NationStates Jolt Archive

Human Clones used for Stem Cell Research!?

It's like the Cornucopia of Blasphemy.

I cannot believe what I just read in the newspaper this morning. The great goal of bioengineering is almost reached!

Link:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20080117-9999-1n17ethics.html

Real human clones (in blastocyst stage, that is). But, they have no plans to grow the clones into full, real people. Apparently the company, based in San Diego, California (U.S.), intends to harvest the stem cells. Yeah, progress!!! And yeah for San Diego, (a half-hour away from where I live :) )

Let's get some comments on this. And maybe some better links.

Ethics debates? Just tell DARPA to do it...they'll keep the ball rolling.

And the next piece of my Master Plan falls into place! *wrings hands in a delightfully evil manner* Mwaa Hahahahahaa!!

And the next piece of my Master Plan falls into place! *wrings hands in a delightfully evil manner* Mwaa Hahahahahaa!!

So we'll finally see a Circus of LG's clone entertaining children and adults alike throughout the world?

Awesome! :D

All right, let's get some rifles and teach 'em to march single file.
Who else feels like whistling "The Imperial March" w/ me? Eeeyah. Bout time we got this evil empire underway.

So we'll finally see a Circus of LG's clone entertaining children and adults alike throughout the world?

Yes. Entertaining. That's what they'll be doing. Entertaining.

<.<

>.>

:D

And the next piece of my Master Plan falls into place! *wrings hands in a delightfully evil manner* Mwaa Hahahahahaa!!

*taints gene codes with neat freak behavior and mud allergies*

*taints gene codes with neat freak behavior and mud allergies*

That's self-contradictory. They'd destroy themselves.

That's self-contradictory. They'd destroy themselves.

Precisely. Did I mention these were time delayed sequences?

GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA!

I don't see why the Religious Right finds it so offensive. It just means that the United States can have its very own Grand Army of clonetroopers to spread the Word of Gawd in the Middle East some day.

I for one, welcome our new Clone Overlords.

I for one, welcome our new Clone Overlords.

Seconded!!

GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA!

I don't see why the Religious Right finds it so offensive. It just means that the United States can have its very own Grand Army of clonetroopers to spread the Word of Gawd in the Middle East some day.By holding out on cloning, they loose ground against the Technocrats. Good thing too, the technocrats really need help multiplying.

Don't jump the gun just yet. Just because it was done once, doesn't mean it can be done again. In science, its not important about getting one result, but rather getting a result time and time again, to ensure that there is something going on.

Ooh, neat! We're one step closer to eliminating undesirable minorities now, right? God bless science. :)

Don't jump the gun just yet. Just because it was done once, doesn't mean it can be done again. In science, its not important about getting one result, but rather getting a result time and time again, to ensure that there is something going on.

Yeah. But really, something that complicated doesn't ordinarily happen accidentally - odds are, they weren't just slopping DNA together in petri dishes until something grew. :p My guess is, they can replicate the results.

Yeah. But really, something that complicated doesn't ordinarily happen accidentally - odds are, they weren't just slopping DNA together in petri dishes until something grew. :p My guess is, they can replicate the results.

We'll see. I have hopes for it, but I won't be popping the out the bubbly until they can get the process down for sure.

Ooh, neat! We're one step closer to eliminating undesirable minorities now, right? God bless science. :)

Because that's a philosophy that will only spring into action with the advent of cloning?

Because that's a philosophy that will only spring into action with the advent of cloning?

I dunno. Is it? Superscience + genetics = the all-blonde future from the 1966 version of "The Time Machine," right? I just thought we were all on the same page with that. :)

I dunno. Is it? Superscience + genetics = the all-blonde future from the 1966 version of "The Time Machine," right? I just thought we were all on the same page with that. :)

Morlocks were better, hands down.

I dunno. Is it? Superscience + genetics = the all-blonde future from the 1966 version of "The Time Machine," right? I just thought we were all on the same page with that. :)

Eugenics wasn't new then, though....

Ooh, neat! We're one step closer to eliminating undesirable minorities now, right? God bless science. :)

Nyet. That would be pointless and stupid, especially considering the various alternate skin colours and facial features exists as evolutionary traits that are useful in certain climates.

Besides, Caucasians are outnumbered by East Asians anyway, so we're technically the minority.

Cool! Clones from skin cells, giving embryonic stem cells, sweet!

Jeeves, prepare my harem of Tsaphiel-clone brides!

And the next piece of my Master Plan falls into place! *wrings hands in a delightfully evil manner* Mwaa Hahahahahaa!!

<buys LG a white kitty to stroke>

At last we can get real soylent products!

...

...

..

..

.

.

.

We are cloning people to eat right?

Yes. Entertaining. That's what they'll be doing. Entertaining. :D

He didn't say that that would be the only thing they were doing ;)

He didn't say that that would be the only thing they were doing ;)

I was going to use clones as models for various statues and busts.

They'd be of myself, of course...I think it's due time for me to give the boardroom a little personality. A little cult of personality, that is.

I cannot believe what I just read in the newspaper this morning. The great goal of bioengineering is almost reached!

Link:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20080117-9999-1n17ethics.html

Real human clones (in blastocyst stage, that is). But, they have no plans to grow the clones into full, real people. Apparently the company, based in San Diego, California (U.S.), intends to harvest the stem cells. Yeah, progress!!! And yeah for San Diego, (a half-hour away from where I live :) )

Let's get some comments on this. And maybe some better links.
I'm in support of cloning embryos for stem cell research, but not in support of cloning human beings.

I'm in support of cloning embryos for stem cell research, but not in support of cloning human beings.

Well, what if someone just wanted a clone to raise as their child?

Don't jump the gun just yet. Just because it was done once, doesn't mean it can be done again. In science, its not important about getting one result, but rather getting a result time and time again, to ensure that there is something going on.

The truly hard part will be getting them to grow and extracting the ES cells. Hopefully, they'll be able to get there with the process they're already using, but that is far from certain.

Well, what if someone just wanted a clone to raise as their child?

I'm opposed to such research. Every time we move to a new species, we're looking at 100's of pregnancy attempts before the very first live birth. Given that, I think it is horribly unethical to even try.

Woot! Clone em all I say!

Clone those stem cells, and grow them clones to full term, and grow organs in labs, I say!

God should keep his greasy non-existant mitts off the science lab.

I'm opposed to such research. Every time we move to a new species, we're looking at 100's of pregnancy attempts before the very first live birth. Given that, I think it is horribly unethical to even try.

Ah yes, the dreaded "E" word. Bane of all progress.

