China Ahead in Stem-Cell Research 457
Andrew writes: "New Scientist is reporting (for free) on the WSJ's China clones human embryos story: "Chinese scientists are claiming a great leap forward in human cloning - the creation of dozens of cloned embryos advanced enough to harvest embryonic stem cells."" The lengthy Wall Street Journal story is also on MSNBC.
Ok, so the chinese can clone embryos... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lack of Ethics in Chinese Society (Score:3)
Actually, "the West" hasn't "expressed grave concerns" over the moral implications of cloning. You say this as if we, a unified body of First World nations, think cloning is eeeeeeevil.
Fact is, there's a great deal of disagreement on the subject - no unity whatsoever. And as the strongest objections seem to be made by religious fanatics with no scientific background in the biological sciences, I can see why the Chinese might find much of the debate specious and rooted in Western-style religious fundamentalism.
Hell, I'm an American and that's the way I see it. Yet another bunch of clueless idiots who've seen one to many 'evil clones kill people' horror flicks and think that this is somehow going to happen in real life....
Max
Re:Lack of Ethics in Chinese Society (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are you to object to his imposing a global ethical standard on anyone? If ethics are a totally subjective ideal, then how can his act of imposition be considered wrong or right?
What does it say when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What does it say when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Facism has nothing to do with Communism (Score:2, Interesting)
Because the USA is filled with Facism as well, perhaps we arent as bad as Germany, Russia, China, but we arent as good as some other places in Europe, or NZ either.
As far as freedom goes, Communism does have its benifits, one of them is science benifits greatly from it because scientists have complete freedom.
The only problem China faces is the fact that they have too many people and not enough jobs for them all, their government is out of order, right now we are entering the information age, resources and man power will matter less, information will matter more, and in this situation, the bigger population shall have more producers of information.
China and Communism benifits from this greatly, however because of their stupidity they are restricting information through censorship, if they ever allow their people to actually access the information then we'd be left in the dust.
Then again we have problems like that here (Copyright is a form of Censorship)
Re:What does it say when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does it say when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well. Actually, we're not arguing about socialism vs. capitalism; we're arguing about socialism (the government controls the economy) vs. fascism (the government chooses a few large corporations to control the economy, and everyone else can go to hell.) China is getting steadily less socialist because socialism generally doesn't work very well; the US is sliding into fascism because that's what capitalism tends to become if We The People don't pay attention. Real capitalism is an infinitely better choice than either, but right now nobody seems to have the will or interest to maintain it. News flash: capitalism is hard work.
What does all this have to do with science? Simple. Science flourishes in a zeitgeist of free inquiry and skepticism. Neither socialist bureaucrats nor fascist oligarchs are friendly to such a zeitgeist, because it threatens their power. Both socialism and fascism tend to be profoundly conservative, in a sense that has little to do with the traditional left-right dichotomy. It's a sad irony that Communist China is doing a better job of breaking the stranglehold of that kind of conservatism than the US is.
Real capitalism (Score:2)
Would mean we'd all be consultants, and start our own businesses, small ones of course.. Big business is actually bad for the economy because it decreases competition, innovation and people get paid less
Re:Oh geez, so lets talk about how capitalism bega (Score:2)
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Abortion is legal in the USA, whats the diffrence. (Score:2)
We have legalized abortion yet we respect human life all of the sudden? Come on. Be serious.
If Abortion is legal, Stem Cell research should also be legal. Its the same thing, the only diffrence is you are actually making use of the embryols for a purpose which can actually save lives.
Re:What does it say when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Democracy != absolute freedom.
A democratic nation can certainly limit freedoms, and any fruitful democracy does. In this case the democracy has thus far decided (although not clearly in one direction or the other) that the moral cost of stem cell research is not worth the scientific gain. Arriving at this decision is complex and cumbersome process.. that is the wonder of democracy. The people have effectively put controls on this research themselves.
A communist nation (or dictatorship) has another method of arriving at decisions. In this case a single ruler (or single party) gets to make the decisions about what freedoms to limit. Traditionally China has placed great limits on the freedom of its people, but in this case the ruler has chosen to let stem cell research continue. This shouldn't really be surprising, it is certainly easier to convince a communist leader with limited responsibility to the wants of the people to pursue a potentially controversial policy.
This mirrors what we saw in the Soviet Union. They accelerated their space program because the leadership had limited responsibility for the lives of the people involved. They didn't have to care what the people thought.
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2)
And in doing so, they have provided incentive for obtaining stem cells from elsewhere [smh.com.au]. Using adult stem cells [newscientist.com] harvested from the same person who will receive them has obvious advantage, not the least of which is the immune system factor. Score one for democracy.
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2)
Further, the most purely capitalistic eras of American history did *not* coincide with the freest in terms of civil rights or liberties.
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2, Interesting)
You are deluded. Stalin wrote a really great constitution, he also had practically all the members of the Supreme Soviet that enacted it murdered. Stalin's 'secret ballots' consisted of an option to go behind a curtain to mark your ballot rather than just place it in the box and have it count automatically for the party candidate. In Stalin's time most of the people who went behind the curtain were murdered.
Stalin's state had little to do with any political creed other than opportunism and the persuit of power. There is even evidence that Stalin originally joined the communist party as a Tsarist mole.
