So a human embryo has been cloned. [Archive]

Clayface

11-26-2001, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Oracle
Personally, this freaks me out. Cloning humans just seems too creepy for me, but I don't doubt that this could happen in the next few years.

Technically, this already has happened - it was a human embryo - we've cloned a human. We just didn't let it develop from there.

Originally posted by Jowy Blight

I don't think I'd ever want a clone of myself, so why do these people want one?

I'll let the scientist himself answer this one:

The president of Advanced Cell Technology Inc., of Worcester, Massachusetts, told CNN the process is not intended for human reproduction and he wouldn't want to see the science move in that direction.

"I don't think this is safe yet for human reproduction," said Dr. Michael West, president and CEO of the company. He said there is a risk of losing both the embryo and the mother through cloning. West also stressed that he doesn't support cloning procedures to create human beings.

His goal, he said, is to create human embryos through cloning and extract stem cells -- master, blank cells that can transform themselves -- with the goal of using them to treat a variety of ailments.

"There are people out there, people we all care for, who are suffering and dying and need therapies now," West said.

Clayface

11-26-2001, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by flhero311
See Alien Ressurection and the Ripley clones. THAT'S probably what we'll end up with. Playing God will come back to get these guys, I hate to say...

I've never really bought the whole "playing god" argment. That might be because I don't necessarily believe in a god. But, even so, there's just no evidence that this will come back to haunt us. Can advances in science hurt humankind as a whole? Of course - just look at things like the atom bomb - not one of our prouder accomplishments in my opinion. But that doesn't make all science bad. The first surgeons were warned that they were being sacreligious and "playing god" and that no good would come of it - and look at what medical science does for us now - its extended our average lifespan considerably, and made our lives easier in many ways.

Trent Lane

11-26-2001, 01:59 PM

For whatever reason they have, I still don't believe that it's a thing we need to do. Why clone people? And don't give me that "they could be used as organ donors" excuse. You don't create a life just to pick parts out of it. No logical excuse/reason has been brought to my attention for its need, either that or I'm just not reading them...

Clayface

11-26-2001, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by flhero311
For whatever reason they have, I still don't believe that it's a thing we need to do. Why clone people? And don't give me that "they could be used as organ donors" excuse. You don't create a life just to pick parts out of it. No logical excuse/reason has been brought to my attention for its need, either that or I'm just not reading them...

See, that seems to be the big misconception - that scientists are looking to just clone people randomly. That's not it! I haven't heard of any company that's interested in just cloning a whole person for no specific reason. All the cloning that has been done has been done along the lines of the work that Dr. West cites.

And actually, we do often create life to pick parts out of it. Do you ever eat steak? A chicken breast? Some bacon? Worn a leather jacket? Those were all lives created and taken for the parts. I'm not arguing that this is morally correct - I'm just arguing that its already happening, and to use that as the main excuse against cloning means you've got to argue against a lot of other common practices today.

Trent Lane

11-26-2001, 02:32 PM

I understand where you're coming from, point well taken. And yeah, I happily eat big hunks of meat and wear stuff made from leather. But I don't see it as right to give a person life just because you need a kidney and a liver or something. I'm not arguing with you, Clayface, or anyone else for that matter, I'm just giving you my opinion. Good to have these little debates, though :p

Clayface

11-26-2001, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by flhero311
...I don't see it as right to give a person life just because you need a kidney and a liver or something.

Oh, I agree. I mean, if we started cloning full human beings and then taking their lives to harvest kidneys and like, I'd be completely against that. We're no better than Hitler if we're going to do that, IMO. But again, this may be another common misconception about cloning - that human cloning is about cloning a specific individual for use as parts. I don't think there's anyone out there (in the scientific commuity or the general public) that would agree with that sort of practice.

But imagine that because of advances in human cloning, we could grow say, a heart for someone that needed heart-replacement surgery. Or, say someone lost a part of their brain because of a cancer tumor - maybe we could grow that part of the brain back for them, so that they won't spend the rest of their life crippled on one side of their body. There are just so many positive aspects that can come out of human cloning advancements. It just seems so silly to me when people say they're scared of it, or that its an evil thing.