Oh snap, clone war!
*begins mass producing droids*

I'm opposed to such research. Every time we move to a new species, we're looking at 100's of pregnancy attempts before the very first live birth. Given that, I think it is horribly unethical to even try.

That's true. I think you'd need to get cloning technology to a reliable enough level to avoid that kind of issue.

We are cloning people to eat right?
Once we perfect a process by which they can be genetically engineered to taste like beef, yes. And before anyone asks, "Why not just eat regular beef?" Let me remind you to shut the Hell up.

That's true. I think you'd need to get cloning technology to a reliable enough level to avoid that kind of issue.

Here's the problem: Cloning technology is different in every species. While the process is similar, there always seem to be substantial differences that must be overcome. Instead of going down, it actually seems as if the number of attempts necessary has gone up as we've moved to animals that are closer to humans.

It is highly unlikely that we would ever get to a reliable human reproductive cloning process without going through those hundreds of failed pregnancies. (Well, unless we create an artificial womb first)

Once we perfect a process by which they can be genetically engineered to taste like beef, yes. And before anyone asks, "Why not just eat regular beef?" Let me remind you to shut the Hell up.

I'm with Fiddly. There isn't nearly enough baby in my beef burgers these days.

I'm with Fiddly. There isn't nearly enough baby in my beef burgers these days.

This editorial has been sponsored by Behbies.

Behbies. Tha OTHER Other White Meat.

Once we perfect a process by which they can be genetically engineered to taste like beef, yes. And before anyone asks, "Why not just eat regular beef?" Let me remind you to shut the Hell up.

Chicken would be easier. *nod*

Once we perfect a process by which they can be genetically engineered to taste like beef, yes. And before anyone asks, "Why not just eat regular beef?" Let me remind you to shut the Hell up.

Knowing our country, they will be marketed as tasting just like beef, but will actually taste a lot more like Nature's Burger. Oh, and fully expect them to be labeled "Organic" and "With 20 Essential Vitamins and Minerals", and therefore sell for $17.99 a pound (which will not be nearly so much by then as it is now).

I wonder if baby is high in trans fat?

didn't that news link say november 2004? not to be rude or anything, but its 2008 and i havent heard anything about it untill now

is the company still up and running? if so what the hell are they doing?

didn't that news link say november 2004? not to be rude or anything, but its 2008 and i havent heard anything about it untill now

is the company still up and running? if so what the hell are they doing?

making lots of clones? (they nicked ideas from star wars).
This reminds me of the song Wierd al Yankovitch made "i think i'm a clone now".

And so it begins.

didn't that news link say november 2004? not to be rude or anything, but its 2008 and i havent heard anything about it untill now

is the company still up and running? if so what the hell are they doing?

No, it says 2008. It mentions that Proposition 71 was passed in California in 2004.

cloning humans?
as if the world isn't overpopulated enough...

cloning humans?
as if the world isn't overpopulated enough...

Not reproductive cloning.

And so it begins.

Neo, "they"'ve been here for a long, LONG time. :p

GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA!

I LOL'd.

I can see Pacino holding hostages at the stem cell bank now.

I LOL'd.

I can see Pacino holding hostages at the stem cell bank now.

Say hello to my VERY, VERY little friends .... ?

Here's the problem: Cloning technology is different in every species. While the process is similar, there always seem to be substantial differences that must be overcome. Instead of going down, it actually seems as if the number of attempts necessary has gone up as we've moved to animals that are closer to humans.

It is highly unlikely that we would ever get to a reliable human reproductive cloning process without going through those hundreds of failed pregnancies. (Well, unless we create an artificial womb first)

I'm not sure - I just did a quick search, and the first source I pulled up seems to suggest that the problem here wasn't so much getting viable clones... but getting clones that produced stem-cells.

"NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, a potential step toward developing scientifically valuable stem cells.

The new report documents embryos made with ordinary skin cells. But it's not the first time human-cloned embryos have been made. In 2005, scientists in Britain reported using embryonic stem cells to produce a cloned embryo. It matured enough to produce stem cells, but none were extracted.

Stem cells weren't produced by the new embryos either, and because of that, experts reacted coolly to the research.

"I found it difficult to determine what was substantially new," said Doug Melton of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said the "next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem-cell line" from cloned embryos. "This has yet to be achieved."

Dr. Samuel Wood, a co-author of the new paper and chief executive of Stemagen Corp. of La Jolla, Calif., said he and his colleagues are now attempting to produce stem-cell lines from the embryos.

The work was published online yesterday by the journal Stem Cells.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/01/18/Cloning_0118.ART_ART_01-18-08_A3_B493FK4.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Cross referencing with another source, it looks like the success rate (to a five-day blastocyst, which is the goal here) is actually surprisingly high - 25%.
"About one-quarter of Stemagen's clones, or five in all, developed into five-day-old blastocysts.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_8003448?source=rss&nclick_check=1

If they work out the kinks in this process, there's no guarantees, obviously... but there just might be potential for increasing viability in longer term embryoes.

The Godfather Part IV Attack of the Clones

Pacino: Fredo, you're my Clone, and I love you, but don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever

Diniro: Did you clone my wife? Did you clone my wife? I'm gonna ask you again, did you or didn't you? Just answer the question

Pesci: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuqh2YjHxk4

Say hello to my VERY, VERY little friends .... ?


The Godfather Part IV Attack of the Clones

Pacino: Fredo, you're my Clone, and I love you, but don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever

Diniro: Did you clone my wife? Did you clone my wife? I'm gonna ask you again, did you or didn't you? Just answer the question

Pesci: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clone?

I´m pretty sceptic about this. It could be just another fake that can´t be redone anywhere else. I´m not saying that it is a fake with sure, but there is a possibility. If the experiment was real and successful it would be a great achievement indeed.

I'm not sure - I just did a quick search, and the first source I pulled up seems to suggest that the problem here wasn't so much getting viable clones... but getting clones that produced stem-cells.

In humans, that has been the only goal. No group has been trying to produce reproductive clones of human beings (openly, anyways).

I was speaking of species in which we have pursued reproductive cloning. Even once we are fairly reliably able to get blastocysts for stem cells, actually getting a clone to implant and produce viable offspring is a another process in and of itself. It may sound like it would be a simple matter, but that has not been the case - and, in each new species, we generally have to go through hundreds of attempts before the first cloned offspring is born.

I´m pretty sceptic about this. It could be just another fake that can´t be redone anywhere else. I´m not saying that it is a fake with sure, but there is a possibility. If the experiment was real and successful it would be a great achievement indeed.

IIRC, California has actually set aside money to have independent labs repeat breakthroughs like this, so that we can avoid the problems we had with the Korean announcement.

