Obama: No Clones? Not Really.
President Obama lifted the Bush ESCR restrictions--unleashing gushing hyperbole in the media and among "the scientists" about the technology that I frankly don't have time to deconstruct. But Drudge is touting his promise of no cloning. From the story:
President Barack Obama says human cloning is "dangerous, profoundlyThis is the typical misdirection we have seen on this issue for years. I predict Obama's opposition to cloning is merely the same old smoke and mirrors, razzle-dazzle, game of hide the ball--choose your cliche.
wrong" and has no place in society. Obama made the comments as he was signing an executive order that will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research. Some critics say the research can lead to
human cloning. Obama said the government will develop strict guidelines for the research because misuse or abuse is unacceptable. He said he would ensure that the government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.
When the president speaks of "reproduction," he means a born baby. Thus, I predict he will support and sign a bill to explicitly legalize human SCNT--the actual act of human cloning--as has been proposed for years by my Senator Dianne Feinstein and Utah's Orin Hatch, about which I have written previously.
Human SCNT for research, if it can be done in humans, literally creates new human life for the purpose of destroying it--perhaps a first in history. Over time, should the technology become "safe," it will lead to reproductive cloning. But that is years away. In the meantime, President Obama and the rest of the brave new world crowd will redefine--or better stated, misdefine--cloning and outlaw their straw man so they can pretend that cloning has been made illegal when it has been explicitly legalized on the way toward federal funding.
And all along the way, they will unctuously ooze assurances that everything is under control. And they will be right--just not in the way they pretend.
Labels: Human Cloning. President Obama. Bush Stem Cell Policy.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:14 AM
30 Comments
30 Comments:
Wes, Obama said he was going to do this and he did. He said he wouldn't ok reproductive cloning and he hasn't. Where's the misdirection?
Also, who is it that you think WANTS human reproductive cloning? The scientists are all about therapeutic cloning, i.e., grow me a new kidney. Ethics aside, there's no legitimate purpose to cloning humans. There's no incentive for Obama to support reproductive cloning.
Even if reproductive cloning becomes possible, my hope is that people will be better educated by then as to what cloning does and does not do. I've been dismayed at the pet owners who have spent a fortune cloning beloved pets and then wound up with animals that barely resemble the pets they lost. With luck people will realize we can't use cloning to produce a bunch of literal baby Einsteins.
Padraig:I agree he said he would rescind Bush policy. But his claim to be against cloning is to use that term in a misleading way. The act of cloning is SCNT.
The scientists are only against reproductive cloning "for now" due to safety concerns. The NAS has never made a claim it is ethically wrong. A lot of bioethicists support reproductive cloning once it is safe, as has Ian Wilmut in some circumstances, the creator of IVF, the list goes on and on.
If he says he'll "ban cloning," and then he allows the cloning of embryos for stem-cell research, then there's your misdirection, Padraig.
HOW CAN ANYONE LOOK AT OBAMA AND NOT SEE WHAT HE IS?
As for cloning, of COURSE it doesn't work. Ask any astrologer why. The clone and the one cloned come were born at different times. It's absolute insanity and why would anyone want to do it in the first place? They're too stupid to know it's impossible?
bmm, he's always been very specific about banning REPRODUCTIVE cloning, which is not the same as THERAPEUTIC cloning. He really can't be any clearer.
I will never put complete trust in any politician, but sometimes I think Bush et al just made it impossible for some folks to believe anything that comes out of a President's mouth.
padraig: The "cloning" in reproductive and therapeutic cloning are precisely the same thing. It is the act that creates new life through asexual means. The terms reproductive and therapeutic merely describe the use of the new life that has been so manufactured. One is brought to birth and one is used as a natural resource.
Obama has not, that I am aware, come out explicitly for therapeutic cloning. He will, but I am not aware that he has yet. Can you direct me to a story or statement by him so indicating?
As for Bush, he told people precisely where he stood on these issues. No phony baloney there.