People seem to feel that the term "human cloning" means we're going to start producing full human beings out of test tubes. But that's not really it. What Advance Cell did was in fact human cloning. So many misconceptions and misunderstandings about it all - this is why scientists get aggrevated with media - they just don't present the reality of things very well.

Maxie Zeus

11-26-2001, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Clayface
And actually, we do often create life to pick parts out of it. Do you ever eat steak? A chicken breast? Some bacon? Worn a leather jacket? Those were all lives created and taken for the parts. I'm not arguing that this is morally correct - I'm just arguing that its already happening, and to use that as the main excuse against cloning means you've got to argue against a lot of other common practices today.

What exactly is the argument here? That there is no moral difference between creating and killing a human being for its liver, and creating and killing a chicken for its? If there is no moral difference, then we must conclude one of two things: (a) the raising and killing of another human is not immoral because the raising and killing of a chicken is not immoral, or (b) the raising and killing of a chicken is immoral because the murder of a human being is.

The first alternative, I hope, is plainly absurd. Something like the second is often used as an argument for vegetarianism. But you need to be careful. If the argument is that "taking life is wrong" then vegetarianism is plainly wrong, for it involves the slaughter of countless plants.

Obviously, a distinction must be drawn between killing that is legitimate (that which goes into the making of even yogurt and carrot sticks) and that which is not. Different philosophies draw the line in different places: Between plant and animal, between life that is conscious and life that is not, between "higher" forms of consciousness and "lower" forms, between human and non-human, etc. But most (thought not all, to be truthful) put the physical exploitation of human beings on the "wrong" side of the ledger.

Clayface

11-26-2001, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Obviously, a distinction must be drawn between killing that is legitimate (that which goes into the making of even yogurt and carrot sticks) and that which is not. Different philosophies draw the line in different places: Between plant and animal, between life that is conscious and life that is not, between "higher" forms of consciousness and "lower" forms, between human and non-human, etc.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. My point was to show that the statement "You don't create a life just to pick parts out of it" isn't necessarily true. That in fact, we do do just that.

And as I said, I am not at all arguing for or against the moral "correctness" of this practice - precisely because it is such a complicated issue, as you've pointed out much more elloquently than I ever could.

But most (thought not all, to be truthful) put the physical exploitation of human beings on the "wrong" side of the ledger.

Agreed. And as I said in my previous post, I doubt you'll find anyone out there that is looking to use human cloning specifically to create a full human being just to take its life and its organs. This is not what "human cloning" is about.

Maxie Zeus

11-26-2001, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

And as I said in my previous post, I doubt you'll find anyone out there that is looking to use human cloning specifically to create a full human being just to take its life and its organs. This is not what "human cloning" is about.

I think the fear that this will happen is behind much of the repugnance. (At least, that is so in my case.) After all, what exactly is the point of making a clone? To the extent that a clone is treated as simply another human being (albeit one with an unusual origin) then there is no worry about its being mistreated. But then, why go to the bother and hassle of making someone with this origin unless you needed something with that origin--something with that unique genetic signature? On the other hand, if you do need something with that unique genetic signature so that you go to the bother of making it, it suggests (ominously) that you intend to use for some purpose.

Calhoun07

11-26-2001, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Karkull
I don't mind. Do you think that God would have let us figure this out if no good could come from it?

God has allowed for things because there is free will. Man asserted free will in the garden long ago when they chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. Just because God put the tree there and gave man the knowlege to pick that tree doesn't mean it was God's will man do that. It was man's will asserted over God's. I'd be careful about thinking just because we can figure things out God's happy about it. God also gave us minds to figure out some pretty devious things, and he gave people the mind to dream up the Tower of Bable, which He did put a stop to.

So, now my question is this....Did God intervening in the Tower of Bable negate the concept of free will?