As for Stalin's effect on the economy, it can only be considered positive compared to the stagnation under the Tsars. Most of the progress took place under Lenin in any case, Stalin was too busy massacring Kulacks by the million and issuing edicts that twenty plants be built when there was material for three with the result that none were completed.
The only positive effect the communists had was they diverted the massive flows of capital that the Tsars had squandered on themselves and poured it into industrial developments, but that did not require a police state.
However, that said, it is quite hilarious that the response of US side folk to the thought that China might surpass them scientifically is to dredge up cold war rhetoric. China has not been a Stalinist state since Mao died and the gang of four were liquidated. Today it is merely an under-developed kleptocracy. If China was not a rival to US power and did not call itself communist the GOP hawks would have no trouble at all supporting them no matter how many people the regime kills.
If you have a billion people and a part way modernised economy you canout perform a country of a quarter your size in a few selected areas of science. There is little reason to believe that the Chinese version of communism will be any more long lasting than the Soviet one. The only difference is that in China the impetus for change is comming from economic success rather than stagnation. Nobody believes in Chinese communism, the issue for Chinas leaders is not whether they adopt a democracy but how they get from where they are to where they want to be.
If China succeeds in a peaceful democratic transition they will inevitably outstrip US power in the same way and for the same reason that the US suceeded the UK, population size.
China is planning to become a biotech super-power. That is not the immediate threat to the US however since it is unlikely many US scientists would move to China. Many will move and are moving to the UK and Canada however.
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2)
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2)
Why are capitalists so anti communist (Score:2)
As if the USA is a democracy? First we arent a democracy we are a republic.
Second communism allows far greater freedom than capitalism IF the government is not corrupt.
Since 99 percent of all governments are corrupt including ours, a corrupt communist government is one the people cannot control. Our government is controlled by the top 10% of rich Capitalists not us, so how are we in any diffrent of a situation than the Chinese?
SSSCA, The Patriot Act, DMCA, These laws arent democractic at all, we didnt vote to have these laws in place, if we were allowed to vote the majority would vote against these laws, hey but some rich guys in suits and some representatives who are actually representing the rich guys in suits, they make the law.
A corrupt government is a corrupt government, Communism isnt bad on paper, its bad only because humans make it bad, and our government is bad only because we allow it to be.
Re:What does it say when... (Score:2)
Unethical, yeah, but where do you think some of the drawings in your Anatomy texts came from?
The difference here is that I have no ethical objection to human cloning, nor to embryo research.
This is not the only ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is not the only ... (Score:2)
Re:This is not the only ... (Score:2)
I guess they haven't quite gotten the capitalist concept that when there's a glut in your market, the last thing you need is more production.
Yup (Score:2)
"Yew must be dem clones I been a-hearing 'bout. Y'all look the same ta me."
</Southern Senator>
Effect of cloning competion? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope we don't see a return to the paranoid "yellow peril" [nationalist.org] nonsense that has plauged US views of China in the past. I can already see certain right-wing idiots spouting on about seas of cloned Chinese flooding the US. Sigh.
But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Chinese are pursuing MHC.
The idea behind Medicinal Human Cloning (MHC) is to clone human cells at the cellular level, before cell differentiation [visembryo.com]. Cell differentiation occurs 2 weeks into the life of an embryo, when all the cells in the embryo stop being homogenous and, all at once, establish their own identities. Some become hand cells, some feet cells, some brain cells, some blood cells. This "magic" event is the point at which human life begins. MHC is the process of cloning human cells before this event.
The point of being able to harvest unlimited quantities of undifferentiated human cells is that these cells can become any cell in the body; they are "undecided", yet genetically matched to the recipient. The applications here are as numerous as you can imagine: tissue replacement, skin replacement for burn victims, manufactured organs custom-matched to the recipient. This is the promise we are debating; the lives of millions who could be saved by this procedure [advancedcell.com], from burn victims to heart attack victims.
This advance promises to revolutionize medicine. Not just technically, but from a societal perspective as well. If we understand anything about MHC, it is that it will be prohibitively expensive to apply to an entire population. An order of magnitude costlier than even heart transplantation, we are dealing with sums of millions of dollars per regenerated organ. And unlike transplantation, this technique will be able to prolong the life of anyone, indefinitely. As a society, we will soon be in the position of deciding the lifespan(s) of each of our citizens. Not because we control death; not euthenasia, but because we control life.
We've already seen this paradigm emerge with the "list" for heart transplants. The pathetic attempt at a "meritocracy" for deciding who receives a new heart has been a total failure, as evidenced by the case of David Crosby [advancedcell.com]. The system is weighted in favor of the rich, against the poor. Will this paradigm dominate the field of Medicinal Human Cloning? Will only the rich live forever? Will money become the force of life? Not if we can help it. We will need to act decisively as events are set in motion.
We must establish a true meritocracy for the Immortality Revolution ushered in by advances in Medicinal Human Cloning. Like the Slashdot Moderation system, we could create a system of random "Moderators", if you will, who are picked secretly and randomly and given the ability to tag their fellow citizens as deserving or undeserving of the scarce asset of Organ Regeneration, financed by the state. You could rate your neighbor (-1 Stupid) for abusing his spouse, or your coworker (+1 Insightful) for fixing your printer connection. Those with the highest scores would receive the greatest medical benefit: Immortality.
