Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

UCSF Acknowledges Tests on Human Cloning 483

Posted by timothy from the one-one-one-testing-one-one-one dept.
David_Bloom writes: "The University of California at San Francisco has acknowledged that it has been illegally toying around with human cloning. They had been attempting to create an early-stage human embryo, with the aim of harvesting stem cells for the use to treat patients with disorders such as Parkinson's and heart disease."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UCSF Acknowledges Tests on Human Cloning More

UCSF Acknowledges Tests on Human Cloning

Comments Filter:

  • NOT illegal (Score:5, Informative)

    by waytoomuchcoffee ( 263275 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:53PM (#3584606)
    The article states "the controversial procedure that would be banned by legislation now before Congress"

    • Federal Funds (Score:5, Interesting)

      by geoffsmith ( 161376 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:04PM (#3584648) Homepage
      Yeah, but it's not legal to perform the procedure using federal funding. And considering UCSF is a public university, there could very well be federal funds involved. It would be nice if the article were more clear on this point.

      Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
      • Go read the article - the research was performed from 1999 to 2001, which means that it was mostly before Bush took his wishy-washy "stand" on stem-cell research, and indeed might even have been over by that point. Not to mention that the lab in question originated two of the approved stem-cell lines!
        • Oops [cnn.com].

          Apparently, there was a 1996 law that barred federal funding for research in which human embryos are "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death". It was only until 2000 -- the lame-duck last year of Clinton's term, amusingly enough -- that the rules were relaxed to allow some federally-funded stem cell research.

          So, basically, for at least 4 years, Pres. Clinton was content for a HARSHER stance against embryonic stem-cell research than was Pres. Bush -- when he was about to leave, he changed the rules and decided to let his successor reap the political consequences. Interesting, eh?
      • The way the law stands, no federal money can be used to do the studies. That does NOT mean that some group (in this case, a university) cannot receive funds just because it researches cloning. A university couldu se private funds (as was stated in the article) to research cloning and spend their federal funds on practically anything else they want to, for example, the effects of idiotic slashdot posters who don't bother to learn about what they're talking about.

        -Jenn

  • Legal, Illegal... I'm the one with the Clone (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:59PM (#3584630)
    Is anyone else getting the idea that laws aren't going to stop this at all anymore than laws can stop 14 year olds having sex or smoking up? Or am I just paranoid?

    Time to put the tinfoil back under my toupe.

    • I don't think paranoid is the right word. "Realistic" maybe. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to stop something that requires a huge lab and lots of money than something that requires one person and some leaves (smoking) or two people and nothing else (sex).

      [Incidentally, since I remember being 14, I'd rather that more 14 year olds were given the opportunity to have sex, provided that they are first educated on how to (a) not get pregnant and (b) not get diseases.]

  • Why is it that dogma always opposes science? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flatlineloc ( 581456 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:59PM (#3584632) Homepage
    This may seem off-topic but with legislation opposing cloning on the footsteps of our capital, I think it bears mention. Why is it I can think of a thousand ways this could benefit people as a whole, but only a few where it would hurt a currently existing human being. While certain aspects of this fledgling science can seem grotesque I just can't help but think that a lot of the opposition comes not from fundamental human beliefs, but more from some kind of right wing perogative to tell me what I can morally do.

    I'm really becoming that cynical, but I just can't reconcile religion and politics, or see it as having any place in a political scheme. Yet we have blue laws, nonsensical bans, and it influences policy all the same. Plus I'm sort of fundamentally opposed to Bush, and most republicans in general because of this alignment. Not so much because of their beliefs but because of this percieved and perhaps actual desire they possess to shove them down my throat. In the process they could cost me and my children a cure for cancer, HIV, half a million diseases... who knows. Why the heck is science these days a political issue anyway? It will occur, with or without the political support of those parties...

    ``The field of human embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy, and will require years of study in laboratories throughout the world, It is critical that scientists be given the opportunity to carry out a broad-based, deep examination of multiple experimental strategies, particularly at this early stage in the evolution of the field.''
    • Why is it I can think of a thousand ways this could benefit people as a whole, but only a few where it would hurt a currently existing human being.

      The opposing viewpoint is such that the embryos are human beings at any stage of development. The view is that life begins with conception, and to end that life is no different than murder.

      Just the facts, ma'am.
      • The viewpoint that a clump of predifferentiated cells constitutes an actual *person* is pure superstition, and should *not* be enshrined in law.
        Gawd Himself sheds these things all the time.
        It often occurs during normal Menstruation. Or, later, (MUCH later) miscarriage.
        Our legislators seriously need to get a clue.
        But you already knew that :)
        • The key is not to make blastocyst production illegal - since this has the potential to provide stem cells for therapeutic purposes. Instead, make implanting them into a uterus illegal. If this isn't done, the blastocyst has no chance to develop into a fully functional human.

          Aside from side stepping some of the ethical issues - this also addresses the fact that most cloned animals don't do too well [bbc.co.uk]. Cloning a healthy human is way too technically challenging at this point.

    • I'm really becoming that cynical, but I just can't reconcile religion and politics, or see it as having any place in a political scheme.

      That's why you're confused. It's not a religious issue, and EITHER SIDE bringing religion into it is wrong.

      The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong.

      And by the way...

      but more from some kind of right wing perogative to tell me what I can morally do.

      Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?

      • Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?

        I should've clarified, I don't like being told what I can do when it harms no one else. To protect the general welfare is the function of governments, to give me a moral code is not. That's the crux of that.

        The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong.