Calhoun07

11-26-2001, 04:25 PM

I have a question about all of this....

Who would the scientists clone? Would they keep a clone of you in stand by in case something went wrong with you? Take out your bad heart and replace it with your very own heart from a younger but cloned version of you? I don't think they would just clone people willy nilly, picking whomever they pleased. I get the feeling there would have to be consent forms signed for this kind of thing, and all sorts of leagal hassels that would have to be cleared up first. So if a person gets cloned, it's that person's business for consenting to it. Whether I agree with the practice or not, if a person consents to it, the issues of immoral and moral views are miminized. Not eliminated, mind you, but it casts the concept in a different light.

Clayface

11-26-2001, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by calhoun07
I have a question about all of this....

Who would the scientists clone? Would they keep a clone of you in stand by in case something went wrong with you? Take out your bad heart and replace it with your very own heart from a younger but cloned version of you?

An even better question is - do you even need to clone a whole person to reap the ebenfits of human cloning? Everyone always assumes that in order to grow you a new heart, they have to clone all of you. But it may be possible to clone just the heart - thus negating the whole debate. They've grown a full-sized human ear on the back of a mouse - where it could be surgically removed without any harm to the mouse itself. What's to say they can't use human cloning techniques to grow just a specific part such as a heart without having to make a full clone? That's my thing with the whole debate - people assume that you can't reap the benefits of cloning without cloning an entire human. But, from what I've seen, scientists aren't interested in cloning the entire human, because, as Maxie has pointed out, there's not really a need to.

Now cloning an entire animal is a different story. For example, if we can perfect cloning techniques, we may be able to bring back entire species of creatures we've wiped out.

Clayface

11-26-2001, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

I think the fear that this will happen is behind much of the repugnance. (At least, that is so in my case.)

I agree. And I think a good question here is, is that fear even founded? Why would anyone bother to do it? As you've pointed out, there's little reason to do it, and, as far as I've seen, no interest in the scientific community to do such a thing. People have a fear, but is it a rational fear to have? The issue keeps coming up, but it seems to be founded on things people have seen in sci-fi movies, rather than based on what's really being done in the scientific community.

Calhoun07

11-26-2001, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

An even better question is - do you even need to clone a whole person to reap the ebenfits of human cloning? Everyone always assumes that in order to grow you a new heart, they have to clone all of you. But it may be possible to clone just the heart - thus negating the whole debate. They've grown a full-sized human ear on the back of a mouse - where it could be surgically removed without any harm to the mouse itself. What's to say they can't use human cloning techniques to grow just a specific part such as a heart without having to make a full clone? That's my thing with the whole debate - people assume that you can't reap the benefits of cloning without cloning an entire human. But, from what I've seen, scientists aren't interested in cloning the entire human, because, as Maxie has pointed out, there's not really a need to.

Now cloning an entire animal is a different story. For example, if we can perfect cloning techniques, we may be able to bring back entire species of creatures we've wiped out.

If they could clone a individual vital organ apart from the body, the benefits of this technique would be immeasureable. Doctors could make you a new liver or whatever from your DNA and you'd have the organs of when you were in the prime of your health with little or no worry of the organs rejecting you becuase they are your own. And who could argue the morality of that kind of breakthru?

They've been talking about bringing back the wolly mammoth for as long as I can remember.

optimal321

11-26-2001, 05:28 PM

Well, i'll admit that i lack a bit of information to fully justify my opinion, but here's what i think:

I don't have a problem w/ what they're doing right now. I think it's great if scientists can clone an organ needed for a patient's survival. I run into problems if they ever clone an entire human, which i don't think they'd do.

My one problem w/ cloning is looking into the future a bit. If cloning goes as planned, and it can save a person from almost anything, what's going to kill us? I mean, no one's going to die. If i got in a car accident, and my kid was in vital need of a heart transplant, i am going to thank God for any way that my kid won't have to die. But, then how is anything going to die? If humans are over-populated now, what's going to happen when this is common practice?