Imagine a world where we never lost an Einstein, never killed a Bohr. Where great leaders like George Bush could advise us forever; where people like Noam Chomsky were but a temporary nuisance. This is the promise of cloning: not reproducing the husks of people but giving the gift of life to the greatest among us.
We must act swiftly when the time comes.
Re:But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:2)
The Chinese are pursuing MHC.
Just to set the record straight, my post that this is a reply to was very carefully worded. I know that the Chinese are not talking about cloning people. I know they are pursuing medical cloning technology. My second paragraph was saying that I hope that we don't see this sort of misunderstanding. Please read posts a little more carefully before replying to them.
Re:But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:2)
Either way, this will not allow immortality. Only aid from common diseases, not curing virii, not curing freak decapitations caused by flying cows, and certainly not from the dangers of other men.
Dream on (Score:2)
I don't have a good answer to this myself, but think the "moderation" system is incorrect. In a way this reminds me a lot of the "Red Mars" series of books by Kim Stanley Robinson, where they solve the longevity problem... ideas discussed in there are probably relevant to such a development.
Re:But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry sport, this is some really backwards thinking. Let's think this through...
A. There is no magic to the differentiation. Also, when do you decide when cells differentiate? Undifferentiated cells are all precursors of endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm, the three initial ebryological types. But before the cells differentiate per se they have the potential to differentiate.
Same with life. That unicellular zygote is potential for life fulfilled. If left by itself with the relevant nutrients and in the proper protective conditions, it *will* develop gradually into a human. The potential which was (sperm and egg separately) is fulfilled. Sperm and egg left alone and prevented from fusing won't become anything; they'll die.
If some dude is studying to be a programmer or doctor or whatever, he has that potential. Left with the proper nutrients and conditions, he/she will become one of those (ruling out conscious changes of direction, etc.) Is he/she a programmer yet? who is to say, but given time that (or an equivalent) will happen.
My God, That Sounds Horrible. (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, there is a genetic link to aging. The clone of dolly the sheep is aging rapidly because the genetic material of the original dolly "remembers" how old dolly is. This could theoretically be circumvented by getting cells from the reproductive organs, but that is easier said than done. We're talking an invasive surgery here. This isn't a problem if you want to make replacement organs that won't last longer than the person was genetically "intended" to.
Second, is that the brain cannot truly be repaired. They can inject stem cells to replace dying brain cells, but these cells won't be able to retrieve whatever memories and skills were lost when a brain cell dies. Thus, if you define a person by how they act, what they know/remember, basically, by their mind, then the person is going to die, just a lot more slowly.
Third, is Murphey's Law. Shit happens, and you can at best lengthen the life span to the point that accidents don't shorten it.
Fourth, the cell's natural mechanisms for fighting cancer actually promote aging. Though you may prevent this from being problematic in the body by replacing it, the brain will eventually get cancer, and it will eventually enter the blood stream.
Now that we've dealt with some of the technical issues (I'm sure there are more, I just don't know them/can't think of them right now), let's move on to moral/philosophical issues. If you're right wing, and believe in God, then you'd also believe that we weren't meant to live forever. If the soul goes on forever, then there is no point in making the body permanent. You'll get protest on that front, whether or not it's right/true.
Now, for the idea of a meritocracy. The problem with that is that people will start "running for immortality" like the run for office. Thus demagoguery will spiral out of control. There will also be people made immortal who don't deserve it. Would the Scientologists have permitted their leader to die? Did that con-artist deserve immortality? And that is all assuming that your system works right! People will try to rig the selection of "moderators." There will be a black market where the rich can get their hands on the procedure, even if they've been moderated "-5 million, die now fcker!" The technology will eventually get cheaper, so that everyone will insist on receiving immortality, and it will be possible. The problem with that path is that it leads to stasis and stagnation.
Did you ever consider that death is a good thing? Single celled organisms, like bacteria and amoeba, don't die naturally; they only die when the environment becomes too hostile (whether it's chemically, thermally, or full of predators). Primitive life has immortality, or at least, are as close to it as physically possible. Why did life abandon immortality if it is such a worthwhile goal? The reason that the single-celled life forms don't have death is because they don't need it. Any change in the genetic structure is expressed by the organism in, at worst, an hour or two. With multi-cellular organisms, it is impossible for all of the genetic code in all of the cells to change in a coordinated fashion while the animal is still alive. Even with genetic therapy, there is no guarantee that all the cells have been properly altered. In fact, nothing short of transporter technology would do for creating the rapid changes in genotype and phenotype throughout an organism. The ability of the individual to die is the ability of the whole society of individuals to change, and thus to adapt to change. The death of the individual is as necessary as the death of skin cells, or the atrophy of neural synapses that go unused. In short, if people would stop for a second to look past their inbreed, and healthy, fear of death, they'd realize that it isn't a bug, it's a feature.