Padraig: Now that's Bush's fault, too, that one can't believe politicians? This whole Skull & Bones thing, of which he is part (as are the Clintons, Obama, looks like Nixon, too) is NG, and I do wish he hadn't kept saying "nucular," and I don't care for people who've had substance problems, and he had the wrong sun sign for a President, but nevertheless, he is much to be missed -- and as time goes on he will be, more and more, by more and more -- if they are alive to do it.
Ianthe, it's a question of competence for one thing. Bush reminded me of the old joke, What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? The used car salesman knows when he's lying. My impression is that Bush was too trusting of his handlers to form his own judgments, and that's what led to him being particularly untrustworthy.
Incidentally, I recently had a conversation with a recovering alcoholic, long-time Republican conservative, who told me why he couldn't vote for Bush. He said Bush had stopped drinking, but he still thinks like an addict. If you've been close to anyone with serious substance abuse problems, or have been to Al-Anon meetings, that will make a lot of sense to you.
Wesley, now that you mention it I have not heard Obama use the term "therapeutic cloning," I felt as you do that his approval of embryonic stem cells implied approval of therapeutic cloning, since it is as you pointed out the same process.
And yes, Wesley, Bush was very clear about this particular issue. And so is Obama.
"But his claim to be against cloning is to use that term in a misleading way."
Some people can't separate the act of cloning from the act of reproduction.
Cloning is a component vector for birthing a human when reproduction is the ends. But reproduction of a new person is not the only outcome of cloning processes.
IPs cells clone themselves constantly in vitro, and they contain viable genomes. Our cells are cloning themselves constantly - are they reproducing new people? ahh No.
If no differentiation has occurred in the blastocyst phase then there is virtually no difference between the cells you call a person and the IPs cells you claim are not a person in this blog, but merely cells. Typical of pro-lifers attempting to call one instance a person and the other cells. The only difference is locating this cell in a hollow egg - in a petri dish. The self-righteous attempt to call that a person. But take those IPs cells out of the egg again and its not a person anymore? Is this an ethics blog or a real estate office where the mantra is Location Location Location.
A stack of lumber and a set of blueprints is not a home. It must be motivated to be constructed. The same as these undifferentiated clones.
There's another missing element, Swan. A woman's womb. To me that's what really separates an IVF embryo from a natural fertilized egg. Until the fertilized egg has successfully implanted in the uterus, and most of them don't, reproduction hasn't really begun. Our society reflects this; we don't consider early miscarriages to be the emotional equivalent of later losses. Most of them aren't even known to the woman.
And I have a hard time thinking of a sperm and egg coerced together in a Petri dish as being a baby. When it's planted and growing inside Mom, then we can talk.
padraig: That is ideology, not science. The thing is what it is, not WHERE it is. If an embryo doesn't implant, that human organism that is in existence dies. But until that point, reproduction--whether in a dish or a fallopian tube--has occurred.
The rest is rationalization in order to pretend that the intrinsic value of human life is not being discarded.
Wes, to agree with what you say I have to agree that the destruction of a frozen IVF embryo has the same impact as a late-term miscarriage.
It doesn't, it won't, and it shouldn't.
"Some people can't separate the act of cloning from the act of reproduction."
If you use SCNT to create a new embryo, you have cloned, and, thus, you have reproduced. Destroying that embryo rather than implanting and giving birth to that embryo doesn't negate that fact.
Yes, an embryo is who she is because of WHAT she is, not WHERE she is. Otherwise, it's like saying I'm a human being while sitting at the kitchen table, but not if I'm walking through the airport.
The thing is what it is, not WHERE it is.
Only when its convenient for your sides argument Wesley, you've proved that time and again.
So if location is no issue, and there is no difference between the donor cells that constitute IPs cells and SCNT cloned cells in an egg, which is the case, then why do you call clones people but not IPs cells?
They are both a cluster of identical undifferentiated cells with the same potential.
