U.N. Delays Debate on Cloning 746
hedpe2003 writes "'The General Assembly on Tuesday ducked for a year a polarizing debate over human cloning that has set the Bush administration against some allies like Britain and much of the world's scientific community.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
Opponents say total prohibition would block research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
United States was happy to go along with the one-year consensus but would not alter its stance. 'We will continue to work for a total ban,' he said.'
I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. To tell the truth, I didn't know that the US was pushing so hard to ban stem cell research all together."
My 2 cents. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
my opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped, even though it is sometimes questionable whether progress in knowledge helps humans a step forward.
i personally think the the ethics are too human-centric in this debate. as if we are a more special breed of mammals or something. factors enter this debate that should be separate from science IMHO, and definetely from governmental decisions (religious arguments for example - don't mess with God's creation...).
the benefits can be many, and cloned humans will be a rare phenomenon, even if it happens. just like genetic engineering in general, cloning human cells or tissues can be a good thing if applied under very strong restricions. think of the (now very sci-fi) idea of growing new organs, or tissues from a patient. no more rejection of transplanted organs by the patient's immune system because they (the organs) are made up by his/her own cells.
regulations should be strict though, to prevent some mad scientist from running ahead of the facts and doing things that have unpredictable effects. although i doubt that regulations will stop a mad man anyway, but that's a different discussion alltogether, so i will not touch that subject
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:1, Interesting)
You HAVE heard of "test tube babies" or "in vitro fertilization" or "taking a sperm and then injecting that bad boy inside an egg and then putting that fetilized egg in a womb"...right? You're just pulling our leg with this bit about not knowing about this stuff huh? We've been doin this stuff for 25 years now! [cnn.com]
I saved Stanley's stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
Too much of the objection over stem cell use is concerned with the origin of some stem cell cultures in aborted fetuses.
Bruce
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:3, Interesting)
funny thing is that religion does have a *huge* influence on the way things are decided in the usa (and they are not the only government, let me add, but by far the biggest).
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state. in real life, true democracy doesn't exist, unfortunately. like any political ideology, we will never find out if it is the 'best way'. just because the implementation of democracy (or any political system) is miles away from what the original idea was. just like communism as it is and was applied was not communism, but just a dictatorship.
i know this rant is slightly OT, but i think it matters in this discussion. it is essentially about ethics, moral, religion and not about facts. which is a shame in my opinion.
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Interesting)
i have seen many debates in scientific meetings. i can assure you that many scientists are *huge* bigots, religiously debating their point of view, whether it is based on fact or not. many people do not like to be told they are wrong
i'm lucky enough: i don't care. and good scientists should be like that, leave an idea when it's inviable and don't try to prove something because you believe it is true.
Senator Tom Harkin wants a clone (Score:2, Interesting)
"Human cloning will take place and it will take place within my lifetime. I think it is right and proper.
Article about it [umich.edu]
sleazy political games (Score:3, Interesting)
So, why are they taking this issue to the UN? Because they have been unable to get the Senate to agree to this ban. They hope that by using the UN, they can force through something that wouldn't be palatable to even US politicians.
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:4, Interesting)
If reproductive cloning ever became widely available it would, if anything, probably lead to a reduction in growth rates: technologies that give people more reproductive freedom and choice tend to do that.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
"In the most controversial method, scientists can also pull stem cells from aborted fetuses, first asking for signed consent from a patient who'd previously (and independently) decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is the procedure most often highlighted by pro-life activists who oppose supporting stem cell research."
-Old Time article [time.com]
Most conservatives though, including Bush if I'm not mistaken, are opposed even to using excess embryos for stem-cell research, which is even more outlandish than refusing to collect stem cells from fetuses that have already been aborted.
