greg (grysar) wrote,

Mildly provocative thoughts on cloning

The House just passed a bill that bans human cloning for reproductive or research purposes as well as import of medicines derived from said research. The alternative bill only banned it for reproductive purposes.

The issue is quite related to the current stem cells debate, though most stem cell research is presently done on embryos generated by fertilizations procedures that are fated for destruction, only recently have reputable research firms begun publicly creating embryos specifically for the purposes of research.

I think its a cool topic and am presently in favor of the bill. I'll take any one who wants to discuss this issue and am willing to change my opinion , particularly as while I've followed the debate, I'm at best weak on the underlying science.

So precepts I'm running with, taken from a discussion with Natalie:

1. stem cell research should proceed, but it can viable proceed based on those generated by fertilization clinics
2. embryos aren't people, but the do represent potential sentient life and thus must be treated with respect
3. valid treatments may eventually come from cloning, reproducing organs is an excellent example. However, techniques which require the generation of an potentially viable embryo should be held up to public debate before being allowed

4. When viable alternatives, supported by large numbers of scientist (e.g. all stem cell research done more than 2 months ago) we should err on the side of caution
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.