They will both reproduce a baby given the proper locations!
Can you answer this... If you inject IPs cells in an enucleated egg do you have a person?
Looks like you just answered your own question. If you still have to "inject" a cell in an enucleated egg, then what you have is clearly not equivalent to an embryo, whether created sexually (IVF) or asexually (cloning).
DS: As I have explained repeatedly, isn't the CELLS that are the problem, it is the SOURCE of the cells. ESCs from cloned embryos would come from the creation and destruction a human embryo created asexually. Cells from the IPSC process would NOT come from the creation and/or destruction of an embryo. Surely, that is easy to understand.
Injecting IPS cells into an egg could be a form of cloning that I would oppose. It wouldn't be the cells that were injected to which I would object, any more than I object to skin cells. It would be the creation of a human organism asexually, which would be instrumentalization in the same way SCNT would be instrumentalization. That shouldn't be hard to understand either, whether or not you agree.
Padraig: All those things, except about the handlers, I agree on to some extent at least, and I mentioned the sctor of the zodiac that holds his sun, which is also the one that rules people whose energy somehow can screw up the works, and addicts -- and which also rules women, the protection of vulnerable life, patriotism, conservatism, and the sun of the United States. There are also other factors in his natal chart that give him more strength than people realize, and bottom line, his nature is the same as, and perfectly in tune with, that of the United States, as far as sun signs go (and far they do go, and important they are).
Padraig: Few are less sentimental about embryoes, and even babies, than I, but I have to agree with what I think SHS might say: Impact on WHOM?
If you still have to "inject" a cell in an enucleated egg, then what you have is clearly not equivalent to an embryo - bmmg39
bmg - This is the process of Therapeutic Cloning - SCNT. I'm pleased you agree that injecting cells into an enucleated egg does not create an embryo. I'll be sure to refer to this post often.
Of course if you don't agree you should educate yourself on the process before you argue against it, or you may wind up making an invalid argument, as you usually do, or even further, you back my argument by accident, which you just did.
Let Ian Wilmut explain to you how injecting cells into eggs creates clones here.
"Scientists merge the somatic cell and enucleated egg cell using fusion or injection."
You're Welcome!
"[it] isn't the CELLS that are the problem, it is the SOURCE of the cells" - Wesley
Some Facts:
IPs cells are alive
IPs cells do asexually reproduce
IPs cells contain a viable entire human genome.
Wesley, do you agree or disagree that IPs cells are human organisms?
DS: Now I know you are just pulling our chains.
IPSCs are cells, not organisms, just like the skin cells from which they came. Just like your brain cells. Just like the cells I kill every morning when I brush my teeth.
bmmg39: "If you still have to "inject" a cell in an enucleated egg, then what you have is clearly not equivalent to an embryo"
Dark Swan: "This is the process of Therapeutic Cloning - SCNT. I'm pleased you agree that injecting cells into an enucleated egg does not create an embryo."
It does create an embryo. Reread what I wrote: if you have to inject the aforementioned cell into an enucleated egg, then that aforementioned cell is not equivalent to an embryo. The RESULT of that injection, conversely, WOULD be an embryo.
Wesley, you appear to be contradicting yourself in the same thread by saying:
"The thing is what it is, not WHERE it is."
"As I have explained repeatedly, isn't the CELLS that are the problem, it is the SOURCE of the cells."
"Injecting IPS cells into an egg could be a form of cloning that I would oppose."
OK let me get this straight.
You say the source of the cells are the problem, not the location. Since the source of IPs is not an embryo you don't have a problem with it.
But if IPs cells were injected into an enucleated egg for reproductive cloning you would have a problem with it. This indicates that you are concerned about location.
Do you seriously believe that IPs or a similar technology will never give rise to the potential abuse of reproduction?
So if its not about the location then why would locating IPs cells in an egg be of concern?
