PDA

View Full Version : Should human cloning be allowed?


Hugh De Payen
13th Apr 2002, 04:40
President George Bush has urged the United States Senate to ban all research on human cloning, saying that "life is a creation, not a commodity".

Do you think human cloning should be allowed?

Sliding member
13th Apr 2002, 04:45
Not if "warped" individuals like yourself are let duplicated!!!

Seriously though what a waste of time and money is spent researching this just for some self indulgent scientist to get his pleasures. Should we not be looking at medical research?

BlueDiamond
13th Apr 2002, 05:35
This will be one of the most significant moral issues of our time. There is potentail for great good in the knowledge we seek and the potential for great evil.

Another question as a corollary to your original, HDP. Why is it that (in many parts of the world) we are freely permitted to destroy developing life via abortion but should not be permitted to create it using cloning technology.

I am undecided on this issue.

Hugh De Payen
13th Apr 2002, 05:43
An excellent starting point BlueDiamond to which I am also undecided. However, I am sure that if there is reason behind this then it will certainly be argued here.

Checkboard
13th Apr 2002, 07:25
I have no problem whatsoever with the production of genetically identical human beings.

I DO have a problem with any procedure that has a high likely-hood of producing human beings with genetic problems - and that is all that the scientists can do at the moment.

AerBabe
13th Apr 2002, 11:52
Sorry... I know I've been told off for being too serious in this forum before, but...

This isn't just an issue about making replicas of whole human beings, the term 'cloning' covers ANY length of DNA, be it a fraction of a gene, or an entire genome. Of course the media don't tell us this....

While I'm opposed to cloning an entire person, I CAN see the many benefits of cloning proteins, or even whole body parts. The benefits would be enormous. All the problems linked to rejection of organs such as hearts and lungs would be overcome, as the tissue would be genetically identical to the recipient. If a limb was lost then it's entirely possible that a new one could be grown - no more problems with trying to use artificial ones (although by the time genetic technology has developed this far, engineers might well have designed artificial limbs better than our own)

The disadvantages of this technology are many. For example parents who have dying children. We will eventually get to the stage where a blood sample from the child will provide enough DNA to generate a living replica.

*steps down off soap box, and wanders off to carry on research into cloning nice, rich pilots*

briteandbreezy
13th Apr 2002, 11:57
AerBabe.......



You forgot to add.........


*that are 6ft 4ins... and devastatingly handsome* ;)

swashplate
13th Apr 2002, 12:12
Heated debate! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12180&highlight=cloning)

Must say, my position remains the same. We may choose to 'ban' cloning, but they will just go and do it somewhere else.........

AerBabe
13th Apr 2002, 13:01
Like the US... where they pay scientists!

RadarContact
13th Apr 2002, 16:23
Another question as a corollary to your original, HDP. Why is it that (in many parts of the world) we are freely permitted to destroy developing life via abortion but should not be permitted to create it using cloning technology.

In my opinion, cloning has nothing to do with creating life. One of the basic and vital principles of life is variety...

AerBabe
13th Apr 2002, 16:44
Sorry Radar, I don't agree with that!

Simple example: you can take a cutting of a plant to grow a new one. Genetically identical. No variety. Living! :)

RadarContact
13th Apr 2002, 16:46
AerBabe: Living - yes. Creating life - no! (yes, there is a difference in my view of things)

Imagine all plants of this type being taken off the same one - all identical. Then let it live and compete in Nature. How long do you think it will last? Life...?

chapman1
13th Apr 2002, 19:08
Of all the modern ‘bio-techno’ research in progress, that of cloning is not, in my mind, the most threatening. As AerBabe said, it has many positive implications on a scale smaller (and less newspaper sellable) than that of application to a whole human clone.

A far greater threat to a diverse and moral society, is the research into the genetic ‘engineering’ of what have been dubbed ‘designer babies’. The option, though wealth, to provide your unborn baby with a perfect physical beginning, and chosen hair and eye colour is a real danger. This is an extreme, and to my mind immoral, employment of genetic research that may be beneficial to mankind, to detect and rectify disability in an unborn baby’s development. As always, it is a matter of when to stop.