And i don't know, maybe someone used this same argument when the first heart-transplant took place. Obviously there are a lot of things that need to be considered here. I'm just glad that i'm not going to have to make them.

Trent Lane

11-26-2001, 06:02 PM

Glad I voted for George W. He's going to try to stop this cloning stuff. Man, I'm really glad Gore didn't win...

Karkull

11-26-2001, 06:04 PM

Yeah, thanks to Dubya we don't need to clone our mutants. After all, with all the nuclear plants that he and Dick Cheney want to build we'll be able to create our own mutants without resorting to "evil" genetic engineering.

:D

Trent Lane

11-26-2001, 06:20 PM

Hey, beats the clan of "Gorbots" we would've gotten with the alternative. Don't bash Bush too much, I believe he's done more in less than a year than Clinton did in eight... and I'm talking about REAL work, not "fooling around".....

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled topic... :p

Maxie Zeus

11-26-2001, 06:29 PM

Hey, can we keep the politics out of this? Cloning is a vexed enough topic without bringing partisanship in.

Clayface

11-26-2001, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Hey, can we keep the politics out of this? Cloning is a vexed enough topic without bringing partisanship in.

And how! Besides, you really don't want to get me started on G.W.'s cloning views.... ;)

Maxie Zeus

11-26-2001, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

I agree. And I think a good question here is, is that fear even founded? Why would anyone bother to do it? As you've pointed out, there's little reason to do it, and, as far as I've seen, no interest in the scientific community to do such a thing. People have a fear, but is it a rational fear to have? The issue keeps coming up, but it seems to be founded on things people have seen in sci-fi movies, rather than based on what's really being done in the scientific community.

I would have been more accurate if I had said "there is no GOOD reason" to clone an entire person. There are bad reasons.

1. Organ banks: Fortunately, it looks as though that will not be an issue, if the technique can be localized simply to reproduce organs.

2. Replacement: It has been suggested that parents who lose a child could "replace" it by creating a clone from its remains.

3. Reproductive "immortality": People may create genetic "duplicates" of themselves as offspring, so that they in some genetic form survive their death.

4. "Resurrection" of cult figures: Religious or ideological cults that revolve around charismatic personalities can try to recreate that leader.

All four of these, to one extent or another, depend upon the exploitation of the clone, either physically (as in the first case) or psychologically (as in the last three). Since the first seems like it will turn into a non-issue, look at the last three.

All of them depend upon the hope that a clone can in some way come to replace the original, to become that person. It is, of course, an absurd hope, because social and personal histories shape the person. I'm sorry, but if you cloned Abraham Lincoln his genetic double would not grow up to become the 16th President and free the slaves. It is equally clear that there is little chance that the clone would have anything like the same outlook, psychology or personality, as the original's was forged in a time and circumstance very unlike our own.

But the people who would engage in such cloning would be unlikely to appreciate the difference; after all, the whole point of the exercise would be to recreate some dead person in the present.

You don't need a clone to see the cruel and debilitating effects this can have on a person--parents who try to force a younger sibling to live up to the example of an older one (whether dead or not) are doing something quite unspeakable, and the pressure of doing that to a clone would be even worse, for of course the parents would tempted to believe that because the clone is a genetic duplicate he or she "ought" to be identical to the original. Insofar as the parents resisted that temptation, they would be able to treat the clone as its own unique and distinct individual. But then, parents who are willing to treat a new child this way wouldn't be in the market for a clone, but simply for a child.

I can see nothing intrinsically immoral about the act of cloning, or in the existence of cloned human beings. But I can see plenty of opportunity for mischief and cruelty in the way other people come to treat them, and without any off-setting advantages. That, I think, is sufficient reason to ban the cloning of entire human beings.

Clayface

11-26-2001, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

I can see nothing intrinsically immoral about the act of cloning, or in the existence of cloned human beings. But I can see plenty of opportunity for mischief and cruelty in the way other people come to treat them, and without any off-setting advantages. That, I think, is sufficient reason to ban the cloning of entire human beings.

