Human Cloning: Have Your Say
The Scientist is having an on-line discussion about human cloning. Below are the questions The Scientist poses:
Is the nuclear transfer challenge one of understanding or technique? It would seem that the scientific community presumes successful stem cell cloning is a matter of resources and technical skill. Put enough technicians on a problem and eventually it will be overcome. This isn't the way we normally perceive scientific challenges and there seem to be too many gaps in our understanding to proceed this way. How might we approach the situation as a scientific, rather than a technical, challenge and who has ideas for new approaches?It seems to me that the people who hang out here at Secondhand Smoke would have much to contribute to such a discussion. If you want to participate, just click here and weigh in. And please, be sure to stay polite.
Is it time to reevaluate the ethics of stem cell cloning? The ethical quandaries about reproductive cloning have evolved from discussions that took groups like the Raelians seriously. Nevertheless, the idea that cloning for reproductive purposes might at some point be possible warrants discussion, and the debate about the status of an embryo is not something to take lightly. Moreover, the rights of egg donors need to be considered. What are the most pressing ethical concerns about proceeding with a nuclear transfer research program and who has novel ideas on how to address them?
Does stem cell cloning need new terminology? The terminology for stem cell cloning has become so obtuse that it strains public understanding and may also obscure the best scientific approaches. The avoidance or attenuation of the word cloning has left us with names that describe a technique, not the study of a phenomena that includes such fascinating biological puzzles as nuclear programming, development, and pluripotency. Is there a better name for this type of research program?
Labels: Human Cloning Debate
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:07 PM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
Years ago, those who support destroying human embryos for stem cell research assured us that this is as far as they would need to go -- that they would never get into the business of creating NEW embryos for the express purpose of destroying them. Now, there is a perfectly good secular reason to oppose even the destruction of those embryos already in existence, since we know from countless science textbooks and encyclopedia entries that they are nothing less than human beings.
No matter. The "promise" to avoid cloning didn't last long, anyway. Soon, many were announcing that cloning represents "our best chance" to find cures for horrible diseases, assuring the public that they would only permit so-called "therapeutic cloning" (cloning for research) and not "reproductive cloning" (a tautology by which they mean to clone and then to give birth).
They thought this would quell everybody's fears, but instead they received a rude awakening when they learned that most people oppose that form of cloning, as well; some oppose it even more than they do "reproductive cloning."
So, have they given up? Of course not. They still plan to clone human embryos, but now figure that by avoiding the word "cloning" altogether -- calling it by the clinical euphemism "somatic cell nuclear transfer" -- they might be able to slip it by the public. Worse yet, much legislation has been written that dishonestly claims to "prohibit human cloning" when in fact it "redefines" the term so that it only includes implanting a cloned embryo in a womb. This absurd, self-serving definition is completely counter to that used by the American Medical Association and several other organizations -- even some that support embryonic research. Cloning takes place when an embryo is created, NOT when that embryo is implanted in a uterus. Imagine a bill to ban arson that states that "arson" means "burning down a house and building another in its place," so that the act of burning down a house, itself, will become protected by law. Then you will understand how mendacious and phony these so-called "cloning bans" are, such as the one introduced by Senators Feinstein and Hatch.
We keep hearing that people "overwhelmingly" support embryonic research, and yet polls demonstate that the more people know about it, the less likely they are to endorse it. For complex scientific issues such as these, we need accurate terminology, not deception from people claiming to "ban" something when they really aren't.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home