Media Fall for "Cloning" Hype--Again!
How many times are the media going to act as Charlie Brown to would-be cloners' Lucy Van Pelt promising to hold the football? First it was the Raelians making utter and complete fools out of media all over the world by claiming that the first cloned baby named "Eve" had been born. When no proof was forthcoming, the media concluded it was a hoax and Rael and Brigitte Boisselier laughed their heads off at the free publicity they garnered for their little science cult.
From time to time two IVF doctors claim that they have brought a cloned baby to birth. A little while ago, Severino Antinori claimed speciously to have brought cloned babies to birth, as reported here at SHS. No proof, of course, has been provided.
Now, the third stooge, naturalized American doctor Panayiotis Zavos, has weighed in with similar cloning claims. From the story:
A controversial fertility doctor claimed yesterday to have cloned 14 human embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of four women who had been prepared to give birth to cloned babies.Oh, wait: It didn't work:
None of the embryo transfers led to a viable pregnancy but Dr Zavos said yesterday that this was just the "first chapter" in his ongoing and serious attempts at producing a baby cloned from the skin cells of its "parent. There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen," Dr Zavos said in an interview yesterday with The Independent.That may be because so far cloned human embryos don't develop.
This is a non story, but the question of opposition to reproductive cloning isn't really a firm taboo. Science societies opposed it--"for now"--because of safety issues illustrated by many birth defects in cloned animals. But I don't know of any
major science society that has stated it should never be allowed based on moral concerns. Moreover, many in bioethics support reproductive cloning as an aspect of the putative fundamental right to procreate, in any way a woman desires. Besides, we celebrate our social outlaws. The first cloner and mother of a cloned baby know they will own a gold mine: They will sell their stories for millions, the ever terminally nonjudgmental Oprah will fete them on her show, and they will have more fun in the tabloids than the woman who gave birth to eight IVF babies or the first "man" to give birth. And then we will be onto the next unthinkable thing, and the next. Can anyone say, "Fall of Rome?"In the meantime, the media are nothing but a bunch of suckers.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:36 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
Wesley,
Is it your understanding that a human embryo has officially been cloned? I ran into this paper recently http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/2007-0252v1.pdf in the journal Stem Cells from November 2007 which claims to have cloned several embryos for a short amount of time. Perhaps I missed if you ever blogged on this, but does it seem to you like this was legit and do you know if people have continued to clone embryos? Thanks.
Moreover, many in bioethics support reproductive cloning as an aspect of the putative fundamental right to procreate, in any way a woman desires.We're digging our own [ethical and literal] graves with this. The practice of IVF, in and of itself, is a bit repugnant. Now cloning a child simply because the mother can't release a desire to have her "very own" baby. At some point, our society is going to need to come to grips with the words of the Sage One...you can't always get what you want.
Bobby B: Some scientists claim they have created embryos through SCNT and got it to divide a bit. But so far, I don't believe it has gone to the blastocyst stage, nor have they been able to derive stem cell lines from these embryos.
It is much harder going than I think they expected.
The story is that a fertility doctor who everyone agrees has the tools and know-how to clone human says he has clients who want him to clone and he says that he has cloned humans. Isn't that a true story? You think the media shouldn't have reported this? That puts you on the same side as the fertility labs and stem cell doctors you normally oppose.
The public needs to know that there are crazy doctors out there, and crazy clients, and they need to ask "huh? I thought that was illegal?" Because the real story is that it isn't illegal to do it, any doctor would try it if they wanted to.
When are we going to outlaw it? Why don't you want to outlaw it?
John. It is a non story because these claims have been made several times over the years with no results.
Yet, each new time, the press is off to the races.
By definition, cloning can't work. Any astrologer can tell you that two things created/born at different times are not the same. Why don't they try learning something worthwhile and stop with this nonsense.
But each time, there is no action to ban cloning. So of course, each time, there is a story.
And not just cloning, of course, but everything that is not created the same way we were, as the human child of a human mother and human father. Why is it still legal? Zavos is certainly correct that people are ready to do it, shouldn't we tell them that they cannot? Even in some far off secret lab, they cannot? They will be jailed and fined and their children taken away if they attempt or achieve non man-woman conception?
And this is very troubling: From the DailyMail story: "His claims are certain to be denounced by mainstream fertility scientists, who tried to gag Dr Zavos by asking the British media not to give him publicity without him providing evidence to back up his statements in 2004."
It's just accepted that the "mainstream fertility scientists" are trying to GAG Dr. Zavos? That's considered OK?!? Why shouldn't the press publicize how crazy these cloning doctors are, to bring attention to the need for a ban on cloning?
Why are you on the same side as the "mainstream fertility scientists" who think this guy shouldn't be given any publicity?
John Howard. First, because it is disengenuous to give him publicity. Second, because that is what he wants. Third, the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf effect. Fourth, each story desensitizes people to what is coming and makes them assume they have no power to intervene. Fifth: I believe in honesty in public discourse.
Yes, each story desensitizes, but that means we need to capitalize on the story now, rather than smother it until there is a real wolf. If a real wolf were to come, a documented case of cloning or genetic engineering, wouldn't it be too late to stop it? Or do you think that a documented wolf is necessary to stop it? And isn't this guy himself a real wolf? He's a real fertility doctor with the tools and desire and clients and willingness to do it, seems to me Americans should know that such people exist, and that they would agree we should not let him clone. Why is it still legal for him to clone?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home