Previous messages: "Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03109.html "Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03110.html -Declan --- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:14:05 -0800 From: Mike Alissi <malissiat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning Hi Declan - Reason gathered some insightful views on this topic a couple of months ago. They respond to many of the issues raised in the CGS letter: Criminalizing Science Leading thinkers and commentators respond to a left-right alliance to outlaw "therapeutic cloning" and stigmatize genetic research. http://reason.com/bioresearch/bioresearch.shtml Thanks, Mike --- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:58:41 -0500 From: Hiawatha Bray <wathaat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: RE: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning If this is as close as you can get to a counter-argument, the anti-cloners--like me--have nothing to worry about. Seriously, though, human cloning is a lousy idea, perhaps the lousiest ever. The purpose of science, it seems to me, is the betterment of human life, not its abolition. And abolition is the likely result of a policy that allows people to tailor new types of "humans" for commercial or political ends. This is a power that people have no business exercising, even if it is within our grasp. People, after all, are not means to an end, but ends in themselves. This is why civilized societies have never tolerated involuntary experiments on humans. And that, of course, is exactly what cloning of people amounts to. Hiawatha Bray Tech Reporter Boston Globe --- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:14:23 -0500 From: Alan Cabal <a.cabalat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning I have it on good authority that Bill Gates, Al Gore, George W. Bush, George Soros, that mediocre idiot Bono, and pedophile poster child Britney Spears are all clones harvested from the DNA of Richard M. Nixon. What's the point of closing the barn door when the horses have already galloped? Legalize everything, and free Charles Manson. Alan Cabal NY Press --- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:26:48 -0800 From: Matthew Tarpy <tarpyat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: RE: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning Declan-- I'm just a subscriber to your list, not anyone of note in this whole cloning/bioethics area (just one of those 'soon to be a law student' people), yet still feel compelled to write a few lines about this message. The clear implication of 'lizards' email is that somehow people who are against cloning are those same people who are against all progress in the scientific realm. I have no doubt that lizard believes that the anti-cloning people are the same lot that forced Galileo to recant his observations, or that would burn witches at the stake. That being said, however, I feel compelled to confess that I am someone who is very much against wholesale cloning at this point. I am certainly not a technology hater...I work in Silicon Valley, went to Carnegie Mellon for my undergrad degree, and am a human-factors professional, and was the first TiVo user in my circle of friends; I have a deep love of technology and the wonders it can bring us. However, I have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to how we apply our ability to create new technology and the unintended consequences of those acts of creation. Look at the atom bomb; no one can deny that the harnessing of the atom was a great achievement of the human race, yet at the same time, our own sense of ethics just barely kept pace with our ability to destroy not only ourselves, but our entire world. I think the same could be said of the nascent technology of cloning. I realize that I'm starting to sound a lot like Mander does in the "Absence of the Sacred" here, but I'm starting to see his point more and more. It's not that the technology itself makes a value judgment; it's what we do with that technology. After much thought I've come to the following conclusion: if we are simply talking about the use of stem-cells/etc to learn how to clone replacement organs, I am very comfortable with this line of research. Furthermore, no one (save the Amish, Christian Scientists, and the Luddites), I believe, would be against that technology. No one could say, with a straight face, that a kidney has a soul or inherent self-worth. It is, rather, when we turn to the issue of cloning human beings and fetuses that the issue becomes hazy. I am extremely uncomfortable with the thought of thousands of human fetuses being created solely for a research project, and then being discarded. It seems to me that this disregards the inherent 'worth' (or soul, if you wish) of those fetuses. It's not so much that we shouldn't be playing god, it's that we shouldn't be playing God when our ethics and moral structures aren't advanced enough to deal with the issues that we are going to encounter if we go down this path without a careful examination of where we're going. These issues of life and