Although fantastical and based around the genre of science fiction, I would recommend the film Gattaca as a great insight into possible implications of this worrying research.

Hugh De Payen
13th Apr 2002, 20:21
RadarContact ,

Like AerBabe I also think you are way of course. But please, explain your theory of variety and how cloning produces it, it does not seem possible to create variety only an abundance!

Tartan Gannet
13th Apr 2002, 21:31
On balance yes. I would rather this was permitted but licenced and controlled by the Governments than secretly done then sprung upon the world.

I have no moral scruples on this, as I also dont on its opposites, Abortion, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, all of which I approve of.

The problem with knowledge is that once something is discovered it cant be uninvented, eg Atomic Weapons.

My only worry, as some have already stated, is that genetically damaged individuals could be created and then if they interbreed with the naturally born their could cause damage to the gene pool. Maybe all clones should be created sterile. (I think they did this in Huxley's "Brave New World" a book I have always liked since reading it as a teenager ).

As regards Dubya Bush, I may admire him in other matters, his anti Terrorist stance etc, but I pay absolutely no heed to his pandering to the Religious Right in the USA. He needs their votes, therefore his anti Abortion, anti Genetic Research and Human Cloning Public Utterances. Rest assured if the US Military or big business interests could find a benefit in cloning he wouldn't stand in their way.

An interesting thread, my compliments to its originator.

HugMonster
13th Apr 2002, 22:04
There are huge dangers in any use of genetic engineering. I am more ambivalent on the human genome project, BUT...

When it comes to a pair of deaf lesbians rigging the odds for a child to be born deaf, quite deliberately, I think things have gone too far. They are treating children as if they are to be adjuncts to their own lifestyle, as if they were a particular type of car, rather than human beings in their own right. To inflict diability on a child quite deliberately is nothing short of criminal. They and anyone who collaborated with them in this disgraceful act should be jailed for life for cruelty.

Genome_Junkie
13th Apr 2002, 23:06
Uh.
Now, what do we understand under human cloning then?

Today I went to work and sat in tissue culture. Amongst the three cell lines that I maintain I trypsinised my HeLa cells and split them into yet another three 10cm dishes. Tomorrow I will be back and hey presto, there are more cells. I cloned some cells. They are human cells. I do this every day.
The kind of Medical Research that I am personally involved in relies extremely heavily on cloning all kinds of genes from all kinds of species.

No, I don´t want to see a copy of a individual human. That is silly.
Do I want to advance science so that we can generate tissues for transplantation purposes? I think so. At least I guess it is slightly better than "humanising" pigs and transplanting their organs.


Out of curiosity HugMonster. What are those huge dangers in the use of genetic engineering? Are we talking here about the generation of genetically modified plants? I do oppose those.
Are we talking about the genetic engineering of bacteria? I fully support this. Afterall, I do this on a very regular (almost daily) basis. I strongly believe that genetically engineered bacteria producing human Erythropoietin or other recombinant proteins pose no huge danger but benefit mankind massively.

Hugh De Payen
14th Apr 2002, 00:20
Tartan Gannet ,

I take it that you trust the goverments of the world to regulate such experiments without any input or debate from the public. I personally do not believe for a minute that the leeches would not use the unsuspecting taxpayers money for these sinister purposes and then infiltrate a clueless society with these clones.

They do however, have the thirty year rule to hide behind, so they could well be and probably are performing this unscrupulous act right now, and then, with all respect, both you and I will be too old to either care or be bothered to do anything about it. By that time it will probably be the norm to clone people and we will then have moved on to something even more evil like trying to resurrect the dead!

CaptCaveman
14th Apr 2002, 00:56
Of course we should allow cloning, there just isn't enough of Jodie Foster and Michelle Pfieffer to go around.

Where can I place my order for one of each; actually make that 2 of each, always fancied twins.

widgeon
14th Apr 2002, 01:56
Do you have any legal rights to your own DNA ?. If someone took a strand of your hair and cloned a new you who came along and married your daughter would you be able to take any legal action ?.
Would the union be illegal what relationship would any offspring of the union have with you ?.

RadarContact
14th Apr 2002, 07:12
HdP, my point was exactly that cloning destroys variety... maybe I didn't put it clear enough... :)