All right, let's get some rifles and teach 'em to march single file.
Who else feels like whistling "The Imperial March" w/ me? Eeeyah. Bout time we got this evil empire underway.

Complete with teaching them how to walk into walls?
Them thar helmets sucked for visibility, and you can see 'troopers walking into stuff in the movies.

GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA!

I don't see why the Religious Right finds it so offensive. It just means that the United States can have its very own Grand Army of clonetroopers to spread the Word of Gawd in the Middle East some day.

Why doesn't everyone keep their religion to themselves? And that includes, you know, the minority of nutzoids who thought spreading it by human-filled missiles was a good idea.

<buys LG a white kitty to stroke>

...which promptly loses all its hair in a mud-flinging machine accident.

I'm not sure - I just did a quick search, and the first source I pulled up seems to suggest that the problem here wasn't so much getting viable clones... but getting clones that produced stem-cells.



http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/01/18/Cloning_0118.ART_ART_01-18-08_A3_B493FK4.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Cross referencing with another source, it looks like the success rate (to a five-day blastocyst, which is the goal here) is actually surprisingly high - 25%.


http://www.twincities.com/ci_8003448?source=rss&nclick_check=1

If they work out the kinks in this process, there's no guarantees, obviously... but there just might be potential for increasing viability in longer term embryoes.

Thanks for the new links. Now I don't feel I have to defend San Diego for tooting its own horn. :)

Well, what if someone just wanted a clone to raise as their child?

go Jango! go Jango!

go Jango! go Jango!

I knew I wasn't the only one who would think this.

I knew I wasn't the only one who would think this.

http://mog.com/pictures/wikipedia/9039/Django9.jpg
! -oh.

Perhaps I finally could find my true soul mate through using this.

Whom do you ask is my soul mate?

Myself of course.:p

go Jango! go Jango!

Jango Fett was such a badass. I still like Nute Gunray more, however.

In humans, that has been the only goal. No group has been trying to produce reproductive clones of human beings (openly, anyways).

I was speaking of species in which we have pursued reproductive cloning. Even once we are fairly reliably able to get blastocysts for stem cells, actually getting a clone to implant and produce viable offspring is a another process in and of itself. It may sound like it would be a simple matter, but that has not been the case - and, in each new species, we generally have to go through hundreds of attempts before the first cloned offspring is born.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

And so it begins.Of course it does.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11513

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

What "need" do we have for reproductive human cloning?

What "need" do we have for reproductive human cloning?

Fun and personal desire are as good motives as any 8)

For that matter what need there is for reproduction anyway? What would it matter if your line - or even humankind - ceased to exist in the grand picture of things? ;)

What "need" do we have for reproductive human cloning?

Right now? Declining birthrates might be something to consider... although that's not necessarily anything but societal. It does look like their might be contamination effects, especially via hormones, etc... that could have effects on human reproductivity.

If not the drive, perhaps the mechanism? Contamination doesn't have to inhibit the procreative urge, necessarily - it could affect the viability.

I don't know that we NEED reproductive cloning - RIGHT now. But there might be all kinds of reasons why it might be a good technology to have, perhaps sometime soon. There are potentially worrying trends - and it might be a LOT better to have a pret-a-porter technology waiting, if we need it.

Watching "Children of Men" actually already had me thinking about this kind of question long before this thread appeared.

Right now? Declining birthrates might be something to consider... although that's not necessarily anything but societal. It does look like their might be contamination effects, especially via hormones, etc... that could have effects on human reproductivity.

If not the drive, perhaps the mechanism? Contamination doesn't have to inhibit the procreative urge, necessarily - it could affect the viability.

I don't know that we NEED reproductive cloning - RIGHT now. But there might be all kinds of reasons why it might be a good technology to have, perhaps sometime soon. There are potentially worrying trends - and it might be a LOT better to have a pret-a-porter technology waiting, if we need it.

Watching "Children of Men" actually already had me thinking about this kind of question long before this thread appeared.

A "Children of Men" scenario is pretty much pure fiction. Without some actual reason to believe we're going to lose all ability to procreate, I see no ethical support for putting hundreds of women through failed pregnancies for a technology we seem to have no need for.

A "Children of Men" scenario is pretty much pure fiction. Without some actual reason to believe we're going to lose all ability to procreate, I see no ethical support for putting hundreds of women through failed pregnancies for a technology we seem to have no need for.

Not really PURE fiction... there have been questions about apparent declining fertility in some areas of the human population (which can easily be explained by societal and/or religious aspects, for example)... but also about declining 'fertility' in some animal species... especially noticable in animals that contact our water supplies - amphibians, whales, etc.

One of the conferences I attended last year spent quite a lot of time on the issue of hormone and drug contamination of water supplies, and possible knock-on effects.

It's not entirely unreasonable to think our continued contamination of water sources, ESPECIALLY with the cocktails of pharm-drugs, rec-drugs, and hormones we seem content to abuse, is going to come back and bite us in the ass.

In all seriousness, though, and I beg forgiveness if it appears cold... what is wrong with a few hunered failed pregnancies? The subjects don't even have to go full term... they might even all be volunteers. Where is the intrinsic 'bad'?

A "Children of Men" scenario is pretty much pure fiction. Without some actual reason to believe we're going to lose all ability to procreate, I see no ethical support for putting hundreds of women through failed pregnancies for a technology we seem to have no need for.

Yeah, it's that part with the failed pregnancies that's the real ethical stickler for me; there could be some pretty harsh psychological and physiological effects from that experience that are probably not justified given the current state of the field.

I imagine a decent amount of time and resources are being devoted to make cloning technology more effective; if you could lower the rate of failure to that of a modern conventional pregnancy, it would undoubtedly remove that ethical barrier to cloning technology. However, until then, it is probably not wise to proceed in this field; there are other areas of research that cover many of the same goals as cloning, and they could be advanced alongside the resolution of cloning's ethical issues.

Differential technological development is a very wise move in this case, and it will benefit us more in the long run by resolving ethical issues first before proceding. (and, as you should all already know very, very well, if I'm hesitant about a technology, there's a good reason for it. ;))

In all seriousness, though, and I beg forgiveness if it appears cold... what is wrong with a few hunered failed pregnancies?

You're right. It does appear cold. And Vetalia has already answered it.

You're right. It does appear cold. And Vetalia has already answered it.

No, he really hasn't.

If a person is willing to carry an embryo, but doesn't WANT to go full term - and is willing to meet those requirements 'for science'... where is the problem?

We all have different comfort zones on issues like this.. some women will have abortions, some won't. Some will let medicine harvest their eggs, some won't. Some might be willing to carry short-term pregnancies with absolutely NO ambition of ever carrying it further (I can think of one right off the top of my head... I can think of a couple of other people that would be willing if there was a financial incentive on top of the 'for the good of science' angle).