        Doesn't really have to be an issue, if we aren't harming the individual the stem cells are harvested from, as is the case when they are taken from say a liposuction patient. [nature.com] Then it comes down to whether it's okay to break us down into component parts and harvest us. Given the alternatives, I think it's better. This tech needs to develop, and it is a religious issue, unfortunately. They oppose it on ethical grounds, but those ethical grounds are grounded firmly in their theology. It's not saying all life begins at birth and is precious, it's more, do not strip me of the idea that I am special. It's hubris, on both sides.
        • You're confusing the issue at hand. Your quote:
          Doesn't really have to be an issue, if we aren't harming the individual the stem cells are harvested from, as is the case when they are taken from say a liposuction patient.

          Article quote:
          The university scientists' eventual aim was to create an early stage human embryo from which stem cells could be harvested

          It seems to me this thread is about harvesting embryos. You destroy the embryo in the process. You don't destroy the adult in the process of harvesting his/her fat.
      • The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong

        You'd think so, but maybe not. As I understand it, in Roe vs. Wade, both sides agreed that life began at conception, but the court ruled that a woman could not be made to host another human being if she didn't want to (nevermind that 99% of the time, she knew the risks of what might happen when she had sex. I don't have the statistics as to what percentage abortions are from non-consensual sex, but I'd be curious to see them). Anyways, my point with bringing up all this abortion stuff is that believe it or not, some people think there are issues more important than life-or-death ones. It's likely that the legality of growing embryos for research will be decided and redecided with both sides agreeing that they are arguing the fate of living human beings.
        • As I understand it, in Roe vs. Wade, both sides agreed that life began at conception, but the court ruled that a woman could not be made to host another human being if she didn't want to

          Your understanding of Roe v. Wade is way, way, WAY off the mark.

          You know there's this thing called the Internet you could use to locate the opinion in seconds and read it for yourself, rather than spread nonsense.

          let me help [cornell.edu]

          • Unless I read it wrong (which is possible; it wasn't exactly in plain english), the court held that human life does not begin at a certain point but gradually develops through the trimesters. That sounds kinda wierd, I mean, is it alive or not? I have to admit, the possibility of being half-alive didn't really occur to me. But it definitely sheds new light on the subject.

            For the record, my previous understanding was based on a conversation with a lawyer friend of mine. If I had any inclination it might be "nonsense," I wouldn't have posted it. But thanks for the info.

            • Re:Well, not WAY off the mark (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @05:49PM (#3585317) Homepage
              Unless I read it wrong (which is possible; it wasn't exactly in plain english), the court held that human life does not begin at a certain point but gradually develops through the trimesters. That sounds kinda wierd, I mean, is it alive or not?


              Perhaps they meant that the fetus' status as a human being gradually developes over the course of the trimesters. If so, then I have to agree -- much of the abortion debate springs from the invalid assumption that a fetus is either human or it isn't. Nice in theory, but in the real world it doesn't work like that. There is a gradually build-up of humanity, not a sudden light-switch flip at any one particular point.


              (flamebait) of course when most of the population still believes in 'souls' and other such fairy tales, the above is a hard point to get across. (/flamebait)

              • I think that the concept of flamebait wouldn't exist if there weren't so many people sitting around with matches and oily rags.

                The thing is, what you've asserted as true is impossible to prove. Maybe there is a gradual build-up of humanity, maybe there isn't. There's no way to tell. I myself believe in souls and God and whatnot. I think it's WAY more plausible than the alternative (oblivion). I mean, say there was a big bang. Well, who lit the fuse? But I'm getting off-topic. Lets say that everyone has a soul and it's put into your body in utero. Even still, there's no way to prove that it isn't gradually put in. There's just no way to know, and if everyone realised that these "facts" were really just opinions (or beliefs), there might be a lot more agreement, probably a lot less violence, and definitely a lot less resentment.

                The reason I'm against abortion and stem cell research is that maybe it's okay and maybe it's not, but a human life is just one thing I don't want to fuck with, at any cost.
                • /me smacks himself in the head for even getting into this.

                  I think it's WAY more plausible than the alternative (oblivion). I mean, say there was a big bang. Well, who lit the fuse?

                  So, instead of being happy with the necessity of the spontaneous creation (or eternal existence) of a universe of our complexity, you've added a cognizant being who is powerful enough to create a universe of our complexity. Do an Internet search for "Occam's Razor" to see why that argument is an inherently flawed one. Comforting? Yes. Supported? No.

                  The reason I'm against abortion and stem cell research is that maybe it's okay and maybe it's not, but a human life is just one thing I don't want to fuck with, at any cost.

                  If God puts souls into embryos that are going to be harvested (he's all-knowing, in most religions)... who is to blame for allowing the soul to be destroyed?
                  • /me smacks himself in the head for even getting into this

                    Perhaps /. needs a new mod item: thoughtbait.

                    Looked up Occam's razor. From what I understand, it says something like "If you have two explanations for a cause that produce the same result, the simpler one is better." This is well and good for most things; the simpler one is the most likely. But it doesn't help the existence of God thing.

                    I never said God was a cognizant being. I have no concept of what he is. Something like an idea or an inspiration, maybe. Like in that Salinger story, "Teddy," the boy says "My sister was drinking her milk, and all of the sudden I saw that she was God and the milk was God. I mean, all she was doing was pouring God into God, if you know what I mean."

                    If God puts souls into embryos that are going to be harvested (he's all-knowing, in most religions)... who is to blame for allowing the soul to be destroyed?

                    This argument is flawed because it assumes that God a) willfully intervenes for the benefit of mankind, and b) God thinks death and/or suffering is a bad thing. I believe this existence was created with certain rules, many of which are stated as laws of physics, etc. If you sufficiently Know God, you can break them. Christ, for example, could turn water into wine, walk on water, etc. because he understood that everything is merely a manifestation of God. There are Himalyian monks who sleep in the bitter cold with only a flimsy blanket, while a film crew filming them was in high-tech tents and sleeping bags. Were they just tough? I don't think so. They understood that heat and cold are nothing but pieces of information that are part of this reality, which is flimsy at best. This is why I was so impressed with The Matrix.