You post reflects one facet of a coming problem that I've been considering for a while now. Fear, death, pain, pleasure, happiness, love... These are all constructs, mental fantasies that are useful in impelling unthinking beasts to survival. With advances in biology, specifically neuroscience, a time will come when we will have mastered all of these. What will we do with that mastery, I wonder? Are we destined to become like the rat with an electrode in the pleasure center of it's brain that electrocuted itself to death, but with more advanced methods, will we be an immortal rat? What will we do with this new independence from the evolved constraints on our behavior? Will we permit random variation to continue? Will there be a new dictatorship/utopia where people's thoughts are literally controlled? I wish I could answer these questions, because the consequences of the wrong choice on humanity's part will have dire consequences for the species. My hope is that society will literally grow up, like the transition from childhood to adulthood is supposed to work. To quote Hackers, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things. (pause) What... It's Corinthians I, Chapter 13, verse 11, no duh. Come on." Interesting that a pantheist like myself still finds some wisdom in the Bible.
Here's hoping we grow up before we kill ourselves. Avoiding nuclear war is only round one.
BlackGriffen
Re:But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:2)
The brain does "age" - it takes inevitable damage with time but...with stem cells harvested from such clones, it is possible that damage brain tissue can be replaced. If you can replace irreparably-damaged neurons with new neurons, you can gain the same benefit from simply wholesale replacing a kidney or lung.
Re:But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:2)
Thus far, most of the neural work with stem cells has been to try to correct
such things as epilepsy. When it works you GAIN function from a previous loss of function. There is also the possibility of correcting memory deficits in the aged (and diseased non-aged). As long as the new neural connections are mostly the same as the previous, there should be no noticeable problem. In any case, by the time you got around
to needing one of these, you are likely to have already lost memories and some physical
function. Any repair would be welcome.
Re:But the Chinese aren't even cloning people! (Score:2)
Perhaps we just shouldn't be allowed to moderate political leaders, as an extension of term limits... That way we get to keep the Einsteins, but lose the Nixons. Unfortunately, we would also lose the Roosevelts.
Re:Effect of cloning competion? (Score:3, Informative)
Researchers who want to study stem cells can still do so. They just have to find their own money for it.
Re:Effect of cloning competion? (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't claim that they did. I said they allow "limited research".
It simply decided not to use public funds for such research.
Not quite true. They are in fact allowing federal dollars to be spent on limited stem-cell research. See, for example this article [cnn.com].
Given that a large number of members of this democratic republic object to tax money (which they paid in the first place) being used to fund research they disagree with, how can we possibly find fault with the government for respecting the wishes of its citizens?
Firstly because the few opinion polls on this matter indicate that substantially more people support funding of stem-cell research than oppose it (see, for example: this poll [go.com] there are others).
Secondly because the US like most Western countries is not a "pure" democracy where every issue is decided by popular opinion. All decisions are made by politicians who weigh many different factors including but not limited to public opinion in making their decisions. No sane person would want a pure democracy.
Re:Effect of cloning competion? (Score:3, Insightful)
To someone who doesn't work in a lab, this sounds like a sensible statement, but it doesn't take into account the way things really work in a biological research lab. Most labs have many people working on multiple projects that have multiple sources of funding, and if they want to publish stem cell work, they have to prove that they didn't use ANY government funds for the stem cell work, even accidentally. The problem is that everything within a lab is intertwined. When I use a centrifuge, PCR machine, or a bottle of some reagent, I don't know which grant paid for it. While these restrictions allow for the theoretical possibility of limited stem cell work to go on in the US, they generate a huge amount of red tape and make everything a huge pain in the ass for the people doing the work. The result is that scientists in the US who want to do serious stem cell work will simply go to other countries, and the top scientists from other countries won't come here any more. Australia, Israel, and a few others are already ahead of us in stem cell research, and apparently China is now too. If this situation continues for a few years, the US will no longer be the world's leader in development of new medical technologies. Funding of stem cell research is in the best economic interests of our nation, and that's the reason why the current legislation against stem cell work here will not last long, regardless of what the public thinks. Besides, it will only take the development of one successful therapy and a few TV ads to convince 99% of American citizens that stem cell research is worth funding.
The US is going to fall way behind (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the high-tech weapons that our military has didn't invent themselves. And I can guarantee you that they weren't invented using the Bible as a tech manual. Wake up anti-science conservatives, if you want the Chinese and the EU to pass us in every way, just keep on the course you're on.
Re:The US is going to fall way behind (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm always reading that here. But, picking up the first issue of Nature that came to hand (August 16, 2001) I see papers from institutions in the following countries:
- France, US, France
- US, US
- US
- Germany
- US, US, US
- France, France, France
- US, US
- US
- Germany, US
- Australia, Australia
- US, US, UK
- UK
- Netherlands, Germany, Germany
Mind you, this is in a British journal. I think if you look in any non-specialist journal you'll see the same thing (except that Japan had a really poor showing in the issue I looked at, and France did unusually well.Finally I'll point out that 1) the notion that evolution isn't taught in US schools is 99.999% wrong and 2) stem cell research is legal in the US, just not necessarily funded by the government.
Now, this is where the Scandinavians always jump in to brag about how they all have cell phones. ;-)
problems... (Score:2)
Evil (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Evil (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe the present is an ugly place. Read a newspaper. Look at some pictures of dead Palestinians, and think how complacent the US is in their deaths.
And as for "evil, soulless facist governments," are you implying that the US is any better? We only ban this research because of the religious right. Get religion out of government and we'd be doing this, no question.
