences is just as foolish.


Dreaming up doomsday scenarioes is easy.
It's a good thing Stephen King didn't publish his story about sentient cars taking over a small town in the midwest (forgotten what that was called) just as the automobile was being invented, or Lord knows where that could have led.

That's not a good example. Gene therapy has been talked about in popular science fiction for decades now. Doomsday scenarios have been thrown around on both sides. That hardly seems to be detering the study of genetic manipulation. Ethics actually seems to be much more of an issue now.



"What if" scenarioes are too silly to consider unless you can offer some reason to believe that any given scenario is more than just a "what if."

Look at any scientic journal when they have a discussion about genetic manipulation. There are plenty of positives and negatives discussed in the papers. I hardly think those are peopel espousing "doomsday scenarios", and thier opinions go much further than anything I've stated.
 
Cloning is very difficult to put down, ethically, logically, and logistically.

Ethically, you're talking about all the issues previously mentioned:

growing a twin for spares
bypassing immune functions
religous concerns
health concerns

Logically, you're talking about issues which would be of greatest importance aside from the ethical:

why research is done
where should it be done

Logistically, you're looking at issues which govern how to proceed regarding research and ethics:

how to clone
where to clone
what to clone
when to clone

Personally, I'm all for organ cloning but not at the expense of creating grotesque full spare bodies w/ no head. Full fledged body cloning, be it animal or human, is something I hesitate to endorse because I'm unsure of the ethical issues. To create one full functioning clone, a lot of bad copies must be made from one batch so in essence you're tweaking a potential living creature every time you try to create a perfect copy. And even so, creating a clone is not 'perfect', the DNA will start to degrade after so many copies are made due to telomere entropy. It's like making a VHS copy of a copy. The quality degrades over time due to small imperfections that, human eye unseen, make it in the next copy.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Look at any scientic journal when they have a discussion about genetic manipulation. There are plenty of positives and negatives discussed in the papers. I hardly think those are peopel espousing "doomsday scenarios", and thier opinions go much further than anything I've stated.[/quote]

If I read your response correctly, you do not in fact have objections to the development of cloning or gene therapy techniques (not sure how gene therapy got dragged into this, actually). Rather, your original post was meant to say something akin to "they should proceed carefully and keep in mind that bad consequences could arise from this line of research." Well, one could hardly argue with that. I suppose that sort of sentiment goes without saying for any type of research, really.

Naturally the people actually developing new fields keep an eye on potential hazards and repercussions as they go along. If you're talking about scientific circles, then I'd say that very little merit is placed upon what-if's, as opposed to well-founded arguments for or against innovations that come along. If you're talking about the general public--which is where I thought this whole discussion was centered--then I'd say that a whole lot of wild what-if scenarioes take center stage. I'd expect to see:

"You could introduces massive genetic weakness that would lie dormant for generations before triggering, or aid in the mutation of a virus to a point that it could act as a potential world killer."

....in a metro paper more than I'd expect to see it in a scientific journal. I labeled them doomsday scenarios because I'd consider that the sort of statement to sway the average Joe against supporting such ventures, as opposed to something you'd hear at a scientific convention between talks.
 
If I read your response correctly, you do not in fact have objections to the development of cloning or gene therapy techniques (not sure how gene therapy got dragged into this, actually). Rather, your original post was meant to say something akin to "they should proceed carefully and keep in mind that bad consequences could arise from this line of research." Well, one could hardly argue with that. I suppose that sort of sentiment goes without saying for any type of research, really.

Naturally the people actually developing new fields keep an eye on potential hazards and repercussions as they go along. If you're talking about scientific circles, then I'd say that very little merit is placed upon what-if's, as opposed to well-founded arguments for or against innovations that come along. If you're talking about the general public--which is where I thought this whole discussion was centered--then I'd say that a whole lot of wild what-if scenarioes take center stage. I'd expect to see:

"You could introduces massive genetic weakness that would lie dormant for generations before triggering, or aid in the mutation of a virus to a point that it could act as a potential world killer."

....in a metro paper more than I'd expect to see it in a scientific journal. I labeled them doomsday scenarios because I'd consider that the sort of statement to sway the average Joe against supporting such ventures, as opposed to something you'd hear at a scientific convention between talks

That's probably where the difference of opinion sprung from. I wasn't really thinking in regards to the general public, which you were.
While I agree you'd be more likely to see "what ifs" in a metro paper than a scientific journal, if it were in a metro paper, I have a feeling that the what if would be written as much more of a certainty that something suggesting a possibility... in that case I would think they would place in out there more as a likelyhood.
 
[quote name='RBM'][quote name='KingDox']Oh and yes I don't see a problem with the cloning of parts, I do have a problem with the cloning of people. But I know the price to clone a person will keep that from ever being an issue. [/quote]

I'd say that legal issues would be more relevant than price. You can't kill a human being or harvest tissue from one without consent. Everybody knows that. If you have a twin, he's may be genetically identical to you, but that doesn't mean you can kill him at will. If you paid to have him engineered and birthed by a surrogate, he isn't property when he's born. Why people even entertain such crazy notions really puzzles me. And they keep coming back to the same implausible scenario over and over again.

"Yeah, but say I paid to have me a clone of myself made, see, and then I paid for his upkeep and everything down at the lab, even though he'd be brain-dead, see? And one day I get into a car accident, see? And I need some organs from him.."

"Well, he'd still be a human being, right? And you couldn't harvest an organ from any brain-dead patient in any hospital regardless of who's paying his bill, right? So, what were you going to say?"[/quote]

When I said growing parts I meant as in tissue engineering. Kinda like how we were able to pull this off.

f-rat.jpg


I've heard of the idea of growing people without heads and using them as parts. I don't like that idea. But I meant cloning as to grow a liver and only a liver in a dish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top