I'm looking for an intrinsic bad here, and not finding one.

Yeah, it's that part with the failed pregnancies that's the real ethical stickler for me; there could be some pretty harsh psychological and physiological effects from that experience that are probably not justified given the current state of the field.


Not everyone is equally squeamish about issues like this. Some people would be willing to take those risks.

For example - a woman who cannot conceive, might be willing to accept a less-than-average success rate, if the treatment were free.


I imagine a decent amount of time and resources are being devoted to make cloning technology more effective; if you could lower the rate of failure to that of a modern conventional pregnancy, it would undoubtedly remove that ethical barrier to cloning technology.


I don't get how it's an 'ethical barrier'. I see nothing more 'ethical' about it than allowing parents who have already had (a) miscarriage(s) to continue trying to have children.

Not all pregnancies are equal. Not every fertilised egg becomes a baby.

'Ethical' concerns seem to be a spectre here.


However, until then, it is probably not wise to proceed in this field; there are other areas of research that cover many of the same goals as cloning, and they could be advanced alongside the resolution of cloning's ethical issues.


I disagree. A broad spectrum is good, but that doesn't mean you should NOT go deeper in any of the technologies. It seems logical to try to push the barrier as hard as we can, where we can... rather than relying on a shotgun approach to be our driving force.

No, he really hasn't.

If a person is willing to carry an embryo, but doesn't WANT to go full term - and is willing to meet those requirements 'for science'... where is the problem?

Well, the problem with that would probably be that the intended result in reproductive cloning research is to go full-term, so women who didn't want to go full-tern would be useless.

We all have different comfort zones on issues like this.. some women will have abortions, some won't.

But women don't exactly seek them out, either. Abortion is a choice of necessity - one that a woman struggles with when she makes it and often struggles with for years afterwards.

The idea isn't that we couldn't find willing volunteers. You can find volunteers for just about anything, especially if they are poor enough to need any compensation the researcher is willing to pay. The question is whether or not it is ethical to go into a series of studies in which you know you will be putting your volunteers through the physiologically and psychologically harrowing experiences of a miscarriage (not to mention the weird psychological issues that may come with a successful clone) - especially when there is no demonstrated need for the technology you are pursuing.

For example - a woman who cannot conceive, might be willing to accept a less-than-average success rate, if the treatment were free.

A woman who cannot conceive wouldn't exactly be a good candidate for this type of thing.

I don't get how it's an 'ethical barrier'. I see nothing more 'ethical' about it than allowing parents who have already had (a) miscarriage(s) to continue trying to have children.

You don't see a difference between a scientist intentionally beginning a process that will result in hundreds of failed pregnancies and allowing individuals who will likely be successful to try pregnancy on their own?

Are you seriously making that argument?

I disagree. A broad spectrum is good, but that doesn't mean you should NOT go deeper in any of the technologies. It seems logical to try to push the barrier as hard as we can, where we can... rather than relying on a shotgun approach to be our driving force.

There is no reason to "push the barrier" when you are trying to develop a process for which there is no need. Better to focus on the things we do need and for which we don't need to put women into these situations.

If we develop artificial wombs, maybe it will be worth it to pursue reproductive cloning simply for the sake of perfecting the process - as a novelty, if you will.

Well, the problem with that would probably be that the intended result in reproductive cloning research is to go full-term, so women who didn't want to go full-tern would be useless.


Not strictly true.

There is no rule that says we have to jump from '5 day blastocyst' to 'full term'. It may be entirely useful to, instead, hit a variety of points in between, progressively, finessing based on our findings as we go.


But women don't exactly seek them out, either. Abortion is a choice of necessity - one that a woman struggles with when she makes it and often struggles with for years afterwards.


Not always.


The idea isn't that we couldn't find willing volunteers. You can find volunteers for just about anything, especially if they are poor enough to need any compensation the researcher is willing to pay. The question is whether or not it is ethical to go into a series of studies in which you know you will be putting your volunteers through the physiologically and psychologically harrowing experiences of a miscarriage (not to mention the weird psychological issues that may come with a successful clone) - especially when there is no demonstrated need for the technology you are pursuing.


We don't know that's the end result - we just suspect it is based on our current science.


A woman who cannot conceive wouldn't exactly be a good candidate for this type of thing.


Why? Inability to conceive doesn't implicitly equate to 'unable to carry an implanted clone'..?


You don't see a difference between a scientist intentionally beginning a process that will result in hundreds of failed pregnancies and allowing individuals who will likely be successful to try pregnancy on their own?

Are you seriously making that argument?


Yes, I am.

If there is an ethical disqualifier in engaging in science that might cause a majority result of 'lost' pregnancies... then the exact sam disqualifier exists in parents witha history of miscarriage 'trying again'.


There is no reason to "push the barrier" when you are trying to develop a process for which there is no need. Better to focus on the things we do need and for which we don't need to put women into these situations.


Not better. Just safer, maybe.

And I distinctly remember you rubbishing my argument for 'safety' before, so I can't really see how you'll defend it on this topic.


If we develop artificial wombs, maybe it will be worth it to pursue reproductive cloning simply for the sake of perfecting the process - as a novelty, if you will.

Not as a novelty, as a science. As a branch of our expanding knowledge. Surely it's better to HAVE the knowledge base IF we need it, than to encounter a need, and have to start fresh at that point?

Not strictly true.

The purpose of reproductive cloning would be a viable clone.

We don't know that's the end result - we just suspect it is based on our current science.

Kind of like we don't know anything, eh? It has happened every time we've moved into a new species. Sure, you could believe that it won't happen in the one species that we've had the most trouble even with the beginning steps - but it would be a pretty ridiculous thing to assert.

Why? Inability to conceive doesn't implicitly equate to 'unable to carry an implanted clone'..?

It means that there is most likely either something wrong with implantation or something wrong with her eggs. Much like with any trial, researchers would need to look for healthy (in this case, not infertile) subjects. Otherwise, her problems with conception could introduce new variables that they could not control for.

Yes, I am.

If there is an ethical disqualifier in engaging in science that might cause a majority result of 'lost' pregnancies... then the exact sam disqualifier exists in parents witha history of miscarriage 'trying again'.

Then you are being patently ridiculous. I suppose the ethical concerns with me having to kill an animal in my research are exactly the same as that animal dying on its own in the wild?

Not better. Just safer, maybe.

Safer is better. When presenting before an IRB, if you are putting human subjects in danger (or, for that matter, even animal subjects), you have to present a clear reason for your research - a need for it.

