Pangloss Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/obama-says-government-open-door-human-cloning/ President Obama said Monday that he will ensure the government never "opens the door" for human cloning, before signing an order to lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Interesting. If Bush had said that (and I think he did!), this board would have been all over him for stupidity in the face of science. Other countries are already exploring cloning, right? So is Obama just another stupid religious zealot? I don't agree with his decision here, but I think he's walking a fine line between religious objections and legitimate ethical concerns. This has the feel of a statement that's just meant to appease people about embryonic stem cell research, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 This has the feel of a statement that's just meant to appease people about embryonic stem cell research, doesn't it? I tend to agree with you, yes. It's also probably about not lighting any fires that will make it more difficult for him to get the more important stuff done... like environment and health care and economy. It's almost certainly a maneuver more than an ideology being witnessed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I agree, but it does show a forward step toward progress. I don't think we can radically change everybody's minds overnight - I think if the research becomes common practice though, we'll get there in the long run the problem is our sensationalist media spreading crazy stories about what the research is "really about underground", or whatever crap they spout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 In any case, I don't think it makes any difference. Cloning technology has really far to go (read: probably more than 8 years, and more for testing) before it would be acceptable for use in humans. Sure, stuffing a nucleus into an egg and zapping it may work one time in hundreds, but human eggs are expensive and primates more complex. Then you also have epigenetic considerations, and possibly also issues with telomeres. So yes, booo Obama, but I don't really care. With current technology I think it would be unethical to clone humans, as they are likely to have some serious health issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 I guess the concern is that people will clone themselves and sell the embryos to science. Which is kinda amusing considering how much a cloning process probably costs, but even if it were cheap you can always just pass a law -- "no selly yo embryo". The problem with not being out in front on a technology is that you get no say in the development of ethical standards that become its guiding principles. This was the main argument used in favor of us removing the ban on cloning earlier, unfortunately it doesn't sound like Obama's familiar with the argument (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) I think a ban on human cloning is just fine if it comes in the wake of removing restrictions against embryonic stem cell research, which seems to be exactly what is happening. When Michael J. Fox, Parkinson's victim was out advocating stem cell research, his governor James Talent was out drumming up the case against... cloning: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21226 “I personally cannot support the initiative because I’ve always been opposed to human cloning and this measure would make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right. I would encourage every Missourian to study the initiative carefully and make up their own minds on this very difficult moral issue.” This was particularly deceptive as the amendment in question explicitly banned cloning: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements: (1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being. While this not just a total strawman but an outright lie against the case for cell research, it's one I think should be addressed to assuage people's concerns. They should know that stem cell research is being done in the best interest of Parkinson's victims, quadraplegics/paraplegics, etc. and not towards ends like human cloning. Edited March 10, 2009 by bascule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I think a ban on human cloning is just fine if it comes in the wake of removing restrictions against embryonic stem cell research, which seems to be exactly what is happening. When Michael J. Fox, Parkinson's victim was out advocating stem cell research, his governor James Talent was out drumming up the case against... cloning: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21226 This was particularly deceptive as the amendment in question explicitly banned cloning: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp While this not just a total strawman but an outright lie against the case for cell research, it's one I think should be addressed to assuage people's concerns. They should know that stem cell research is being done in the best interest of Parkinson's victims, quadraplegics/paraplegics, etc. and not towards ends like human cloning. At what point does the little cluster of cells become a clone? Would we be able to create a mass of cells resembling the creation of a clone, but then stop the growth process before it technically "became a clone"? How would regulators define this? You could polish up the process but continue to stop short of the final outcome until it was legalized. Not to mention the problem that this process comes dangerously close to creating the same arguments involved with abortion. Sounds like any ban on cloning that goes to the Supreme court might force a decision on when an embryo becomes a living being; with implications to abortion aswell. Ontop of that they'll have to separate the legality in allowing human breeding, but not scientific creation of humans. I'm actually rather confused on the whole ban on cloning mentality. Do that many people have some sort of sci-fi induced delusion of what cloning really is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Well, we all know what happens after there's been a 6th Day violation. Michael Rooker and his crew start chasing after you in a modified Chevy Blazer and kill your Re-Pet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'm actually rather confused on the whole ban on cloning mentality. Do that many people have some sort of sci-fi induced delusion of what cloning really is? Yes. Yes they do. "Cloning" sounds "mad sciencey," which scares people off both because of sci fi silliness (Attack of the Clones!!!!!!) and because of notions that it's somehow wrong to "play god" and "devalue our humanity." I've heard Leon Kass (Bush's bioethics advisor) speak a number of times, and it seriously doesn't go much deeper than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 At what point does the little cluster of cells become a clone? Certainly well after cell differentiation occurs, and if you're going after stem cells don't you want undifferentiated ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 At what point does the little cluster of cells become a clone? For most plants, when you cut them in half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I tend to agree with you, yes. It's also probably about not lighting any fires that will make it more difficult for him to get the more important stuff done... like environment and health care and economy. It's almost certainly a maneuver more than an ideology being witnessed here. Our survey said "bingo". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Also cloning is often used in different contexts meaning different things. For instance, one definition of cloning is the artificial creation of a population of genetic entities. This is relatively easy done by separating undifferentiated cells, for instance. I think in the US it is legally defined as the asexual reproduction by means of introduction of genetic material from a somatic cell. I am not perfectly sure, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now