                    Sometimes I'm sitting on the porch and I feel overwhelmed with everything. The incomprehensible beauty and complexity of existance. Even things like a dried piece of bird shit, or the terrorist attack on the WTC. Because without these things the world is somehow incomplete. At the same time, I fully support stopping terrorists and cleaning up shit. This is one of the many contradictions that somehow makes it all more true to me. It's during these times when I feel like everything is interconnected, like we're all one being, like waves in the sea, that I feel God the strongest. This is my evidence that He exists. I admit, it's not exactly incontrovertable, but I'm pretty spiritually lacking. I hope one day I'll have the strength to do some serious meditation, and really feel God, but hey, right now I'm too busy rambling on /.

      • Life, or human life? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by benwaggoner ( 513209 ) <.ben.waggoner. .at. .microsoft.com.> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:48PM (#3584799) Homepage
        Is the question really whether life begins, or HUMAN life beings at conception? I don't see too many vegetarian abortion protesters.

        We make, appropriately, a distinction between the kind of life we protect (human life), and that we don't. The distinction between them is enormously difficult to parse, without any obvious way to discriminate. PETA certainly hold that most animals deserve protection similar to humans. Others don't.

        It has been argued that the capacity to suffer is the defining test, which means, say, protecting a dog is more important than a human in a persistent (irreversible) vegetative state. By that measure, an early stage embryo certainly doesn't qualify.

        Now, if it's the POTENTIAL for sentience that matters, then you can claim that the human embryo is more important than, say, the adult chimp. However, does that mean that every unnoticed miscarrage of a 4-week old embryo is as tragic as an adult death? However about every unfertilized egg that goes to waste every 28 days?

        The reasons why we don't have any consensus on these issues is that there aren't obvious answers. In the end, they'll be decided like most bioethical questions: by finding pragmatic answers to specific questions.

        The questions that actually get answered aren't going to be "Cloning: good or bad." But "this particular model of stem cell treatment for Parkinsons: good or bad."

        In the course of medicine, even in the lifetimes of our grandparents, many questions that seemed deeply philosophical turned out to have relatively simple answers. It wasn't long ago that we thought:

        Death was synonymous with the heart stopping beating.

        Cancer was an inevitable death sentence.

        Blood transfusions are horribly unnatural.

        Autopsies are horribly unnatural.
        • > Is the question really whether life begins, or HUMAN life beings at conception?

          Yes, yes it is. If it's NOT a human, then go knock yourself out. If it *IS* a human your wanting to (proverably) slice-n-dice then we have a problem, since the morality of killing a fellow human for scientific research is a pretty cut and dry issue. If "Life" begins when with a blastocyst then intentionally killing that zygote is murder. Don't consider this from a religious standpoint. Think about the issue from a scientific morality standpoint. The issue really is not about cloning itself, but rather the process by which we are pursing cloning. If it were possible to clone an appendage or organ *without* creating/destroying a blastocyst or embryo I don't think you'd see much argument against it.

          >I don't see too many vegetarian abortion protesters.
          I'm a vegetarian and I don't agree with abortion so plhtt! :-)

          > PETA certainly hold that most animals deserve protection similar to humans.
          Funny, last time I looked they did. Of course since you have not defined "protection similar to humans" that leaves this up to the imagination.... *If* cloning is indeed killing a human being, then I'm decently sure that PETA should have as much of a problem with it as they do other forms of animal testing.

        • Sperm and ova are "human life" - there is no dispute that they are alive, and there is no possible species membership except H. sapiens. And to preempt those who would complain about them lacking a "full complement of chromosomes", there are many species where the haploid stage of the life-cycle is the long-lived, large-scale one...

          So anyone chanting "all human life is sacred" and insisting on full rights for foetuses should actually be chanting "all diploid human life is sacred"... or they need to think about how to protect sperm and ova!

          Danny.

      • Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?

        Technically, this type of law doesn't have to be supported on moral grounds. If the law simply states that each person has equal rights, then sexual assault can be made illegal without morality coming into it. The person committing the assault is taking away the rights of the victim (by restraining them against their will for a period of time, for example) which is not permitted within the doctrine that each person has the same rights.
        • Um, "the doctrine that each person has the same rights" is in itself a moral stand.

        • Technically, this type of law doesn't have to be supported on moral grounds. If the law simply states that each person has equal rights, then sexual assault can be made illegal without morality coming into it. The person committing the assault is taking away the rights of the victim...

          That's somewhat "libertarian 101" philosophy (along the lines of "I can do anything I want as long as it doesn't interfere with your right to do anything you want"). The problem with that whole line of reasoning is defining exactly what "taking away my rights" really means. Where things get slippery is in "preventative" laws, such as gun laws or drug laws. Those laws are designed to prevent me from breaking the law, even though I may not actually use those products to take away someone elses rights (such as driving while drugged, or shooting someone).

          The story I always bring up about this philosophy being taken too far was that I got into an argument with a Libertarian one time who insisted that it was his right to shoot at people. His right to shoot at people stopped when he actually hit someone, but up until that point, no one should be able to stop him.

          Obviously, the guy was an idiot, but it illustrates the danger of the line of thinking.

          Of course, this is different from the question of "where life begins". If we define a human being as starting at conception, then they have civil rights as an independent person, and thus get the rights due any other child. This backs up your point that you don't really need morality to answer the legal question, you only need to define the rights of fetus.