And I distinctly remember you rubbishing my argument for 'safety' before, so I can't really see how you'll defend it on this topic.

Eh? Are we talking about your Orwellian society idea?

Not as a novelty, as a science. As a branch of our expanding knowledge. Surely it's better to HAVE the knowledge base IF we need it, than to encounter a need, and have to start fresh at that point?

Only if the research itself does not present significant ethical concerns that cannot be overridden by a present need.

Without a need, it is a novelty - plain and simple. It would be a technology we had no need for. That is a novelty.

This editorial has been sponsored by Behbies.

Behbies. Tha OTHER Other White Meat.

Further sponsored by the Fat Bastard Foundation for Neonatal Consumption Research.

Behbeh, it's what's for dinnah!

... Ah wan' mah, babyback, babyback, babyback -- ribs!

"Blasphemy" has never been so useful. ;)

The purpose of reproductive cloning would be a viable clone.

The long term goal of reproductive cloning would be to produce a viable clone. There are short-term milestones in any project that must be achieved. As the saying goes, crawl before you walk...

Kind of like we don't know anything, eh? It has happened every time we've moved into a new species. Sure, you could believe that it won't happen in the one species that we've had the most trouble even with the beginning steps - but it would be a pretty ridiculous thing to assert.

Sadly, because a human has never been cloned, we cannot know with certainty whether or not there will be socially-caused psychological issues. Biologically-caused psychological issues will more than likely still be present (unless the issue was caused by a scenario, such as sexual abuse) or can still occur in utero, but this cannot be known for certain either. I can appreciate your point of view however, as is outlined by this worst-case socially-caused psychological/social issue in this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/aug/12/genetics.medicalscience) in The Guardian (sorry, not sure how reputable the Guardian is as a news source, but this reference did seem to make sense). So, we don't know for sure; everything is only speculation at this point -- including my assertions.

...Much like with any trial, researchers would need to look for healthy (in this case, not infertile) subjects. Otherwise, her problems with conception could introduce new variables that they could not control for.

Actually, some women lose the ability to generate eggs relatively early in their human life; I know such a woman. There may be many more women like this, who lose the ability to generate eggs early on but who may not necessarily be infertile. I do concede that healthy subjects would need to be found for the first, and most important set, of runs. Then, if the main purpose for a clone is to harvest stem cells, other women may be considered. I agree that problems in utero will add a significant amount of risk to a clonal genesis operation. However, even in "healthy" women, there is unpredictability. With this in mind, read further on down.

Then you are being patently ridiculous. I suppose the ethical concerns with me having to kill an animal in my research are exactly the same as that animal dying on its own in the wild?

This, in and of itself, is a risky point to answer. In an attempt to provide one solution of many, I will, however, point out that many of the most "dangerous" activities that humans currently engage in were not safe (or are still not much safer) in the recent past. I will cite endeavors such as coal mining, Alaskan king crab fishing, construction, and many of the "primitive" activities conducted in industry during the Industrial Revolution; it was not uncommon to obtain severe injuries, if not outright death, in many of these occupations; in fact, even in this age, some of these still carry a good deal of risk.

Many of these dangerous occupations had their safety, processes, and operational methods improved over time by trial and error -- and at the cost of a great deal of economic expenditure and many lives. Those of us who live in much "tamer" world, where lettered government agencies control, regulate, and monitor numerous aspects of our lives, where devices like special coated glass, airbags, and seatbelts save us from certain serious injury on the road, where, for the most part, we are dependent on mysterious "black box" industries generate our products and we often fail to take notice of their internal workings, often fail to realize that risks -- of all resources -- are required for advancement. Note, that risk does not equate exploitation; anyone forced against their will, coerced, or otherwise unwillingly participating in advancement I would say is being exploited, but this is just my view.

I have yet, however, to address your argument about the ethicality of utilizing willing females in an untested environment.

The important way that research scientists can remain ethical is by full, plain language disclosure and education of the patient-participant. Ensuring that a patient-participant is fully educated in plain language about the risks of such a reproductive cloning procedure is key to maintaining ethical practice -- subterfuge and opacity are detrimental to the maintenance of a researcher/patient-participant relationship.

Safer is better.
True, but see above for arguments about exploration and safety.

Without a need, it is a novelty - plain and simple. It would be a technology we had no use for. That is a novelty.

Wireless phones, microcomputers, color television, automobiles, and airplanes were all considered novel technologies at the consumer level at one point or another. However, in this modern era, they are considered the "normative" state of affairs. In the future, there will be other technologies that are considered "novel" if they aren't already. Carbon nanotubes, smart fabrics, quantum microcomputers, ...

Just my two cents.

The long term goal of reproductive cloning would be to produce a viable clone. There are short-term milestones in any project that must be achieved. As the saying goes, crawl before you walk...

So now you're talking about hundreds of women who have abortion procedures and then hundreds of women who have failed pregnancies for the good of the research. This just gets better and better.

Sadly, because a human has never been cloned, we cannot know with certainty whether or not there will be socially-caused psychological issues.

I'll snip this here because you obviously misunderstood something. I wasn't talking about psychological issues. I was talking about the numerous failed pregnancies before we produce a single viable clone.

Actually, some women lose the ability to generate eggs relatively early in their human life; I know such a woman. There may be many more women like this, who lose the ability to generate eggs early on but who may not necessarily be infertile.

That would fall under infertility.

I do concede that healthy subjects would need to be found for the first, and most important set, of runs. Then, if the main purpose for a clone is to harvest stem cells, other women may be considered. I agree that problems in utero will add a significant amount of risk to a clonal genesis operation. However, even in "healthy" women, there is unpredictability. With this in mind, read further on down.

Again, you seem to have missed something. If the purpose of a clone is to harvest stem cells, pregnancy is not an issue. We are talking about reproductive cloning, not therapeutic cloning.

*snip irrelevant paragraphs*
I have yet, however, to address your argument about the ethicality of utilizing willing females in an untested environment.

The important way that research scientists can remain ethical is by full, plain language disclosure and education of the patient-participant. Ensuring that a patient-participant is fully educated in plain language about the risks of such a reproductive cloning procedure is key to maintaining ethical practice -- subterfuge and opacity are detrimental to the maintenance of a researcher/patient-participant relationship.

Informed consent is absolutely necessary to ethical practice, but it is not the sum total of ethical practice. We also have an ethical responsibility to make sure that the intended results of our experiments outweigh the risks - before we even bother about the informed consent process. You can find someone willing to sign up for just about anything, at least partly because many people think that if you are researching it, it is necessary. But it is scientists - not laypersons - who have the responsibility to determine - before trying it - if it is necessary and if the benefits of the research outweigh the risk/pain/suffering/etc. caused.