"You say the source of the cells are the problem, not the location. Since the source of IPs is not an embryo you don't have a problem with it...But if IPs cells were injected into an enucleated egg for reproductive cloning you would have a problem with it. This indicates that you are concerned about location."
Because the result would be a cloned embryo, regardless of location.
Thanks for all agreeing that if IPs cells are placed in an egg you have a created a person. And if they are not placed in an egg they are not viable persons.
This is why I say pro-lifers are only capable of recognizing life it when its convenient.
An embryo is no more a viable organism than IPs cells if its not located in a womb.
Both ips and SCNT cells need to be nourished and sheltered to achieve personhood.
The self righteous types seem to be able to say a donor cell in an egg in a petri dish is a person, but the same cells that give rise to a person are not viable when they are removed from there feeding container - the egg.
Well the embryo is not viable either unless its put into a womb to feed and continue development.
So the anti-ESCr crowd is full of double standards on this issue.
You can take the pluripotent cells from one egg and place them in another. You have killed nothing!
But you'll say well you killed one person and created another - thus your self righteous for trying to force that contrived opinion on others who see clearly that this value you assign to SCNT is arbitrary.
"An embryo is no more a viable organism than IPs cells if its not located in a womb."
You still miss the point. An induced pluripotent cell isn't an organism AT ALL. At most, it can be considered PART of an organism. Meanwhile, an embryo IS a complete organism -- a human being -- whether you consider her "viable" or not. (The line of "viability" is constantly moving. Presumably, you think that a six-month-old fetus in 1603 was not a human being, but that one in 2009 IS one.
"Well the embryo is not viable either unless its put into a womb to feed and continue development."
-- and if someone were to deny YOU food and a hospitable environment for a prolonged period of time, Dark Swan, YOU wouldn't last for too long, either.
bmm: Actually IPSCs aren't even part of organisms since they are human constructs created in the laboratory from skin or other differentiated cells.
"Actually IPSCs aren't even part of organisms"
What? If you don't consider IPs part of an organism then placing them in an egg couldn't make a person.
I'l ask again. Do you deny these IPs cells are alive?
That they feed?
That they reproduce?
That they carry all of the genetic information needed to pass on to the next generation?
These are primary qualifications for the definition of organism.
They just aren't located in an egg, just like SCNT clones aren't located in a womb = no Reproduction.
An egg is the host environment, not the being itself.
When the time comes that artificial womb signals and feeds the IPs cells or whatever the technology is at the time - you can shift your goalposts of life again.
Again, Swan, the iPSC is, at best, equivalent to a sperm cell, not to an embryo. An egg is not a "host environment" because the ovum, in sexual reproduction, for example, ceases to exist on its on once fertilization occurs. It becomes part of the embryo at that point. The same can NOT be said about a woman's womb. That continues to exist both during and after the pregnancy. The enucleated egg is NOT equivalent to a womb, and likewise the iPS cell is NOT equivalent to an embryonic human being.
"the iPSC is, at best, equivalent to a sperm cell, not to an embryo" - bmmg
Your science is incorrect bmmg. Sperm is Haploid - 23 chromosomes
IPs and SCNT are Diploid - all 46 human chromosomes are contained in the cell.
An embryo is also 46 chromosomes. Both embryo and IPs cell contain all the genetic blueprints to make a person.
Sperm are created from meiosis. IPs cells asexually reproduce via mitosis. So thats a swing and a miss.
If IPs cells were to be injected into an egg and brought to the fetal or birthing stage it would not matter what egg you put it in. It would still yield the same person because the trophoblast material only contributes to the nourishment and shelter of the embryo. Trophoblast forms into placenta for the growing organism to feed off, and act as an interface between the womb and fetus but it is never incorporated into the developing fetus itself. Placenta is not part of the developing organism!
The preimplantation embryo is a vehicle from the uterus to the womb. I get inside of my car and it takes me to my destination. But I am not a Honda. I eat McDonalds (unfortunately) sometimes, but I am not hamburger either.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home