Re:Evil (Score:2)
Re:Evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Which Governments actually do shows signs of fascism? What countries impose bans on scientific research and raise tariffs on imported goods all while preaching on Democracy and Free Trade?
I'd hate to be GWB. (Score:4, Interesting)
The poor boy is now solidly stuck between his Oh So Rightous right wing religious supporters and the need to keep the United States up with the rest of the world in genetic research. It looks like science suffers at the hands of the Morality police.
Hasn't this happened before?... (Galileo, Darwin, ...)
Re:I'd hate to be GWB. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd bet that Chinese scientest have about the same attitude as US or other scientest do about science: Learn more, Understand better.
I'd also bet that the chinese people, scientest, and government each have different attitudes about the role of science (the same is true in the US and other places). I don't give the chinese government any credit other than being smart enough to not tromp all over the advancement of learning and understanding (something GWB and the "Morality Police" haven't been able to do).
If you want to argue what is best for society via science, that's one thing. If you simply want to look for any reason to demean religion (let's cut to the chase...Christanity) don't expect people to give you much credence.
Point. I do not demonize religion in general (though I did not clearify that), I demonize those individual people who use religion as an excuse to enforce their opinions on others, to supress people, to supress the truth, to glorify theirselves, and to gather personal power in the name of their religion (Plenty of history on that count in any religion).
The "religious right" that currently influences much of the politics in the US embodies much of those qualities, and as far as I can tell embodies very little of the teachings of their namesake savior, Jesus Christ.
Galileo suffered not because his opinions went against the teachings of the church, but because he challanged the authority of the church by claiming that his discoveries disproved a few items in the bible and therefore the bible as a whole must be considered suspect. It was a power struggle, not a religious one.
Darwin suffered because Rightious people would not accept a less superior place in the order of life as described by evolution.
Health care... (Score:4, Funny)
Is it just me, or does it seem that medical treatment is moving in the direction of taking a very large number of plane flights?
Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it also interesting how the one main country with whom the United States has mixed in civil rights with trade agreements is the country that may end up further along in this line of research. Of course, one could say that Hitler had learned a lot through research as well. How far can we allow our morality to stretch to further the advancement of the human race?
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps unfortunately, there exists no equivalent decision supporting the rights of scientific research, cloning, or medical advances.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2)
Shouldnt the scientist who created the cells in a lab "OWN" the cell and thus have the same rights as a mother?
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now: I believe the difference lies in intent. Cloning/harvesting is making a baby with no intent on making a person. Abortions (should) occur only when a couple has no intention of making a baby, but *oops*. US law states that embyroes in very early stages can be killed, as it cannot live outside of the mother (without assistance) and is thus 'part of the mother' and she has the right to do whatever things to herself she wants as long as she does not endanger herself, or anyone else. (the debate is wether she can further endanger someone who cannot live outside her)
Personally I believe that abortion should be allowed, and is the worst, last option in birth control, but still far better than having a child that cannot be loved and supported as one should.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2)
Abortion is worse, because who gets helped from Abortion? No one but the woman who had the Abortion, this means Abortion is selfish.
Stem Cell research could help any one of us. When you fall and break your spine, you'll change your mind about stem cell research, hell if a woman fell and broke her spine would it be ok for her to use the stem cells to fix her back?
You have a right to your opinion, but i see it as hypocritical.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2)
Adoption does not solve these problems. Or at least current adoption does not. In an ideal world where people adopted all the children put up for adoption, it might.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, most children are raised in a broken home, thats the stupidest excuse i've ever heard.
I was raised without a father around, Am I going to wish i were aborted? hell no! And i dont think anyone else raised in a "broken" home wishes they were aborted either unless they have some serious mental problems.
If you are in a foster home, or a broken home, it does not mean you'll grow up to be a bad person.
Please stop talking about emotional problems and proper parantage as if its somehow normal in this day and age to have that knowing that almost half the kids growinng up or who have grown up these days grew up in a broken home. Alot of kids were abused mentally, sexually, etc, and have had it worse than me, and this was by their real parents, honestly this is beyond your control, but even if i grew up like that, i still wouldnt wish i was aborted.
Its not right for you to judge for some other lifeform if it should live or die, its up to that life form to decide for itself, that is my opinion.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2)
Who's morality? Mine says abortion is OK and that embryonic stem cell research is totally OK. I don't know what you mean by "How far can we allow our morality..."
This is a reason that religion does absolutely NOT belong in government in any way shape or form. Science is science and marches to its own drum.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed? How does one define morality? Are all viewpoints moral, or are some more moral than others? And if some are more moral, who gets to decide why they're more moral?
The idea that everybody gets to pick their own morality is a common and attractive one in today's intellecutal milieu. Yet, it ultimately reduces the meaning of morality to absolutely nothing. There absolutely must be some common definition that people can work from in determining what is and is not moral. It's like trying to do math where everybody gets to pick their own values for different numbers - some people might come close to each other's results when solving a few problems, but the system will break down extremely quickly. Is morality defined by consensus? How much of a consensus is necessary? Are we able to declare immoral the behavior of any group that ever had a consensus?
I'm curious where you're coming from here, and how you make your definition of morality stand.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2, Insightful)
BZZZT Wrong! Morality is not a relative issue. Something is either morally acceptable or it is not. There's no such thing as "Well that may be wrong for you, but it's not wrong for me". It doesn't suddenly become moral to beat your wife or your children just because someone thinks it's okay.