Cloning humans = unconsenting experimentation (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the failure rate could eventually drop to being close to the rate experienced by normal conceptions. But how would we get there? It is almost certain they would have to refine the cloning techniques by repeatedly failing on humans, because the differences between species indicates that you can't automatically make a jump from one species to an equal or better success rate with another. For example, years after the cloning of Dolly the sheep which took 297 attempts, it took 800 attempts to clone a horse despite the advantage of all the knowledge gained since Dolly.
Cloning of isolated organs or stem cells is a different matter which I don't have a problem with.
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:3, Interesting)
- The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
- The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
- Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
- The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's currently. Imagine if the death rate went to 0. You think the birth rate would also go to 0? Even if it did, this would effectively kill the evolutionary process, either way you weaken humanity as a whole.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ethical or not - it will be greatly beneficial to be able to do research using cloning and stem cells. With cloning, you can do nature-nurture experiments more easily. With stem cells, you can eventually figure out how to grow organs instead of transplanting them.
The first country that legalises cloning and stem cell harvesting for research will have many medical researchers flocking to it. And get lots of insults along the line of 'unethical' and 'immoral'... I wonder, if that will ever happen?
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Interesting)
In either a religious or scientific context, your beliefs should be challenged regularly, and so having to rethink your ideas should not be threatening.
However, a successful scientific career (in terms of wealth) can hinge quite significantly on whether or not your peers (and therefore the world at large) think that you are right, or that your thinking is not antiquated. Einstein would still be repairing watches if others hadn't become convinced he was on to something. Worse still what if new facts suggest your data is wrong (suggesting what? fabrication? shoddy work?)? Get any good grants lately for cold fusion research? How about perpetual motion machine research? How about for Newtonian mechanics?
Faith, by definition, is something that cannot be threatened by facts, because it exists regardless of the facts. Sure, church dogma can be proven wrong; even holy texts could be proven to be wrong; but this should not effect faith.
Regardless, unless you are employed by the church itself, chances are facts which contradict various religious matters, while they might keep you up at night, aren't likely to cost you your job. In that context, once you know you are wrong, there isn't much point defending your position. Indeed, for many folks doing so would be a sin.
Re:US has denied nanotech funding too (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, the bill was sponsered by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). (Incase you didn't know, the 'D' equals "Democrat").
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US government commits this error all the time -- you can only get a permit to research illegal drugs to prove they are BAD for you. A conclusion (drugs are bad) in search of a hypothesis.
Consider Einstiens famous quote "God does not play dice!" Einstien refused to believe the universe could operate on chance, and now it is largely thought to do just that. Consider the folks who came up with string theory, they were *ignored* for a decade, and now they are considered to be some of the most brilliant minds ever.
Re:sleazy political games (Score:4, Interesting)
Since the last 55 years of the U.N.'s existance, there have been between 100 and 200 wars. The UN Security Council has given consent to only two of them, the Korean Police Action and Gulf War [One].
Everyone blames the U.S. for the North Korea problem, and nearly every other human rights violation throughout the world. Why hasen't the U.N. done anything to curb these problems? I'm no right-wing conpsiracy theorist who believes the U.N. is trying to take over the U.S., but all the U.N. does is gather and whine about their own problems or opine on ways to control the Internet, suggestions to ban guns worldwide [bbc.co.uk] (That doesn't stop good-ol' Kofi and his bodyguards from carrying submachine guns [newsmax.com] to protect him around the dangerous streets of New York City!) and other idiotic things.
Seriously, the model U.N. I did in highschool was more relevant than this. The Bush administration works with the U.N. all the time, as it is now trying to make Iran disarm. Nobody made the U.N. irrelevant, they made themselves irrelevant.
Oh well, goodbye Karma.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:1, Interesting)
keeps this women alive is the system that makes it possible for the rest of us to earn a decent living. Nowadays, poor people are collateral damage of our modern society, but since you reap the benefits of that same society, it is your responsibility to help them.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
So does that mean the "mother" can choose to "pull the plug" at any time, and then "donate" the eggs to this kind of research? Remember, the egg is braindead, it can't make decisions for itself...