          • It is generally "I can do whatever I want as long as it does not directly HARM another person". Then we argue about what "harm" means. Most reasonable people would put actions that have a high chance of causing harm, eg shooting a firearm in the general direction of other people, in the "harmful" catagory.

            And yes, all decisions regarding what you can and cannot not do are moral decisions even if you are not religious.

            A more interesting scenario is the person who wants to sell himself into slavery. Most people would say he is harming himself and no one else, but most people also would want to ban this.

            As for human cloning, the current technology pretty much guarantees hundreds of failures if you try for a full term person, with many late, late, failures. Pesonally I don't have any trouble with cloning embryo's until they are few weeks old, but creating hundreds of still born children is a bad thing.

      • > The only issue is whether life begins at conception.

        No, that's a red herring. What if there is no conception? What if I turn a cloned adult human cell from a consenting donor into an embryo? Where's the conception? There is none. Where's the unique, new, special human life that the anti-abortion nutsacks want to protect? Not there, because it's the genetic material from a real live consenting human adult that never mixed with that of another person in the process we call conception.

        So, what it's really about is what you claim it's not about. It's about people who want to push their religious views on the rest of us by claiming that a bunch of cells isn't just a bunch of cells, but a "human life"--not based on science, or reason, but on opinion. Why is it a human life, when it can't even feel pain since it hasn't even developed a primitive nervous system yet? Why is a five-celled embryo more of a human life than a hundred cells I scratch off my arm without even thinking about it? Because if left alone in a womb it will grow into a human baby? Well, what if it was never, ever in a womb, and was cloned from those hundred cvells I scratched off my arm? And how is that really scientifically any different from an embryo created not by lab cloning but by letting a sperm hit an egg outside a womb? What if we get the egg after it has naturally left the woman's body through menstruation, would that make it okay since that egg was already discarded by God, Nature, the woman, or whatever?

        As you see, that's a lot of questions. That's a huge grey area. And yet, to the simplistic anti-abortionists/anti-embryo-researchists, it's black-and-white--because they're motivated by their religious precepts and religious thought, not by rational scientific thought. They are, therefore, pushing their religious ideals on the rest of us, to the detriment of science and the human future.

        Here's a religious thought for you, though: instead of thinking human science is going against God's plan, why not embrace it as part of God's plan? Instead of God not wanting us to clone embryos to cure diseases and heal the sick, why not believe that God wants us to, since He let us have that technology? Jesus cured the sick everywhere he went, and then His apostles did--why would He not want us to do the same?

        > Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally.

        Sure, both the law and society's morality can be against you. But they are *not* one and the same, and modern law *theoretically* doesn't grow out of morality but rather out of the need to protect from harm while preserving rights. There was of course a time when the law was based on religious precepts including the morals of a particular religion, but in Western nations we have outgrown that concept and embraced the acceptance and tolerance of all religions and philosophies, and decided to base our laws on rational notions of human rights and constitutional rights. We made this choice during the Enlightenment, when the need for a seperation of religion and rational thought was posited. Since that point, "faith" and "reason" have been considered different, whereas before "reason" was supposed to be based on "faith". Look what the older notion of basing law on (religious) morality, rather than on rational interpretations of human rights and constitutional rights, has done for most Muslim nations in this day and age.

        Our more modern legal system leads to cases which prove that morality and legality are entirely separate memes--although they *usually* intersect since most of us are rooted in a common Judeo-Christian moral heritage which has undoubtedly had an influence on the course of Western rational thought. For example, the recent Supreme Court case striking down laws against "virtual child pornography" struck the majority of Americans as being contrary to morality, and yet it is the law--and rightly, defensably so when you read the thoughts contained in the decision. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to do many things which are immoral--adultery is not illegal in my state, and yet it would be morally wrong on at least two levels for me to fuck my best friend's wife. It's also possible to do something which is illegal but not immoral--it's illegal for someone to give me a copy of DeCSS so that I can take my own DVD copy of *Phantom Menace* and do my own "Phantom Edit" for my personal use, but there's nothing immoral about it.

        So, to say that society has the right to dictate what people do based on (religiously-derived) morals, is incorrect. Morality and legality may often intersect, but they are distinct. Society does *not* have the right to enforce morals, only laws. Society can shun you for being immoral, but that's a matter of personal choice on behalf of the people doing the shunning, not a matter of law or fiat. For doing illegal things, however, society can deprive you of life, liberty, or property. They cannot do so if you just do immoral things.

        So yes, morality is derived from religion or religious philosophy, and law is derived from reason or rational philosophy. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work in our post-Enlightenment system; unfortunately, some people are too ignorant or too selfish, and want to foist their own moral beliefs on the rest of us.
    • I can easily imagine:

      - a person who has done some deep thinking about human identity (without reference to religious teachings) and decided that "human life" is based on genetic potential and does indeed begin at conception.

      - another person who does similar thinking and decides that "human life" begins when noticeable human-like brain activity patterns appear (without reference to the concept of a soul).

      - another person who thinks about it a long time, decides they don't know, and is very happy they don't have to mke any decisions about it.

      - another person who decides that human life begins at conception, but that not all human life has human rights.

      "All systems of logic are based on premises held by faith." -- Bruce Grube.

      That doesn't mean religious faith. It means something you believe because "it's obvious," or some other reason which can't be broken down logically or supported by anything stronger than "Anybody who doesn't 'know' this is blinded by superstition."

      It is inaccurate, and harmful to productive debate, to assume that everyone who disagrees with you and/or has strong opinions is driven by unquestioned belief in religious or other dogma. However, it's entirely accurate to assume that everyone participating has a lot of premises floating around in their heads that they believe "because it's obvious."
  • Stem cell research is a branch of science with utterly awesome potential, see the NIH's briefing paper [nih.gov] and this Scientific American article [sciam.com] for starters.