For any moral question, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. Establishing the right answer is more tricky, but the fact that people don't agree on it doesn't mean there are two answers.
The world is either flat or round, it's not both. God either exists, or he does not. Foetus' are either human beings, or they are not.
Re:Embryo cloning, abortion? (Score:2)
Sorry, perhaps blame was not the right choice of words. I was reacting to the term "hypocracy" that you used. When people throw that term around they are usually looking to find someone to blame; if you were not I apologise.
And when i said 'morality', I was referring to the morality of society in general. Surely such ideas exist. To give some examples, genocide? murder? human sacrifice? I guess in each own persons mind what they are doing is moral, but as a society we uphold a number of things as moral. Try and sacrifice a live virgin in your front yard and claim its moral. We'll see how society reacts
Just because most people would agree on some questions does not mean we have a common morality. The most obvious example is exactly what we are talking about: abortion. There are clearly many Americans who believe this is morally wrong, equally there are many Americans who do not believe this is morally wrong.
And even the "easy" examples you cite are usually not nearly as clear cut as you might like to think. Is it always wrong to kill people? Clearly not (war, self-defense, provocation...). When you say "murder" you mean killing that contravenes current laws. But these laws (and therefore the distinction between murder and lawful killing) are changing all the time. Indeed they even differ from state to state. So there is much less of a common morality than you seem to imply.
Oddly appropriate Fortune on this page (+5 Spooky) (Score:2, Interesting)
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's going to pursue this more ethically? The Chinese, who've been alleged to use prisons as organ factories, or us?
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
This in no way reflects my views on capitalism, ludditism, ethics of human cloning, pro-life, or anything else. All I wish to say is: If your morality prevents innovation, and it lies in a gray area (pay attention to gray areas throughout history - mathematics could be considered one of those in the middle ages), those who do invent it will have an "advantage". (ie. the Ottomans.)
-B
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
Relinquishment is dumb! (Score:2)
Amen to that!
Whenever we relinquish a technology because we feel we're ethically "above that sort of thing", we run the risk that the technology will be picked up by people with WAY less moral scruples. Relinquishment pushes technology into the hands of the unethical, the very thing we'd hope to avoid by relinquishing in the first place.
There's then this tricky problem: how do we keep a strong technical lead in an ethically problematical area of technology? Historically we've done it with black ops. Maybe that's what would work here. Then again, there have recently been advances [eurekalert.org] that may make Bush's unfortunate decision moot: it is now possible to extract a stem cell from an adult human that is fully capable of differentiating into any cell type.
So now, maybe we can have our cake and eat it too. If the Chinese make huge gains using fetal stem cells, but we can do all the same stuff with stem cells from adults, then their putative technological lead becomes a tempest in a teapot.
Proof please... (Score:2)
And where is your proof to support that statement? Or is this just he-says-she-says-thingy?
Now how did that get there... (Score:2)
The entire CHINESE WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all share ONE personality -- and have since BIRTH!!
Seems a little too relevant...
population?? (Score:2)
On one hand, they employ 'neighborhood-watch' for couples who might want a second child. those couples are then 'socially' pressured into getting an abortion. but on the other hand the gummint wants to clone humans... I guess they're going to require someone to have a license to produce humans... (much like a manufacturing license). But then the country is so good at piracy -- you know where that's going to end up. 'pirated copies' -- literally -- will be found on every chinease street corner. what's new?
I hope not! (Score:2, Funny)
Just think... billions of Chinese!!! ah!
This is news... but not new (Score:4, Interesting)
While nothing specifically mentioned the cloning, analyists who had been looking for hints on space weapons, stealth bomber/fighters, and missing prisoners came to the conclusion that some of the rumors about human cloning in remote siberian research stations were not without backing evidence. This was due to a small trickle of the worst dissidents, those who had good health records and whom were fit and free from known genetic diseas in their families, were disappearing.
These stations still remain closed to the world and heavily guarded, and there are only rumors. Rumors like men being bred from birth with extra ribs and denser/thicker muscles and bones. Men who had enhanced senses of smell or night time eyesight.
A few of the people who went "missing" from soviet prisons for serious crimes were noted as re-appearing years later in soviet Marine Infantry brigades (spetznat) with clouded service records, but it is difficult to imagine Russia in the 80's having the technical knowhow or where with all to be able to "mutate" or modify already grown adults. I toss that one out though as an x-files kind of rumor that sure could scare the kids up around Mermansk.
Like I said, alot of rumors... but it makes you think. You gotta wonder what the CIA paid for too... there is alot of black budget money that doesn't get tracked beyond the agency front door... they managed to produce the Blackbird that way, and U2/TR1 as well as who knows what. I wonder if the gov't has dabbled in genetic mutation or embryonic modification/cloning...
Oh well, in direct comment to the article and posters here, let me go on the record that I think this is not a bad thing. China is not looking to increase their population (which they have difficulty controlling or feeding as is now)... they are doing research to A) Best the US and Europe at their own game, and B) come up with medical breakthrough that meet condition A and benefit their own society as well... maybe even boost their economy with something original that only they can produce, that being working genetic medicines they for once control under patent.