Crime and Identification (Score:2, Interesting)
And honest too (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
> [until they are proven to be sentient].
So, about those brain-dead humans...not to mention eggs, embryos, fetuses, (oh, my) etc.
I'm so curious why there has been so little discussion about when life/death happens. There's all sorts of funny stuff going on out there.
"Life happens at conception." - Ok...when the sperm goes in the egg. But a lot of eggs that this happens to gets flushed during a women's menstrual cycle (I can say menstruation on
"Death happens when your EEG shows no brain activity." - But...this is rooted entirely in the notion that your brain is the only place where thought comes from. Think of it as the modern soul. Your brain makes your "self."
There is all sorts of research out there about how our notions about life/death are all wrapped up in western philosophical notions, not to mention judeo-christian belief systems. Read up about cryonics and you get a very different notion of life/death than you do from other places.
So the question becomes, where is it most productive for life/death to happen? Because either way we're making it up. So lets make it up in a way that does the least amount of harm.
-CKO
Re:Bush administration has been up to this for yea (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, everyone dismisses Kass a "Southern Baptist" neo-con right-wing whacko, yet he's Jewish.
Neither Kass nor Bush has advocated outlawing embryonic-stem-cell research. (Both do wish to ban all human cloning, including for biomedical research. But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
Also, a lot of those issues you cite are banned in a lot of Europe, so it's not like it's unique to the "evil Bush administration".
Re:Another Christian viewpoint (Score:3, Interesting)
So you are left with a simple question:
Should you take the pragmatic approach, and resign yourself to the knowledge that there are things human beings cannot comprehend? Or will you take the other road, and assume if you can't explain it then God must have created it?
Can a termite comprehend that it is eating a thing called a "house"? No. Does that mean God built the house?
Re:thinking != life (Score:1, Interesting)
Why do I feel no sympathy for the billions of embryos and skin cells that are being murdered as I type this?
It's not because they are inhuman. Hell, my skin cells have my DNA. They're part of my family. They're part of me.
I have no sympathy for them because they lack a cerebral cortex, and there is no reason to belive that anything can suffer unless it has a cerebral cortex. If you don't believe me, you can try a little experiment: First anaesthetize your cerebral cortex then have your lab partner make an incision or insert a hot needle into your flesh (preferably somewhere with an abundance of nerve endings). You'll feel the same thing that embryos feel: nothing.
Funny? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, based on our current understanding of space, time, and matter/energy being interdependent, we can conclude that the cause of the universe:
a) Exists outside of time.
b) Exists outside of space.
c) Is not composed of matter or energy (at least in the forms that we understand).
d) (From a, b & c) Is unlikely to be based upon any of the known laws of physics/reality.
This is an argument that, at minimum, makes it reasonably likely that some supernatural something exists (ie. something that cannot be figured out by science, since it is outside of space/time, and not composed of matter/energy). Whether you believe this supernatural something to be God or not should be something decided by examining the evidence.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
I rather think that we are saying that they are in fact, usefull.
disregarding the fact that they WILL become adults if allowed to.
No, they MIGHT become adults if allowed to be birthed. Don't discount murder, accident, and illness.
All the contradictions only serve to confirm one fact: Human's will do what they want to do in any given circumstance because we believe we have the right to what we want.
Not all humans will do _anything_ though. I'm not really sure what contradictions you're pointing to, they seem to be more differences of opinions.
When we needed land, we decided that the native inhabitants were only savages and killed them, moved them.
Yeah well tough, that's human nature. When your family/group needs something, or it is percieved that they need something, you aquire it. Is that right to our Western ideals? No. Is that how it works? Sure is.
When we needed manual labor for agricultural work, we went and got slaves because we had conveniently deemed them non-human.
Not all slave owners believed Africans to be non-human but viewed them as cheap labor and treated them fairly well. When it's to their own advantage humans _will_ go along with the group.
When we (humanity) decided that our woes were jew-induced, we decided they were not human and killed them.