    And considering that the current "ban" has nothing more at its core than religeous hysteria, then let's hope that this university is not the only one ignoring the peasants and their pitchforks and continuing the science.

    • And considering that the current "ban" has nothing more at its core than religeous hysteria,

      And what is it about this issue that brings out the religious bigots who spout off their ignorance? I'm not religious at all, but I know bigotry when I see it.

      This issue has NOTHING to do with religion. The only question is whether life begins at conception (which it does, but few want to admit it), and that's not a question that has anything to do with religion.

      • I have yet to meet anyone holding the opinion that "Human life starts with conception" who was not a very religious person. It is a STRICTLY religious belief.

        Is is obvious that what is generally considered to be human life DOES NOT EXIST at conception. You have a two cells, let me repeat that, TWO CELLS, at conception. How anyone could confuse two cells with a human being is beyond me.

        Seeing as it is possible for people to hold viewpoints different from yourself without indulging in self-delusion, maybe you should admit that your own opinion is JUST an opinion. I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't actually want to change your mind. What I want is for you, and people sharing your beliefs, to stop trying to FORCE your beliefs on other people.

        As for not funding activities with government funds that some find immoral, you would soon find you couldn't fund anything. I'm sure all the Quakers would love to not fund the military, the Vegans research into animal husbandry, the greens better ways to mine coal, etc....

    • Two points, though:

      • first off, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any interesting breakthroughs, while non-embryonic stem cell research is already being developed into a range of useful technologies
      • secondly, don't you think it's a little arrogant to assume that no one could possibly disagree with you except through `religious hysteria'? The fact is that there are very important, rational concerns about harvesting embryos for research, and they need to be considered.
  • As noted, the practice is not illegal, and the article also notes that the researcher doing this work has actually left the US in order to continue the research to reduce the risk of having his work quashed. And of course, if it matters, the work was unsuccessful in that the researcher was unable to successfully clone tissue using the methods that were being tested.

    I also don't understand the notion that cloning is such an awful thing. "Why doesn't the government just get off our backs?"

    In reality, what this is about is religious fervor: don't let cloning happen because some religious fanatics believe it is "unnatural" and defies God. Just like in-vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and surrogate mothers.

    For those who fear the creation of new breeds of super-babies, or other nightmares, cloning is NOT the thing to worry about. Genetic engineering is permitted in much more dangerous areas.

    • In reality, what this is about is religious fervor: don't let cloning happen because some religious fanatics believe it is "unnatural" and defies God.

      Leave it to someone who is not a religious fanatic to get it wrong. As a card carrying member of the religious right, let me explain the problem. Simply put, we don't agree on what qualifies as a human being. We all -- religious or not -- agree that if it's human, you don't torture/harm/kill it in the name of science. Someone else in this thread defined being human as the capacity to "suffer." But religious people define it as having a soul -- and therefore, even that just-fertilized egg qualifies as human. So people who define human beings as those who suffer, or think, or speak, will have little problem with a 99% failure rate at cloning. But religious people see that as the torture or killing of human beings. It actually really has very little to do with God, and everything to do with where you draw the line for humans to qualify as humans.

      In fact, as cloning's shortfalls become more obvious, the science of cloning humans is going to suffer from backlash from non-religious people too. The first 12 year-old girl to die on a hospital bed of a cloning-specific ailment, with her sobs of "why? why?" televised on CNN, is going to ignite all sorts of anti-cloning sentiment from atheists, agnostics, and religious freaks alike. Of course, science is so enamored with what it can do, that it hasn't stopped long enough to think about what it should do.

      • But religious people define it as having a soul -- and therefore, even that just-fertilized egg qualifies as human.


        Just out of curiosity, how do you know that that just-fertilized egg has a soul? Is there some test that one can use to determine whether or not a soul is present?

  • The Trouble With Banning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mmarlett ( 520340 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:04PM (#3584650)
    The sad thing is not that cloning research is going on but that all the U.S. researchers who are any good at it are likely to leave the United States. That sucks for the U.S. because the end result will be a whole lot of people who know how to do these procedures but don't live here. It's not just a brain drain, but financial drain. And, if you are morally opposed to theraputic cloning, don't forget that if you want to legislate your morals you have to have jurisdiction over the people you want to control. An outright ban will just move these researchers to a country that will let them keep working -- just like the researcher at the top of that article.

  • Why don't you see what's wrong with cloning? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:08PM (#3584663)
    Look, a cloning is a bad thing. If we allow cloning, we'll soon have a clone army. And while that might look like a good thing, since a clone army can fight an army of robots, it's actually bad, since it creates chaos and suffering. Cloning is just the start of a great struggle for the control of the empire, and we should not allow it.

  • Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mike_the_kid ( 58164 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:10PM (#3584671) Journal
    Contrary to popular belief, the main arguement against stem cell research and human cloning is not a religious one but an ethical one. (There is a difference). Once you start creating humans for the sake of bettering other humans, you have made the judgement that certain humans are worth more than others. It does not matter that you never intend them to develop fully. Stem cells should be treated with the same respect as anything else human, because they could be part of a human.

    Once you start developing human tissues for specific and commercial or medical use, it is only a matter of time before you jump to the logical conclusion that it would be easier to use an entire human. Maybe its a bum, maybe its an infant with a near zero chance of survival, but you are making your way down a slippery slope.

    It might be beneficial to the vast majority of society, but for that minority, it is extremely costly. Here's a computer related example. You create a national ID system with a centralized database of all citizen's activity. Crime goes way down. So does privacy. So does freedom. It might look good at first, but you have to examine all the possible end scenarios, and you have to take the greatest care that the worst of those scenarios stays hypothetical.

    • Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Interesting)

      by --daz-- ( 139799 )
      I was going to say a similar thing, thank you for putting my ideas so elloquently onto the Internet. =)

      I do have one thing to add. While I think that scientists won't go so far as to use actual live-born humans, I do think that inventing some type of incubator or mechanical womb is not that far fetched.

      I can see in the near future embryos being grown to various ages for use in cultivating organs and whatnot.

      Under current law, as long as they're not "born" (whatever the definition of that is), they are not afforded human rights in this country.

      I believe this is wrong. Purely from an ethical and moral standpoint (not religious). The devaluation of human life in our society will take us down a long and dark road. We already have an active eugenics movement (Planned Parenthood, read the writings of its founder, Margaret Sanger) and it won't be long before someone is determining who is fit to have children.

      While it may not be the easiest way, we as humans must recognize the rights of an individual human being from one cell to adulthood to death. The argument of being unborn is rather weak since many premature children grow to be healthy. Besides, why should a human with less cells than another human be considered non-human? A child has less cells than an adult, why do children have rights, but not infants in the womb? The only difference is one has more cells than the other.

      People love to brush off arguments of life because it makes life inconvenient and forces people to live up to their responsiblities to their own children or to humanity (in this case for the scientists). If it makes a scientist's life more difficult because he/she must use adult stem cells or placental stem cells, then so be it. Humanity can not afford to sacrifice it's own for short term gains when other means exist.

      Mods, you may disagree with me. You may hate me, but please search your heart and don't mod me as troll simply because you disagree with me. Thank you.
      • Besides, why should a human with less cells than another human be considered non-human? A child has less cells than an adult, why do children have rights, but not infants in the womb? The only difference is one has more cells than the other.


        This is a gross oversimplification, akin to saying that the only difference between my 2GHZ workstation and my old Apple II+ is that one has more transistors than the other. While that fact is true, it's not sufficient to describe the useful difference between them. The good test is this: would simply adding more transistors to the Apple II+ make it into a machine like my workstation? No, it wouldn't.

        The difference between a few fertilized cells, and embryo, and a featus is likewise more complex than simply the ammount of cells involved. The variety, development, and organization of those cells is vital. While I don't have a good answer to the "when is it a human being?" question, I belive rather strongly that it's shortsighted and irresponsible to ignore the complexities of the issue (which is one of the reasons that I don't have a good answer - it's a hard question).

        From conception to birth an organism (just about any organism) undergoes an enormous amount of changes. By your logic those changes mean nothing to the fundamental definition of what it is, and furthur must lead to (highly questionable, or even ridiculous, IMO) conclusions such as "Every sperm is just a human being with less cells and must be afforded rights appropriate to that status". Somewhere there must be a beginning to life, or at the very least we'll need to agree on one, regardless of a possibly unprovable truth, just so we can get on with things already.

        As other poster's have pointed out already, when you start getting into the "when does life begin" question, which is really what this is all about, you wander into religious teritory almost immediately. Denying that doesn't make it any less true, and trying to frame your arguments as simply "ethical" rather than "ethical and religious" is more than a bit duplicitous (which is generally frowned on by most religious and ethical frameworks). If your argument is based in religion then just say so, we all know we're wandering around in that territory anyway so it's not as though we'll be surprised.
      • The technology will open some legitimate tough ethical issues in the future. In my opinion most of the current work on 8-cell clusters is about as ethicly questionable as working on a bloodsample or skin sample.

        -
    • Contrary to popular belief, the main arguement against stem cell research and human cloning is not a religious one but an ethical one. (There is a difference). Once you start creating humans for the sake of bettering other humans, you have made the judgement that certain humans are worth more than others.

      So? Pretty much everyone already believes that, most are just too scared to admit it. If you can honestly say you have no prejudices (without lying to yourself), then you're a member of a damn small minority.

      It does not matter that you never intend them to develop fully. Stem cells should be treated with the same respect as anything else human, because they could be part of a human.

      Easy, but dumb argument. Not every ovum and sperm is a human being, not even a potential one. Neither is every cell and not every multiple-cell organism. If you really believe that, you should stop jerking off, because it kills thousands of human beings.
      One of the most difficult ethical questions is when a bunch of cells start being a human. That is a difficult question, one that probably doesn't posess a definite answer. Shortcutting it by using a dogmatic approach ("every human cell is a human") is not only stupid, it also makes it even more difficult to find an answer (because it cuts the discussion).

      It might be beneficial to the vast majority of society, but for that minority, it is extremely costly.

      Not that having a zero life expectancy is especially "un-costly". As to the bum, well that's an ethical argument. Personally, I guess he'd have a much more fulfilling existence as a well-fed and kept-clean spare parts collection.


      • So? Pretty much everyone already believes that, most are just too scared to admit it. If you can honestly say you have no prejudices (without lying to yourself), then you're a member of a damn small minority.

        It is my understanding that prejudices are an heuristic humans have developed to help them make judgements. Everyone has them, everyone is affected by them. I would even say that the minority of which you speak is non-existant. Intelligent people realize this and take steps to keep their decisions as rational and objective as possible. In other words, you might think you are better than everyone else, but you are not.


        If you really believe that, you should stop jerking off, because it kills thousands of human beings.

        Here is one difference between sperm and eggs and stem cells. The stem cell has a complete human genome, the sperm does not, the egg does not. So it is a very difficult line to draw, where does human life begin. The fact that no one has been able to draw it conclusively is reason enough, in my opinion, to hold off on public policy decisions that rely on this line.


        Not that having a zero life expectancy is especially "un-costly". As to the bum, well that's an ethical argument. Personally, I guess he'd have a much more fulfilling existence as a well-fed and kept-clean spare parts collection.