Meanwhile, this still doesn't answer the original question. Grave said that the ethical concerns behind impregnating women who will miscarry for an experiment are the exact same as letting (as if we have any business determining what she does in the first place) a woman who has naturally become pregnant and miscarried try again. Do you agree with that assessment?

True, but see above for arguments about exploration and safety.

Irrelevant argument. You're talking about getting resources, food, etc. We're talking about a completely unnecessary process.

If we were talking about cancer research, I'd understand that we must ask patients - and even some healthy people - to take on quite a bit of risk.

Instead, we're talking about a technology for which there is no need. No one needs reproductive cloning.

Wireless phones, microcomputers, color television, automobiles, and airplanes were all considered novel technologies at the consumer level at one point or another. However, in this modern era, they are considered the "normative" state of affairs. In the future, there will be other technologies that are considered "novel" if they aren't already. Carbon nanotubes, smart fabrics, quantum microcomputers, ...

How many of those required hundreds of miscarriages before the first one was produced? How many of them were actually developed without an actual reason for them - an actual need? For how many of those did we already have a perfectly natural process that worked for most people and a laboratory process that works for most of the others?

The answer is - none of them. So they are irrelevant to this debate. We aren't talking about sitting in an electronics lab somewhere working on cool new technology. We are talking about impregnating numerous women with near-certainty that the vast majority of them will miscarry. And for what? To create human beings in a cool new way?

So now you're talking about hundreds of women who have abortion procedures and then hundreds of women who have failed pregnancies for the good of the research...

If without subterfuge or coercion women are willing to do this, then yes. It would certainly be much better if a synthetic uterine environment could be developed and applied, but it is unlikely to be the case anytime in the near future. Perhaps in the next 45 - 75 years this will become the case.


I'll snip this here because you obviously misunderstood something. I wasn't talking about psychological issues. I was talking about the numerous failed pregnancies before we produce a single viable clone.

As long as the patient-participants and researchers agree that a patient-participant is prepared to endure the trials of such misfortune, then sad outcomes like this are, as they say, to be expected in a worst-case scenario. To make an omlett...


That would fall under infertility.

Quite right. Allow me to clarify. If a patient-participant has a history of successful childbirth and has simply lost the ability to create eggs of her own and is deemed healthy and the patient-participant has a high percentage probability of carrying to a clone to term with minimal or no complications, then she is synthetically fertile.


Again, you seem to have missed something. If the purpose of a clone is to harvest stem cells, pregnancy is not an issue. We are talking about reproductive cloning, not therapeutic cloning.

Actually, I am discussing reproductive cloning and choosing to remain open-ended about the potential paths that can be taken throughout the entire cycle as opposed to examining one potential outcome exclusively; one of the various milestones in the long-term goal is to evaluate fetal health at varying stages. In addition, feti at the various stages (such as the blastocyst stage among others) can certainly be utilized for other purposes. As grizzly as it is, fetal extraction at later stages is possible.


Informed consent is absolutely necessary to ethical practice, but it is not the sum total of ethical practice. We also have an ethical responsibility to make sure that the intended results of our experiments outweigh the risks - before we even bother about the informed consent process. You can find someone willing to sign up for just about anything, at least partly because many people think that if you are researching it, it is necessary. But it is scientists - not laypersons - who have the responsibility to determine - before trying it - if it is necessary and if the benefits of the research outweigh the risk/pain/suffering/etc. caused.

Very well stated. I will add, however, that it is important to consider whether or not the technology will be needed not only in the near future, but in the far future as well. While scientists 100 - 200 years from now may later scoff at what seem like feeble attempts at human reproductive and therapeutic cloning, without someone choosing to start, take risks, and run with technology, there can be no future.

... Grave said that the ethical concerns behind impregnating women who will miscarry for an experiment are the exact same as letting ... a woman who has naturally become pregnant and miscarried try again. Do you agree with that assessment?

I find the means to be equal if the women are both of sound health, mind and body and both are equally capable of miscarrying. Both parties are entering into the same state with the knowledge that they will miscarry. The only difference is purpose. One purpose is self-serving, the other is attempting to potentially help others down the line. That is how I see this scenario. There is no binary opposition that cleanly resolves this question and asking for any such straightforward answer is ludicrous as any such answer would be highly subjective.

In short, it may or may not be ethical. It depends on how the knowledge gained from the personal sacrifice of others is used.


Irrelevant argument. You're talking about getting resources, food, etc. We're talking about a completely unnecessary process. If we were talking about cancer research, I'd understand that we must ask patients - and even some healthy people - to take on quite a bit of risk. Instead, we're talking about a technology for which there is no need. No one needs reproductive cloning.

Human life, in and of itself, is a resource. Work-hours and the human factor, while expensive, are important to every national economy. You are correct in your observation that there is no current, immediate need for a reproductive cloning technology. However, that does not mean that it cannot be explored so that if there is a time it is necessary, then it can be utilized to maintain or ensure human survival.

How many of those required hundreds of miscarriages before the first one was produced? How many of them were actually developed without an actual reason for them - an actual need? For how many of those did we already have a perfectly natural process that worked for most people and a laboratory process that works for most of the others?

The answer is - none of them. So they are irrelevant to this debate. We aren't talking about sitting in an electronics lab somewhere working on cool new technology. We are talking about impregnating numerous women with near-certainty that the vast majority of them will miscarry. And for what? To create human beings in a cool new way?

Technology in and of itself is a living, breathing, evolving phenomenon. It is easy to overlook this simply because it has no visibly organic components. Many of these technologies had "miscarriages" in prototyping laboratories -- hundreds of thousands of work-hours lost to failure; various amalgams of metals and semiconductive material wasted, never to be reclaimed. Many of these technologies never had a real consumer need. Wireless telephony, minicomputers, console gaming computers, calculators, television -- none of these technologies were necessary. You are correct in that many of these technologies were designed with a purpose -- to give one set of humans an advantage over another, either militarily or commercially. In short, technology provides groups of humans a competitive edge over other human groups. Technology allows for human survival and dominance through cultural and economic supremacy.

Reproductive cloning is a technology. Yes, we are hypothetically speaking about impregnating women in the short term until the technology evolves so that that is no longer necessary. If the patient-participants and researchers follow strict, evaluative criteria to ensure that patient-participant health is positively maintained in all aspects and the patient-participants are not coerced, then there is no reason to at least give the pioneers of this technology, both researchers and participants, and opportunity to show the greater world community at large how it can benefit global humanity.

Does this technology scare you?

If without subterfuge or coercion women are willing to do this, then yes.

To what purpose? What reason do you have - one that you could put before an IRB, that would justify the risk and suffering caused?