Certainly, there are opportunities for misuse. Unfortunately, this is a risk with any and all scientific advancement - and something that every scientist faces in his daily work.

Does that mean we should stop all scientific study because of the possible misuses? I don't think so. I don't think, as a species, we'll ever get anywhere with that sort of attitude.

What are the immediate benefits of cloning an entire human being? You got me. Granted, I don't know if there are any good reasons to do it. And, because of this, I don't think there's any need to go about doing it at this point.

But do I think it should be banned all together? Not at all. Just because we don't see the advantage now doesn't mean there isn't one. A lot of science is done just for science's sake - to see if it can be done. And, as a result, we discover along the way what, if any, benefits exist. By not exploring it, we'll never push the envelope, and we'll never learn what there might be to gain.

The Mad Hatter

11-26-2001, 11:04 PM

I honestly think that this particular cloning issue, i.e. using cloning to replace damaged body parts, mirrors the abortion debate closely in that the crux of the problem is the definition of the beginning of life.

So, clone an embryo which divides into 8 cells or so. Stop the process, and take a cell to extract some of the stem cells. (Stem cells are the basic, bare bones cells that genetically have the potential to become any kind of specialized cell, say for bone or muscle or for organs. That's why even one embryo cell is valuable... it can be used to replicate potentially any body part.) make the stem cell grow into, say, just a heart.

If one believes that life begins at conception, what does this mean? Is this heart a person unto itself? Or has this person been stunted and broken just to form the organ? And that's only assuming you believe life starts at conception... was it ever a person to begin with?

By the way, I think the announcement was a little premature. True, cloning was done in a technical sense... but only a couple of single-celled organisms survived, and all of them died before they reached the eight-cell mark. I'd hardly call that a success... it seems like more scientific grandstanding; the attempt to claim the credit for doing it first.

Karkull

11-26-2001, 11:14 PM

As for any "clones" that are developed I have to agree with Maxie Zeus: that the individual is built by the personal experiences of the individual. Sure, we could clone Hitler, but would that clone go on to kill people?

But, as for the replication of particular organs as to offer a kind of immortality, I don't really see a problem. As humans we are contemptably fragile in nature--we're soft, fleshy things with no claws or fangs or protective armor. All we have is our brains and opposible thumbs to provide an advantage over nature. If we discover a way to grow new organs to replace damaged or malfunctioning ones due to our God-given gifts, so be it. Hey, I'm in no hurry to die...

Calhoun07

11-26-2001, 11:35 PM

A clone of a person is the genetic equivalent to a twin. Mankind is just forcing that twin to be brought into existence. So if a clone of Hitler was made, he might very well decide to focus on his artistic ability and be brought up in an environment where he doesn't feel the need to have a political agenda against any other race of people. A clone of Hitler might very well turn out to be a completely different kind of person. And the same could be said for cloning a child or a deceased love one.

I got one: The potential to clone Jesus Christ has been postulated. Would a clone of Jesus be as the Christ who walked the Earth 2000 years ago or simply a man? The Christ was God incarnated; if we found a way to clone that body, it wouldn't be God incarnate so would it be just another man?

And i don't know, maybe someone used this same argument when the first heart-transplant took place.

I seem to recall there being some controversy over that practice when it was first performed, people saying the heart and soul of a person would be gone if they had an artificial heart, and of course the arguement that we were playing God. Oh, yeah, it was the same story, just a different time.

NewMaxFranklin

11-27-2001, 07:15 AM

I believe that in life we can only move forward. Our actions merely affect the speed and route of our advancement. We cannot stop or go backwards. We can only progress.

Cloning is here and we may as well have a go of it. Everything has positive and negative effects; from war to space exploration. I don't think we should be so worried about weather what we are doing is right or wrong. These are broad terms which can be applied to anything and fit nothing.