death and medicine are very complicated and not at all clear cut. Right now out here in California, there's a big brouhaha over the fact that a convicted felon was given a free heart transplant (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/8011/345384.html) while other, perhaps, more deserving people on the transplant list did not receive the same level of care. Should the convict receive the heart? I don't know, he wasn't on death row, he wasn't serving a life term, I can honestly see both points of view. If we can't even answer this, a certainly 'easier' question than the whole issue of the ethics of cloning a human being, shouldn't that tell us something? Matthew --- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:41:56 -0700 From: James J. Lippard <lippardat_private> To: tsimoncelli@genetics-and-society.org Cc: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning Tania: Do you have a version of the letter or any accompanying documentation somewhere that actually gives an argument for this position? I can't find one in the text, apart from "lack of an unmet need," which seems to me a rather poor reason for banning something--it certainly would set a bad precedent. What are the harmful consequences feared here? I realize it is not possible to describe "a future more horrific than any we might imagine," but are there any horrific futures you CAN imagine that are considered likely, or possible consequences of use of these technologies? This talk of "the risk that a human clone might be born" makes no sense to me. Why is that any more inherently threatening than "the risk that a human twin might be born"? A twin is just a natural clone, isn't it? Should we have a ban on twins, and a moratorium on fertility drugs that increase the likelihood of twins? Is the problem that a clone can be made from other cells of human beings, and thus the twins may be temporally separated in development, rather than reared together. time-wise? Or is the problem human control over reproduction, that an element of chance can be removed? Is the fear "The Boys from Brazil"? That the worst of humanity will be reproduced? Doesn't that already happen via natural methods? Or is the fear "Gattaca"--that genetically engineered humans will have fewer diseases and problems, and put those of us who aren't so engineered at a disadvantage, and justify discrimination against us? Doesn't that already happen via natural methods, and accidents of birth (like nation of origin)? Or is the fear "Brave New World"--that genetically engineered humans will be used as slaves, or harvested for body parts? (It seems to me that existing laws should already suffice to preclude this possibility, unless individual organs could be grown, in which case I'm not sure I see what the objection is--what better place for getting a compatible heart than from the individual whose heart needs replacing.) I'd just like to get some specifics on what your group finds objectionable about cloning. --- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:50:02 -0500 From: George M. Ellenburg <gmeat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning OPEN LETTER TO U.S. SENATORS ON HUMAN CLONING AND EUGENIC ENGINEERING Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott Members of the Senate cc: President George W. Bush Members of the House of Representatives February, 2002: Dear Senators, The United States Senate will soon be considering legislation on human cloning. Your decisions will have profound implications for the future of humanity. Religous and ethical groups are crawling out of the woodwork to try to presuade your opinion one way or another regarding this issue. Usually the opinion being expressed is one that cloning and eugenics is not good for our Country, or our World. Harken if you will with me, back to the 14th and 15th centuries. European scholars and theologians steadfastly believed that the Earth was flat. He that went against the church was guilty of heresy. Brave explorers like Lief Erickson, some unmentionable Frenchmen; oh, and a certain Spaniard named Christopher Columbus proved to all mankind that the Earth was not-flat, and this was a Good Thing[tm]. Let's go back even futher. Copernicus was all but banshed from society for his theories that (gasp!) the Earth rotates around the Sun, when doctrine back then taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe. In modern times; were it not for the brave souls of many others who spent (and gave) their lives pursuing eternal truth, our World would not be what it is today. No one -- not you, I, or "the Center for Genetics and Society" -- are soothsayers. Who's to say that if this amazing work is stifled then amazing cures and discoveries may be forever hindered. After all, it was unethical, at the time, for Copernicus to think, and preach, that the Earth was not the center of the Universe; that it did, in fact, rotate around the Sun. It was also unethical, at the time, for Galileo Galilei to hypothesize that our Solar System is a part of a vast system of stars, galaxies, and planets. People thought Leonardo DiVinci was nuts for dreaming