        And so, the true colors come out. Doing any cross burnings tonight, brother?
        • Here is one difference between sperm and eggs and stem cells. The stem cell has a complete human genome, the sperm does not, the egg does not. So it is a very difficult line to draw, where does human life begin. The fact that no one has been able to draw it conclusively is reason enough, in my opinion, to hold off on public policy decisions that rely on this line.

          The problem being that we are not very good at dealing with continuums. Most of our society is build on binary decisions, with some finer details for spice. e.g. guilty or not guilty, and maybe some circumstances that affect the sentence.
          I dare to say there is no line. Since our legal system nevertheless needs one, the real question is where to draw it, and whether or not to admit to ourselves that it is arbitrary.

          And so, the true colors come out. Doing any cross burnings tonight, brother?

          Just the usual human sacrifice to the dark lords, cross burnings are only on thursdays.

          Seriously, calculated loss of human life is a reality. Every airline, every ambulance, every highway patrol knows that as a society, death is a statistical figure. We just don't like to collapse the wave function on any specific individual. Whether or not that's a religious or ethical preference I'll leave up to the people believing in those.

    • Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TrumpetPower! ( 190615 ) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:45PM (#3584789) Homepage

      Quoth mike_the_kid:

      Stem cells should be treated with the same respect as anything else human, because they could be part of a human.

      I think Monty Python said it best: ``Every sperm is sacred.''

      b&amp

    • If you feel that this reasearch is so terrible then please vote with your dollars and reject any lifesaving medical procedure you require if it was developed as a result of said research.
      • I'm not saying which side I'm on in this arguement. But for the sake of all the people reading this, would you please list all of the medical procedures available now that have been developed with said research. People still have the right to vote with their voice and their ballot, but as a last resort, voting with your wallet is always decisive.

    • Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Informative)

      by Permission Denied ( 551645 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:55PM (#3584819) Journal
      Maybe its a bum, maybe its an infant with a near zero chance of survival, but you are making your way down a slippery slope.

      I find it interesting that you mention this explicitly. You may know that this is a logical fallacy [nizkor.org]; the only question that remains is whether you didn't know this, or whether you knew this and were trolling. I'm betting on the latter, judging from the title of your post and words like "it is only a matter of time before you..." which are the mainstays of such arguments.

      I hate to be the one who spoils your fun, but this is a very well-constructed and successful troll.

      • I think you miss the point. The poster was pointing out that some are already asking ethical questions that would not have been entertained a few years ago.

        If we are having this discussion now how is this a logical fallacy?
      • It's funny how in your zeal to detect trolling, you're so convinced of the absolute rightness of "the fallacy of the slippery slope" (it's on a web page, after all, it must be true!) that you apparently don't even bother to apply any thought to what this means or in what contexts it applies.

        The slippery slope metaphor arises from the assumption that there are forces that will push in the direction that is considered undesirable. In this case, there are many candidates for such forces: economics would be a simple one, for example if it's cheaper to obtain stem cells from aborted fetuses than to grow them in a lab.

        Certainly, you can't use the slippery slope as the reason that things will progress from A to B - and that's really the fallacy that the web page you quoted talks about. But if the forces that result in the slippery slope are either obvious or can be explained, then the slippery slope is a meaningful metaphor that can be used by thinking people to mean something useful in a discussion.

        Oh geez, IHBT...

    • They had been attempting to create an early-stage human embryo, with the aim of harvesting stem cells for the use to treat patients with disorders such as Parkinson's and heart disease.

      How dare they! They could cure some terrible disease and protect future generations! But what about the children??

      To play Devil's Advocate again (but not invoking Godwin's Law [godwinslaw.com]), if a medical procedure is developed using unethical means, even if the procedure can be used for the greater good, should it be used?
    • This all depends on how you define "human". For the religous its "has a soul" which is imparted by God at conception. For many others it is a collection of traits regarding, sentience, self-awareness, inteligence, etc...

      Lets combine human-cloning with gentic engineering to create bodies lacking brains and nerve stems. Is it human? Is it just a sack of meat that can be harveted for organ transplants? We harvest organs from the 'brain dead'. Now thats a lot scarier than harvesting a few stem cells from cloned embryos.

  • Clone researchers rejoice! By making the market illegle, you can now charge exorbitant prices for any cloning research or procedures! Of course I can see why this company was doing it. Cloning has just been elevated to the status of drugs, and with it, the cost you can quote to those desperate enough to want it done to them. If not some underground lab, then in some island in the Pacific right by Kazaa's office.

    That's not to say i agree with the entire cloning thing, just that it's a service with potentially huge demand. Laws won't stop it unless the price of getting caught is higher than the rewards.

  • humans were already cloned (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:19PM (#3584696) Homepage Journal
    Although it didn't make the news except for a couple smaller newspapers, the first human cloning was conducted in 1995 at the U of Massachusetts by James Robl and Jose Cibelli.
    This wasn't published until 1998 - the Boston Globe ran a story on Nov. 14. Shortly afterwards, scientists in South Korea announced they'd done similiar experiments (Lee Bo-yon at the Kyunghee University).

    All of these clones were - allegedly - destroyed after multiplying into a few dozen cells.

    That you don't see it on TV doesn't mean it's not happening, it just means the news people couldn't find a fitting slot inbetween the ads.

  • Side Effects (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LowellPorter ( 466257 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:29PM (#3584733) Journal
    They already tried using stem cells for Parkinson's disease and the first few attemps weren't very good. Short term, the patients were greatly helped, but in the long term, they developed some unexpected side effects that are as bad as the disease. They've been talking about stem cells for a Parkinson's cure for over 10 years, however after the first attempts, they're not sure how to make it a permanent fix. My Mom was diagnosed with PD 16 years ago, and we've seen many helps come and go.