It could be argued that our greatest goal as a species it to discover the meaning of life. Perhaps this is the perfct way to learn what makes us human. To gain a better understanding of who we are could lead to an ultimate enlightenment, allowing us to be at peace with all things. Or the clones we create could be souless creatures who bring about the end of the human race.

Should we abandon the search for salvation because of the threat of self-destruction? No. We never have. It's not in our nature. We are creative and desrtuctive, but above all we are active. We will move forward as always.

All we can do is act with good intentions and learn from the good and bad that results from our actions.

DR. BELCH

11-27-2001, 01:01 PM

--want to know when I can expect to put that spare heart on back order just in case my old ticker gives out before I'm 50. Cloning organs is fine, but I have serious doubts about entire humans/animals. Consider Dolly the sheep, again, who is prematurely aging and arthritic because her cells are imperfect and aging/dividing too rapidly. Imagine a human clone dropping dead at twenty of severe progeria, looking like an eighty-year-old geezer.... :eek:

Kal-el

11-27-2001, 01:35 PM

We, as human beings, have and will change our collective morality to fit a situation or help accomplish a goal. This change is not usually done in a democratic fashion. Those with money, power, influence, etc. will force their issue, either in secret or in the public eye, until their goals have been accomplished.
I am not a supporter of cloning for any reason. It does not fit with the moral and ethical statutes that I have established for myself. THis is something that gives great power to those that perform the act. Where might it end?
First step: An embryo is cloned. What next? An adult human that is a copy of another? An adult human that is created for a specific purpose, whether it be organ donation, space exploration, or something else. Sure,it all sounds very, very Sci-fi-esque, but didn't cloning ANYTHING sound the same way 50 or 100 years ago? Of course.
IMHO, the bigger picture needs to be looked at very closely when dealing with this topic.

Joe Tully

11-27-2001, 04:17 PM

The key is to advance science with caution. If the U.S. were to avoid cloning altogether, then all that would happen is that some of our scientists in that field would go to other countries and help them develop cloning, or, if necessary, they would conduct their experiments over international waters. Many scientists have left the U.S. for a similar reason, the restriction of stem cell funding in the U.S. As with any other developing technology, we need to proceed but remain aware of any potential problems. Right now, we are avoiding cloning as a means of reproduction, and I feel that this is a sufficient precaution which will allow us to reap any benefits of cloning such as extra stem cell lines and sources of organ transplants.

This science will advance with or without the U.S.'s consent, so we may as well go along with it so that we can help guide it and benefit from its development.

Calhoun07

11-27-2001, 05:12 PM

The extreme side of a nation turning away scientific research is Germany with Albert Einstein, who left Germany and ulitmately helped us develop nuclear weapons before Hitler. I say we need to take heed of that and not shun any scientific breakthrus and surround ourselves with the best and brightest or we may find ourselves inadvertedly giving another nation the upper hand in scientific research.

Cloning will inevitably be used for immoral purposes. As long as there are scientific breakthrus for the betterment of society, there will always be those who find ways to use that technology to do something untinkable with it. I don't think that is a good reason to do away with cloning, though.

Maxie Zeus

11-27-2001, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

Certainly, there are opportunities for misuse. Unfortunately, this is a risk with any and all scientific advancement - and something that every scientist faces in his daily work.

Does that mean we should stop all scientific study because of the possible misuses? I don't think so. I don't think, as a species, we'll ever get anywhere with that sort of attitude.

But do I think it should be banned all together? Not at all. Just because we don't see the advantage now doesn't mean there isn't one.

Oh, I agree. My caveat is not with the research as such, but with the uses to which it ultimately might be put. There is a difference between knowing how to clone a person and actually cloning a person, just as there is a difference between knowing how to poison someone and actually doing it. As there is no good reason that I can see for cloning an entire person (and many bad ones) I am inclined to think that if and when the procedure has been discovered it should be outlawed (or at least so closely regulated and constrained as to control its misuse). If, as you suggest, there turn out to be good reasons to allow such cloning, then the issue could be revisited. But I certainly don't mean to imply that the research is in and of itself immoral or unethical and should be stifled.