that one day mankind will fly. Charles Darwin was all but damned to Hell for hypothesizing that mankind evolved from lower-ordered species. And, people thought Orville and Wilbur Wright were nuts for trying to make Leonardo DiVinci's dream come true. So I and countless others, ask of YOU, our elected Senators and Representatives, to not be swayed by emotion in this matter, and allow cloning and eugenic research to continue. Sincerely, George Ellenburg, Atlanta, GA, USA --- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:47:21 -0500 From: Nat <nathaniel.echolsat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Cc: politechat_private, lizardat_private Subject: Re: FC: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning This reply would fit in better on Slashdot or Usenet. However, since it's already been aired, I'll try to respond. Disclaimer: I'm a biology major, but I'm in no danger of being a "real scientist"- merely an informed observer. I agree a moratorium on "research cloning" is a bad idea- it's mainly meant to cure debilitating illness in people with few other options. Safety should be an issue, but most patients needing related therapies probably are willing to take risks. I'd guess most scientists would probably agree that it should be fairly tightly regulated, perhaps for reasons similar to the Center's. On the other hand, reproductive cloning is extremely risky with no benefit to already living, suffering individuals. I have two objections to it: 1. It's unnecessary. I'd love to hear if anyone has ideas about why we _need_ reproductive cloning. (The only good one I've heard is that cloned individuals might serve as tissue donors, but this sounds very hypothetical and opens up all sorts of ethical issues- even assuming that any procedure done wouldn't harm the clone) 2. Figuring out how to clone humans will probably result in quite a few "errors", some of which will probably not be caught until after birth. I'd argue that this qualifies as experimentation on unwilling human subjects. Yeah, the risks have probably been overblown. But Western medical and scientific ethics seem to me to prohibit taking this sort of risk, even if it were for a medically useful experiment. I mentioned my concerns on this list some months ago and received a lot of nasty replies from people, none of whom could supply a good reason why we need cloning. I know many hate hearing "we know what's best for you" from the scientific community, but every scientist I've heard voice an opinion on reproductive cloning has been against it (plus, now, the National Academy of Sciences), usually for reasons similar to mine. Some of these, by the way, are strongly in favor of stem-cell research etc. Finally, the suggestion below that anyone against reproductive cloning is a religious fanatic or luddite is offensive. Forget this Center- do you think the NAS is a right-wing think tank? --- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:03:36 -0800 From: lizard <lizardat_private> To: Nat <nathaniel.echolsat_private> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>, politechat_private Subject: Re: FC: Lizard replies to Center for Genetics and Society on cloning The anti-genetics bandwagon is populated by a delightfully bipartisan mix of right-wing creationist/anti-abortion fanatics and left-wing Rifkinite 'science is a patriarchial capitalist plot to rape Mother Earth' fanatics. Both types, IMO, should be allowed to live their preferred lifestyle in some isolated, useless, wilderness, such as Canada. The main problem I have with the 'moratorium' on reproductive human cloning (the ONLY part of the agenda which has even the slightest hint of a rational basis) is that the logic is "We don't know how to safely clone humans, therefore, we shouldn't do it." Uhm...hello? McFly? Unless we perform experiments, we'll never LEARN. Thus, the moratorium is a de facto ban. Which is, of course, what the people proposing it desire. "We don't know if X is safe, so we must not do X until we're sure" is an argument which doesn't hold up, when doing "X" is the only way to find out. As to "why" should we clome humans...why NOT? Someone wants a clone of themself, let them have one..big friggin' deal. The clone won't BE them, any more than one identical twin "is" his brother. The clone will have identical DNA, but a different personality, outlook, values, etc. Saying that human cloning should not be permitted to *bring a child to term* until there is a strong assurance of freedom from genetic defects makes some sense -- indeed, a similair moral logic should be applied to any pregnancy likely to result in a gene-damaged child. However, before we can safely create a human clone that can be born, we will need to perfect the process on embryos which will then need to be destroyed before birth (probably within a month or two of fertilization) But if you need a 'why'...such research will lead to tremenous gains in understanding human reproduction, cell diffrentiation, and so on. It will also do a lot to settle 'nature vs. nurture' debates. --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 18:39:54 PST