People, people, lots of people (Score:2)
It also helps that one can clone the important Party officials and make even truer the tradicional Chinese fascination for long term planning (not the 3-month Wall Street long term standard, mind you, the Chinese long term is measured in centuries). In the future, one will plan and have a clone to implement the plan.
I hope they remember to learn how to clone the rice, the pork and the fish, to feed all the surplus people they will be making.
Next man on the moon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Our science fiction always assumes that space colonization and the "future" will be dominated by western ideals, but as things are trending now, the future looks brighter for asia.
asia is the way to go... (Score:3, Insightful)
While the politicians here debate, and try to cater to every consituency, by holding research back, the rest of the world will be able to run with the ball...
an educated question... (Score:2)
Unlike most adult cells, whose functions are preprogrammed, embryonic stem cells can adapt themselves to a variety of specialist roles, filling in as heart or nerve cells.
so, let's assume i'm born, from an embryonic cell (cloned), and my heart goes bad. the doctor forgets to stick the embryo in the magic soultion that turns the "turn me into a heart organ" switch, and puts the cell directly into me.
does the embryo turn into a blasocyst and a developing baby/tumor? or would this "know" what to do? i know there's a specific solution that must be prepared to turn on all the genes to clone an animal, but would the body naturally tell this embryo what to do?
Human Organs (Score:5, Funny)
"Made in China"
China. Cloning. 'Nuff said. (Score:2)
Re:China. Cloning. 'Nuff said. (Score:2)
Is it sick that I can still pretty much boil down much of the socio-political landscape in terms of a computer game?
Picture this in court.... (Score:2, Interesting)
With people being truly identical in every which way (not including haircuts and stuff like that) including DNA, it would be nearly impossible to prove innocence or guilt of one of the clones in a court case that currently relies on such technologies.
Think about it...
"Your client was on the security camera and it was his blood on the floor"
"No, your honor, it was his identical clone with the same DNA - my client was nowhere near the place of the incident"
-kwishot
Mixed reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet another reason why China scares me. Anyone upset over the American jingoism since 9/11 and during the Olympics should be blown away by the scope of Chinese nationalism, to say nothing of their singularly ass backwards system of medicine, politics, human rights, spam filtering, etc..
Column B
Kudos for this country for pushing the scientific frontiers of medical benefits to mankind. This forward-thinking is yet another sign of the benefits of not being caught up in corrupt fundamenalist political wackos. But since China's rich cultural heritage spanks the USA in longevity by about, oh, a factor of ten, it shouldn't be surprising where they're headed - it's only a matter of time before this technically advanced economic powerhouse dominates the globe.
Re:Mixed, shaken not stirred (Score:2)
I rarely bother to react to reactionary statements, but what with the distemper attendant upon a bout of the flu, bitchslapping an idiot has a perverse appeal.
Column A is vacuous and needn't be commented upon further.
Column B is idiotic. China's 'rich cultural heritage' is rife with xenophobic internecine warfare. The present regime is but the latest set of warlords. I've worked with and for Chinese families of substantial wealth, they were urbane, informed and loath to live in China. The Chinese mythos has long held the 'middle kingdom' will 'soon' rule the earth. It's quite funny to hear a chinese person self-deprecatingly state the inevitable rise to world dominance of the Chinese people. It's like they really don't want to rule the earth but destiny *is* destiny. China can barely feed it's people. The Three Gorges Dam is a grandiose scheme to implement a hydroelectric panacea. China historically came 'online', if you will, by development of a series of canal works, but the Three Gorges Dam is thought to be fundamentally flawed and might well silt up in plus/minus thirty years. Long stretches of China's rivers are dead. Environmentally China is a sludge pressure cooker overheating. China had damn well better scramble to advance every and any frontier of learning because in all likelihood when the shit (night soil) hits the fan over the next decade or two were all going to be splattered and forced to help clean up the mess.
cheersMany More Maos day celebration to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
And as a totalitarian state, not particularly worried about ethics, foreign opinion, or foetuses, they have a very large source of research material.
But I expected better from many of you. They aren't doing this to increase their population. They aren't even doing this for stem cell research per se. They have plenty of stem cells from their very aggressive population control program. No, what they want is money. They want to clone embryos to sell to us squeamish westerners. They have to develop the technique of cloning them, so they can clone the stem cell lines we hypocritically approve of, then sell them back to us. What a wacky world we live in!
Talk about mixed messages (Score:2)
Yeah, that makes sense.
Re:Talk about mixed messages (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with /. is that some very smart people who know a lot about one specific field, think they're qualified to comment (and +mod) on things they know nothing about.
Jackie Chan is first in line (Score:5, Funny)
Economic boost for China (Score:2, Insightful)
Stem Cell research is not being hindered. (Score:3, Informative)
The only policy that President Bush has established concerning stem cells said that an existing set of stem cell strains (aprox. 60) would recieve federal funding. That's not the same as outlawing or limiting future stem cell research.
Other stem cell strains may be created, but not at federal expense. Medical Companies would need to use private financing to start future strains.
Re:Stem Cell research is not being hindered. (Score:2)
Universities would lose a great portion of their grants if they were to even consider stem cell research. Major companies still rely on federal funding. It is only the smaller ones or the ones located in other countries that's going to succeed.