Meanwhile, note that coercion is not, in and of itself, the issue. As I already said, research can be unethical even in the absence of coercion.

As long as the patient-participants and researchers agree that a patient-participant is prepared to endure the trials of such misfortune, then sad outcomes like this are, as they say, to be expected in a worst-case scenario. To make an omlett...

We aren't talking about a worst-case scenario. We are talking about the expected scenario. Based on all of our experience with cloning in other species, we should expect a number of miscarriages in the hundreds before we ever get our first viable clone, and a low rate of success for some time after that as well.

This isn't a matter of "We thought this drug would work. We knew there were risks, but they were worth taking and the outcomes were worse than we expected." Instead, it is, "We fully expect poor outcomes. We're going ahead because people think it would be cool if we could do it. And possibly maybe sometime in the distant future we might encounter a dystopian sci-fi scenario where we all lose the ability to procreate."

Very well stated. I will add, however, that it is important to consider whether or not the technology will be needed not only in the near future, but in the far future as well. While scientists 100 - 200 years from now may later scoff at what seem like feeble attempts at human reproductive and therapeutic cloning, without someone choosing to start, take risks, and run with technology, there can be no future.

Are you expecting human beings to stop producing eggs and sperm sometime soon, or even in the next hundred years?

The only way we would need reproductive cloning is if human beings somehow became completely incapable of procreation.

I find the means to be equal if the women are both of sound health, mind and body and both are equally capable of miscarrying.

That doesn't answer my question.

I asked if the ethical concerns associated with asking a woman to be a part of an experiment that will almost surely result in her miscarrying are the same as those associated with allowing a woman who has miscarried to try and conceive.

Human life, in and of itself, is a resource. Work-hours and the human factor, while expensive, are important to every national economy. You are correct in your observation that there is no current, immediate need for a reproductive cloning technology. However, that does not mean that it cannot be explored so that if there is a time it is necessary, then it can be utilized to maintain or ensure human survival.

It does if the ethical concerns outweigh the benefits, and the idea of a "need" for the technology rests upon a dystopian sci-fi scenario.

Technology in and of itself is a living, breathing, evolving phenomenon. It is easy to overlook this simply because it has no visibly organic components. Many of these technologies had "miscarriages" in prototyping laboratories -- hundreds of thousands of work-hours lost to failure; various amalgams of metals and semiconductive material wasted, never to be reclaimed.

Once again, irrelevant. We're talking about the ethical concerns associated with research that one knows is very risky to the participants. What does wasted metal have to do with that?

Do you really see no difference between using human beings in an experiment and using metal?

Many of these technologies never had a real consumer need. Wireless telephony, minicomputers, console gaming computers, calculators, television -- none of these technologies were necessary.

With the possible exception of console gaming and television, yes, they were. Most of them were developed for the defense market first - where the need was seen, and then moved into the civilian market when it was clear how useful they could be.

Take, for instance, cell phones - one you've brought up more than once now. People have died because they didn't have cell phones. Your car breaks down on a deserted road in the middle of a blizzard and you have no way to contact anyone to come and help you. You freeze to death. If you had some sort of communication device to contact rescue personnel...

But then again, the need for these devices is really rather irrelevant to the discussion. We didn't have to do any invasive human testing for those technologies, so there would be no real ethical concerns with pushing them just for the sake of having them.

If having a game console meant that lots of women would have to go through miscarriages before we ever got a working model, it wouldn't have been worth it to pursue the technology. The benefits would not have outweighed the risks.


Reproductive cloning is a technology. Yes, we are hypothetically speaking about impregnating women in the short term until the technology evolves so that that is no longer necessary. If the patient-participants and researchers follow strict, evaluative criteria to ensure that patient-participant health is positively maintained in all aspects and the patient-participants are not coerced, then there is no reason to at least give the pioneers of this technology, both researchers and participants, and opportunity to show the greater world community at large how it can benefit global humanity.

Therein lies the problem. That isn't how we do things. First of all, we don't expect participant health to be positively maintained here. We fully expect unhealthy outcomes. Second of all, in medical research, you have to be able to show either a very clear need or a distinct lack of risk before moving forward with a technology. When we put in a request to an IRB or try to get a grant for research, one of the main things we have to impress upon those reviewing it is why the research is necessary. We have to justify the risks and any suffering we can reasonably expect to result from our experiments. If we cannot do both, the IRB doesn't approve it and we cannot do the research.


One must understand that the ethical concerns we face in medical and biological research are quite different from concerns in most other areas of technology.

The only way we would need reproductive cloning is if human beings somehow became completely incapable of procreation.


Or men became sterile... or otherwise incapable. Women could remain 'as is'.

Fertile women, in absence of sperm, would be a problem... but one that could be 'treated' with cloning technology.

Or men became sterile... or otherwise incapable. Women could remain 'as is'.

...which would still mean that the human race would be incapable of procreation.

Do you really expect all men to suddenly become sterile?

To what purpose? What reason do you have - one that you could put before an IRB, that would justify the risk and suffering caused?

I see two questions wrapped in one here.

The first question is "what reason could you put in front of an review board that would satisfy the international review board's conscience if the mindset of the international review board was equal to the initial inquirer's?" I have no reply that will satisfy a review board of individuals arguing from your position. More than likely, any justification placed before an international review board would immediately be shot down. I am not unafraid to state this.

The second question is, "what reason is there for justifying the 'suffering' of a fraction of individuals, as observed using an arbitrary measurement scale, compared to a much larger whole?" My justification in answering such a question is that humans allow for suffering to occur in everyday life. In fact, humans allow for other humans to voluntarily suffer social stigma, psychological trauma, and physical pain, all for the benefit of an improved, "secure," and sovereign government.

Yes, I am referring to a military service. Much like this practice, the ethicality of maintaining and subjecting individuals who enter the military, voluntarily, to suffer psychological, physical, and sometimes social abuses. The body responsible for deciding the ethicality of this action, however, isn't a group of research scientists, but the individual governments. Humans serving in the military choose to suffer for others, often with irreversible damage to mind, body, and spirit; Soldiers often do so out of a spirit of Nationalism.

Yes, I realize that this can easily be used as a counter argument to what I just stated -- except for the fact that military forces are not being stopped or disbanded, nor are persons receiving the appropriate support services they need for their generous self-sacrifice. In fact, they are allowed to continue to exist. The existence of a military service's requirement for existence can easily be refuted or promoted. The point here is not to argue whether or not military services are required as a necessity, but to point out that existent facilities for voluntary suffering while sacrificing for a "cause" are built-in and accepted by humanity as a whole.

...research can be unethical even in the absence of coercion.