I think you're a little bit off your fucking rocker on this one. One group of humans decided this; they lied, cheated, stole, betrayed, and played on basic human fears to accomplish this. The one thing that does bug me is that some of the businesses that enabled Nazi Germany to kill Jews so efficiently weren't punished for their crimes. *cough*IBM*cough*
Don't kid yourselves.
Americans were born to kid themselves. We're different, we're better but it's not our fault that we're fat and stupid. We've got guns! WEeeE!
As my ex-wife once said... (Score:3, Interesting)
I once asked my ex-wife: "How many dead babies does it take to achieve clinical imortality?"
Her reply? "As many as necessary".
Let me point some of you "youngsters" to a SF story called "Bug Jack Barron", by Norman Spinrad. In it a 5 year old child had to die for every adult made imortal. The twist to the story is the Bad Guys make Our Hero imortal instead of killing him. It's quite chiling to see the co-opting process go to work when Our Hero finds out he now is one of the lucky few, and how easy it is to rationalize the procedure (now that it's been done).
My point? Don't underestimate human greed and the will to survive. I also believe, along with another poster, that this move by the US is 1) a sop to the religious right at election time, and 2) a somokescreen for the US Pharma industry.
Just call me cynical, I guess ("Well, sure, Mr. Senator, we continued with our research dispite the ban. We only experimented on non-Americans, outside of America. So, do you want us to extend your life so you can run for another term, or not? Remember, you made this an illegal procedure..."). More Life. More seductive than more money.
Re:What a waste (Score:3, Interesting)
Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans.
In my opinion, cloning should still be illegal even if it does become reliable and "safe". Because anyone arrogant enough to think "what this world really needs is an exact genetic duplicate of me" is someone I really don't want to see duplicate him or herself.
(This coming from someone who gave his firstborn the same name as himself (and his grandfather), so maybe I fit my own critique.)
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage4.html
That's it, that's what we're talking about. And here's a secret! Women abort these little guys all the time, naturally. Sometimes they aren't viable from the start, and everyone involved knows it, sometimes there's an accident. We don't generally weep for these little unborn people, because they aren't people yet, there's no stillborn baby to bury. You can't even really see them.
So, is it good to harvest these bouncing little, um, collections of half a dozen cells? Well, maybe, maybe not. If useful stem cells can be grown and cultured without involving embryos, that's just swell. If not, well, we're not talking about robbing the maternity ward, folks. The Bush Administration, however, is talking about the wholesale and complete ban on a technology as a prelude, likely, to banning all forms of genetic research that isn't directly applicable to commercial products by agricultural companies.
I see in this a downright diabolical urge to take a hand in the lives and deaths of every single human being on the planet. George Bush wants you to die, basically. He wants you to die from Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's, or from organ failure or any number of the conditions that kill older folks. He wants to be there at your bedside and laugh in your face as everything goes dark. He can say that you're with Jesus or something, that he's fulfilled God's wish to see everyone dead, but-- isn't that creepy? Isn't that just a little freakish? Man, I wouldn't let this guy anywhere near my genes.
Re: once again, they are lying (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
And people with Down's syndrome, or Turner's, or Klinefelter's, or any other severe chromosomal abnormality, do NOT genetically match a human (and interestingly enough, that includes a good number of people you'd consider "normal", unlike the above-mentioned disease conditions... XXY, as an example, where you get a reasonably normal female with a tendancy toward masculine traits). So, should we consider them as animals, and have the right to treat them the same as we would with a dog or horse?
No, I don't mean this as a troll. I just think we need to fundamentally change the way we view our legal and moral definition of "human". Personally, I favor "anything capable of supporting itself and successfully interacting with society", with a modifier for age. Outside that, no rights beyond basic cruelty-to-animals style rights (though I suspect I count as something of an extremist in that regard). However, whichever way you look at this, we can't just say "genetic humans have all the rights of a full living adult human", without having a VERY glaring grey area.