The problem with this is this. Let's just say China does research and finds a cure for cancer (per se). Now 1) would the FDA approve this treatment? 2) Would you be willing to try a treatment that was not FDA approved? 3) Would the US respect the patent on this treatment (if there was one) or if Bush and his people are in power, will they just ignore the patent laws? (Look what they were considering to do with Cipro - allowing another company to produce a generic version at a cheaper price. And Cipro was produced in the US and is protected by US laws)
Like the chinese really need this... (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't China kind of have a little over-population problem as it is?
;-)
Like to the tune of 1.2 BILLION people!
Last Super Power on Earth ? (Score:3, Interesting)
With increasing restrictions on scientific study, assanine patent law, and scientific monopolies - it seems everyone is out for either the buck or the moral highground. [or a political office.]
Hobbes would be proud, since he was the first to preach that to inturrupt the 'process' of god was a sin. Apparantly cloning (as well as violent video games and open source software) falls into this catagory.
Am i using a sweeping generality , you betchya`. Is it far from the truth ? not really as far as I would like it to be.
While i must say
Apparantly the way the govt slid the last 8 years, was to pander to the highest voting majority, go back to our 16th centruy religious roots, and avoid change.
change apparantly is evil. and will destroy our 'family' values. Whatever values they have 'saved' in 15 years when people are mutating horribly due to all the petrolium toxins in the air/water/soil won't matter
As the US becomes more and more self centered and less a 'world' player
Anyone see what japan did ? Japanese as a culture are rather xenophobic. [Just watch a 6 foot tall black man walk down a street in Yokohama
Incest between mother and son is common due to bonds formed from 'exam' stress. Rape and molestation is practicaly a way of life for young girls. And 12 year old prostitutes in the Tokyo/yokahama area are not only common, but ALMOST accepted. Theft and crime, once unthinkable (outside organized gangs) are becoming common place.
Again, im being general here
I just wonder, how much of 'protecting our values' Japan did 10-15 years ago. Are we repeating the same social mistakes? By refusing to let our scientists to explore? When our future is being decided by people who are holding onto beliefs that were founded 2000 years ago, when the world (to them) comprised of about 1/3 of europe - is that system equiped to handle the way the world is now ?
would you choose to program your new graphics application in C++ ? or COBOL ?
food for thought (Score:2, Funny)
Now you're really going to have to worry about what you've got in your dim sims.
Not according to the CIA World Factbook: (Score:2)
Re:I hate to break this... (Score:2)
I was incorrect, the birth rate is a negative number, but the lowering death rate means the population is growing.
As for the Indian thing, I don't think wars are decided by how many men you can put in the field anymore. China has the largest population in the world (they still edge out India), but they're surrounded by less-populated countries who are more than a match for them in a fight (Japan, Taiwan, Russia, etc)
Re:Uh, yeah (Score:2)
Re:Uh, yeah (Score:2)
How about this [house.gov]: "Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an induced abortion. In the operating room, I saw the child's lips were moving and how its arms and legs were also moving. The doctor injected poison into its skull and the child died and it was thrown into the trash can. Afterwards the husband was holding his wife and crying loudly and saying, what kind of man am I? What kind of husband am I? I can't even protect my wife and child. Do you have any sort of humanity?"
Re:Uh, yeah (Score:2)
So, do you have a better way of population control?
Yes, Capitalism and Democracy. As a population becomes more economically stable, the birth rate naturally decreases. In fact, I've seen some studies that show population will stop increasing around 2050 or 2100.
Re:China's Next Move (Score:2)
Believe It or Not!
Re:Of course they are ahead.... (Score:2)
Easy to cast stones from over here isn't it? WE don't have to live shoulder to shoulder, packed like sardines into limited space as they must in China. WE don't (yet) suffer the same overpopulation problems China does NOW.
I fully support the intention of their population control measures, if not necessarily the way they are carried out. Perhaps economic inducements to smaller families would be better (here AND there). Instead of payrolling big families with tax deductions and crap like that, make people actually pay the real cost of their overproduction of kids.
The law has spoken (Score:2)
Abortion is legal, which means sperms with eggs are legally not alive even if they are actually alive.
Re:Cloning Morals? BAH! (Score:2)
Re:Any History Students Here? (Score:2)
Re:Interesting for the ethics not science. (Score:2)
So, I'm not sure where you are getting that the women were not fully consulted and also the part about human animal hybrids. Sounds like FUD to me... The article specifically said that the women were asked if they would like to donate the leftover eggs.
Secondly, the "animal hybrid" that you mention is rather inaccurate. US Scientists have been using all types of mammals eggs to test human DNA. In addition, there are a number of Human-Animal testing that are currently taking place. Read here [beyond2000.com] So it's not unusual for this to occur in the scientific field.
Lastly, I agree with your last statement in that "we cannot hold back other countries technical progress." The main thing is that the East Asian culture has bred a totally different belief system that is not centralized on Christianity and/or a single god. There is very little stigmata towards donating unused eggs to research (It would otherwise be thrown out anyways) The belief is that it would probably benefit the society and science more through donating than from trashing the unused eggs.
Other Human-Animal Articles
http://cronkite.pp.asu.edu/med/Pages/clonself.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/monke
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/
Re:Mutant rabbit-people (Score:2)