For UK Human Cloners It's Never Enough
The UK may have the most radical public policy when it comes to cloning and biotechnology in the world. Want to buy eggs for cloning? Go right ahead. Make cloned human/animal hybrid clones? Be our guest. In fact, I have decided that the guiding slogan of the regulators in Brave New Britain is, "We never say no."
And still, the cloning scientists are not happy. As reported by the Guardian:"Excessive bureaucracy imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was prohibiting development in stem cell research and threatening Britain's position as a world leader in the field, Alison Murdoch, director of the Newcastle Centre for Life fertility clinic, said.
"The delays were stifling efforts to understand the cloning process which could boost the knowledge of serious diseases and produce stem cells, she told a meeting of British stem cell scientists held by the science minister, Malcolm Wicks. 'The burden is almost at the point where it is stopping development.'"
There's always an excuse, isn't there? UK cloners are acting as if their research is the only consideration that matters. And their sense of entitlement grows more than wearisome. Or to put it another way, they should stop acting like spoiled brats.
Labels: Brave New Britain
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:14 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Does the fact that there is no law against human reproductive cloning or genetic engineering in the US make it easier to stop the British from approving all this unethical research? It would seem not, since we do not seem to be stopping them. Perhaps we should see how having a law against non egg and sperm conception of children would affect our power to influence the British "anything goes" HFEA. Even if our law did not explicitly ban research with embryos or SCNT, I think it would be an effective start at checking their sense of entitlement.
We can't stop the Brits from doing anything. They are a sovereisn nation. Moreover, John, the law in the UK takes precisely the approach you advocate: It bans reproductive cloning while permitting therapeutic cloning. And this is the result. They always want more.
The UN has urged that all member states outlaw all kinds of cloning. Suddenly multilateralism doesn't matter when it interferes with the brave new biotech agenda.
I didn't know they had a law against reproductive cloning. That means they DO say "no", and they don't have the most radical public policy, which is perhaps in the US, where reproductive cloning and genetic engineering are not prohibited by law and same-sex conception is being pursued by numerous fertility clinics.
It seems to me that it is just as possible to stop the British from paying for eggs as it is to stop Americans (women are paid here too, are they not?), and just as possible to stop human/animal experiments in Britian as it is here (is that illegal here?). I don't see how having a reproducitve cloning ban hampers the effort to stop these things. If they are unethical, they are unethical in themselves, not because reproductive cloning is unethical.
Does the UN's urging lose its force because Britian is able to say "we did outlaw cloning already"?
Do you really think (I'm really asking, not rhetorically suggesting that it would be wrong to think so) that not having a ban now on reproducitive cloning is a better strategy at actually stopping reproductive cloning down the line? Or are you merely riding the principled position for the principle's sake, even though it is more risky?
John: I think legalizing therapeutic cloning and outlawing reproductive cloning gives away the whole ball game by default. Not only does give the state's imprimatur to human cloning, but by permitting research cloning it allows the very experiments that are necessary if reproductive cloning is ever to happen.
and regarding being unable to stop sovereign nations from doing this, I think we (both the US government and us netizens) can pressure all nations into banning cloning, whether we are citizens there or not.
Also, the wording of our US law should be to prohibit "conceiving a child" that is not from a woman's egg and a man's sperm, and it shouldn't mention anything about prohibiting just the implantation like Missouri does, and maybe England. By prohibiting "conceiving a child" it means that it doesn't matter what country does the work, it's where the idea is hatched that matters, so there couldn't be any GE tourism. And there would be no statute of limitations; having had the conception of a GE'd baby is just as much a crime as having it currently. If parents come home from the Island of Dr Moreau with a genetically engineered baby, they are guilty of the crime of and would go to jail for a long time. So American parents who wanted to have a genetically engineered baby would have to choose to live the rest of their lives on Dr. Moreau's Island.
I never said we should "legalize therepeutic cloning" or give an imprimatur to it, just that we should immediately outlaw conceiving a child by any means other than a man's sperm and woman's egg, even if such a law doesn't outlaw experiments. Your comment suggests that therapuetic cloning is now illegal and I want to legalize it. The experiments are going on now anyhow. Will holding off on the PCBE's egg and sperm law stop these experiments sooner? I don't think enacting it will make it harder to stop them afterwards.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home