Clayface

11-27-2001, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
Consider Dolly the sheep, again, who is prematurely aging and arthritic because her cells are imperfect and aging/dividing too rapidly. Imagine a human clone dropping dead at twenty of severe progeria, looking like an eighty-year-old geezer.... :eek:

Yep, which is why the research should be approached cautiously. And it has and will be - that's just the nature of scientific research. As the Dr. pointed out in the article, there is far too much risk to the clone and the mother that would bare that clone to even think about doing it with humans right now.

Clayface

11-27-2001, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

There is a difference between knowing how to clone a person and actually cloning a person, just as there is a difference between knowing how to poison someone and actually doing it.

Well. yes and no. How do we know what's a poison and what's not? We test it out and see its effects on a living creature. Just like, in order to know how to clone someone, its going to have to be actually done.

As there is no good reason that I can see for cloning an entire person (and many bad ones) I am inclined to think that if and when the procedure has been discovered it should be outlawed (or at least so closely regulated and constrained as to control its misuse).

Well, again, I think you can't really separate "doing it" from "discovering the procedure". Unfortunately, this isn't a problem that can be solved by sitting a writing a computer simulation - to solve it, it has to done by trial and error. But, I do whole-heartedly agree that it should be closely regulated to prevent misuse.

Maxie Zeus

11-27-2001, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

Well. yes and no. How do we know what's a poison and what's not? We test it out and see its effects on a living creature. Just like, in order to know how to clone someone, its going to have to be actually done.

Ah, I should have made it clear: The comparison I intended was to knowing that a compound poisonous, and actually administering it to a person. I know that arsenic is poisonous, but I would never knowingly administer it to anyone. It is not immoral or unethical to possess the knowledge, only to use it for certain purposes and effects.

As to your second point, a lot of medical knowledge can be gleaned without experimenting on humans. After all, if you discover that a new pharmaceutical is toxic to a chimipanzee, there is no call to administer it to a human subject to discover that, yes, it is also fatal to humans.

It would be much the same with cloning: It is almost assuredly possible to discover how to clone a human by discovering how to clone a non-human primate. Once it is fairly clear that the procedure would work *in principle* on a human, I don't see a further need to test it out on a human if we have already decided that the act of cloning is something we want to discourage.

Clayface

11-27-2001, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Ah, I should have made it clear: The comparison I intended was to knowing that a compound poisonous, and actually administering it to a person. I know that arsenic is poisonous, but I would never knowingly administer it to anyone. It is not immoral or unethical to possess the knowledge, only to use it for certain purposes and effects.

Ahh, ok. I see what you meant now.

It would be much the same with cloning: It is almost assuredly possible to discover how to clone a human by discovering how to clone a non-human primate.

The problem here is that a lot of the anti-cloning people want to outlaw all of it - human, animal, you name it. By giving a negative connotation to human cloning, the entire science gets a tarnished view in the general public's eyes.

Maxie Zeus

11-27-2001, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

The problem here is that a lot of the anti-cloning people want to outlaw all of it - human, animal, you name it. By giving a negative connotation to human cloning, the entire science gets a tarnished view in the general public's eyes.

Yeah, there's a lot of stupidity about science out there. But, to be charitable, it is quite often hard to tell where healthy skepticism shades off into merely truculent suspicion. E.g., genetically modified crops: Healthy skepticism, or irrational paranoia?

Clayface

11-27-2001, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Yeah, there's a lot of stupidity about science out there. But, to be charitable, it is quite often hard to tell where healthy skepticism shades off into merely truculent suspicion. E.g., genetically modified crops: Healthy skepticism, or irrational paranoia?

Yep, the pitfalls of being a scientist, I suppose - we have to deal with a lot of people that just don't bother to learn anything about the science before they condemn it. And unfortunately, information outlets like the media don't help matters any - most misrepresent or misunderstand the info themselves, and pass that along to the viewing public.