    One thing about many of these new treatments using stem cells (or any other new treatment) is the side effects. They're constantly telling us of all the possible good things that come from it, but I haven't heard anyone tell the bad about it. What Are the side effects? Are they worth it for the help it might do? I'd wish they'd be more open with the good and bad, so we can make a more informed decision.

  • Why is it....

    Nobody has problems with two hicks with a combine IQ of 41 who breed.

    But a set of medical doctors with the aims of advancing science and medical research cannot create CELLS WHICH ARE NOT SENTIENT BEINGS?

    I mean we live in a society overrun with disfunctional families, delinquent children and pretty much underfunded infrastructure to host it all. Yet in such conditions people breeding is ok, and scientific research on the goop [goop == any living thing that isn't sentient] is horrific and grotesque.

    Tom

  • inching toward barbarism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by taxman_10m ( 41083 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @02:52PM (#3584809)
    "Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men." - GKC

  • What Is Life? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NetGyver ( 201322 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @03:06PM (#3584858) Journal
    Technically it isn't illegal, as the legislation to make it so hasn't gotten though congress yet.

    Then you have the question of what constitutes as life. At conception or at birth? If science can declare a one celled organism as life, then obviously embryos should be considered life as well, right up to the point of conception --- thinking logically here.

    Definition Of Life As Determined By Science:

    1. Shows evidence of growth and replication - embryos grow, and it's cells replocate...(CHECK)

    2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer...(CHECK)

    3. Responds to stimuli...(CHECK)

    4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation...(CHECK)

    5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment...(CHECK)

    You don't need to be a religous right-winger to believe that enbryos and point-of-conception cells is life, a lifeform.

    I'm very indifferent about this topic, and i'm sure there are others that feel the same way as well. There is enormous potential for stem cell research which could pave the way for cures and treatments. On the other hand, looking further down the road, could you imagine embryo farms of yet-to-be-born humans being harvested for parts?

    The potental children of tomarrow being dissected and harvested to heal the people of today?

    *shrugs* It's a tough decision to make because a few of my relitives died of cancer, heart attack and numerious others, and if there was cures/treatments for them i'm sure they'd make good use of that, As would I if i were in that situation.

    On the other hand, stem cell research isn't the end-all for cures and treatments. It's just one path amongst others.

    -- A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
    • All the points in your checklist are met by sperm and ova - ie, they qualify as "human life". So anyone who wants to draw a hard line at conception is actually arguing "diploid human life is sacred", not "human life is sacred".

      Keep in mind that there are many species where the haploid stage is larger and lasts longer than the diploid one...

      Danny.


  • "Alright, damn you!" hissed a clearly exasperated Pedersen "I admit that I've been toying around but it's for a good cause and, after all, no harm's been done!"

    "We concur" giggled the 657 other Pedersens.

  • You are illegal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joe_almighty ( 561387 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @03:19PM (#3584901)
    If cloning masses of organic molecules is considered immoral by our leaders, you have to imagine what the future will be like. We might have to outlaw identical twins. How about mandatory sterilization of all females so no potential children will be "murdered" by a (biological) period? Hell, why don't we just outlaw mitosis? Well anyways, these laws will be the downfall of the United States. The country was built on the premise that the government will not adopt a state religion, and this seems to be rapidly coming to an end.
  • Some country somewhere is gonna start fiddling with genetic engineering and cloning to make "super people". Imagine having to compete with a million Linus Trivold clones if you are an OS programmer by trade?

    You can ban the daylights out of it in your *own* country, but we still may end up having to compete against people who are engineered in another country to be Economic Soldiers.

    The only solution I see is perfecting AI before they perfect human diddling.

    (Or maybe I watch too much Startrek and worry too much.)
    • Forget Star Trek, the definitive series on this subject is the Beggars trilogy by Nancy Kress. Genetically engineered (genemod) humans completely turn society upside down, changing human existence beyond recognition. It's all quite plausible and very clever, and a good read.

  • Not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 )
    Why am I not surprised at this? I remember reading an article a while back that pointed out something amazingly obvious about legislating that studying something is illegal. (It was an article on Nanotech, and the grey goo disaster concept)

    "If we legislate that studying nanotech is illegal to prevent these problems. Then these problems are more likely to happen. Why? Because the only people studying nanotech will be people who aren't concerned about those hazards since they are breaking the law already. If we let people study and legislate safety protocols, then the grey goo disaster will likely not happen. Plus, we are better off because we will have more knowledge to help humanity." (Not exact)

    Replace nanotech with cloning and greygoo disaster with eugenics, and you have pretty much the same scenario.

    Just an interesting thought. :-)

  • oi! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Warin ( 200873 )
    Am I the only one here that can read? All of these people are ranting about cloning as if the idea is to produce human beings with it. That is the stuff of science fiction and bad movies. (for now at least)

    The stem cell thing goes far beyond Parkinsons. I recently saw an interview with Christopher Reeves and he's livid about the cloning legislation. The most promising research in spinal cord injuries involve stem cells.

    As to the other sources of stem cells, the simple fact is that hte most viable stem cells come from human embryos.

    I bet if Shrub's wife or one of his kids were in an accident and were paralyzed like Mr Reeves, that there would be a big turn around in legal thinking at the Whitehouse.

    The debate comes down to 'at what point do dividing cells become a human being' And I happen to believe, along with most rational (read:non fanatical religious loonies) people believe it's a lot later than is needed to create stem cells.

Slashdot Top Deals

Established technology tends to persist in the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, one of the designers of System 360

Close