Indeed. However, this varies depending on the specific set of societal ethics, cultural values, and scientific expectations that are present within a scientific community. Your mileage may vary depending on the region, its ties to an international governing body, and it's views on life and death.

We aren't talking about a worst-case scenario. We are talking about the expected scenario. Based on all of our experience with cloning in other species, we should expect a number of miscarriages in the hundreds before we ever get our first viable clone, and a low rate of success for some time after that as well.

The fact that the expected case is failure still does not change the fact that it is the worst case and that there is a probability that a best case scenario, or a scenario that results somewhere in between, will not occur.

This isn't a matter of "We thought this drug would work. We knew there were risks, but they were worth taking and the outcomes were worse than we expected." Instead, it is, "We fully expect poor outcomes. We're going ahead because people think it would be cool if we could do it. And possibly maybe sometime in the distant future we might encounter a dystopian sci-fi scenario where we all lose the ability to procreate."

I didn't realize that we were trying to impress people. The point of this research is not to gather popularity, but to understand the processes involved in reproductive cloning so that the technology may be developed and improved. In addition, the point of the research would be to further utilize this technology to improve the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of humans throughout the world and its regions by providing ready-made and tailored tissue samples at a fraction of the cost of current technologies.

Are you expecting human beings to stop producing eggs and sperm sometime soon, or even in the next hundred years?

I'm not expecting anything in particular. Are you?

The only way we would need reproductive cloning is if human beings somehow became completely incapable of procreation.

Yes, we've agreed on this already. Reproductive cloning could also be useful if DNA becomes so "corrupted" by environmental factors that procreation becomes a less effective mode. Binary oppositions, lack of a medium ground and all that.

That doesn't answer my question.

I asked if the ethical concerns associated with asking a woman to be a part of an experiment that will almost surely result in her miscarrying are the same as those associated with allowing a woman who has miscarried to try and conceive.

Actually, it does; it just isn't the answer that you wanted or expected. As I stated later on in that paragraph, the question posed was not capable of being answered using a binary opposition. If you need a clearer statement, I will reiterate my stance which was, "it depends."

It does if the ethical concerns outweigh the benefits, and the idea of a "need" for the technology rests upon a dystopian sci-fi scenario.

Does anyone have a concrete knowledge of what life in the next century or two will be like? If someone out there in the audience does, can you please stand up and share your findings with the class?

Therein lies the problem. That isn't how we do things.

I thought that patient-participants were capable of logical, rational thought, deductive reasoning, critical thinking and at least some level of understanding. So, why couldn't each human make their own decision instead of having a group of people who these individuals did not select make it for them?

... Most of them were developed for the defense market first - where the need was seen, and then moved into the civilian market when it was clear how useful they could be.

Thank you for reiterating what I stated regarding their initial design and use. I already clearly stated in my previous post that there was no consumer need for these devices. This all ties in to how cultures use technology to assert dominance over one another if I recall.

Take, for instance, cell phones - one you've brought up more than once now. People have died because they didn't have cell phones. Your car breaks down on a deserted road in the middle of a blizzard and you have no way to contact anyone to come and help you. You freeze to death. If you had some sort of communication device to contact rescue personnel...

It could, however, be argued that the technology in and of itself is unnecessary. The specific scenario is an example of how the technology is convenient and has found use in the consumer market, but this does not validate it as a necessity. Even when wireless telephone was in use by purely military and commercial sectors, it and many other technologies had no real need -- they were all wants. Electricity is also another major creature-comfort humans mistake as a "need" when really it is a "want." Others might posit a very valid question: since when did wireless phones replace preparedness for the environment. especially if one knew that they were going out in the middle of a blizzard?

Perhaps it would have been better to have stayed home. Or, maybe, there was enough of a risk and there was a conscious choice made to engage in such risky, unhealthy activity -- because going out in a blizzard will likely result in a temporarily unhealthy state. Why not remain safe at home?

But then again, the need for these devices is really rather irrelevant to the discussion.

Agreed. The devices themselves are irrelevant. The overarching idea that was demonstrated by using the devices as an example was the relevant part. Forest for the trees and all that.

If having a game console meant that lots of women would have to go through miscarriages before we ever got a working model, it wouldn't have been worth it to pursue the technology. The benefits would not have outweighed the risks.

I think that would depend on several factors, especially cultural and psychological factors regarding life and the idea of suffering. Some cultures might say, "Hey, it's another life. Big deal -- we have plenty of those already." Some might share your point of view. It depends.

First of all, we don't expect participant health to be positively maintained here. We fully expect unhealthy outcomes.

While the root, "health" is not a value word, the word unhealthy is; its meaning could be different across cultures. I will, however, for the sake of the argument, use what I assume you mean to use as its definition in context (lack of soundness of body or mind). With the appropriate services, patient-participant health can be maintained at an extremely healthy level. While some of the project outcomes may lead to patient distress, counseling, psychotherapy, and other services would be made available to patients who, after extensive evaluation and numerous opportunities to decline, do suffer physical or mental ailments. Not to mention, they would probably be withdrawn from the program altogether.

Second of all, in medical research, you have to be able to show either a very clear need or a distinct lack of risk before moving forward with a technology. When we put in a request to an IRB or try to get a grant for research, one of the main things we have to impress upon those reviewing it is why the research is necessary. We have to justify the risks and any suffering we can reasonably expect to result from our experiments. If we cannot do both, the IRB doesn't approve it and we cannot do the research.

That is assuming, of course, that a group is seeking funding from an international organization rather than a government or private-sector entity.

One must understand that the ethical concerns we face in medical and biological research are quite different from concerns in most other areas of technology.

With regards to direct human testing I am sure they are. I am just unafraid of asking the person who is in the research whether or not they want to participate despite a high likelihood of failure and at great personal sacrifice on their part.

I see two questions wrapped in one here.

The first question is "what reason could you put in front of an review board that would satisfy the international review board's conscience if the mindset of the international review board was equal to the initial inquirer's?" I have no reply that will satisfy a review board of individuals arguing from your position. More than likely, any justification placed before an international review board would immediately be shot down. I am not unafraid to state this.

IRB = Institutional Review Board, not international. To do research with living subjects (human or animal) - and often even with tissues or cells - at any institution, approval from the IRB is a necessity.

The second question is, "what reason is there for justifying the 'suffering' of a fraction of individuals, as observed using an arbitrary measurement scale, compared to a much larger whole?" My justification in answering such a question is that humans allow for suffering to occur in everyday life. In fact, humans allow for other humans to voluntarily suffer social stigma, psychological trauma, and physical pain, all for the benefit of an improved, "secure," and sovereign government.

Indeed. Because they see a specific need that must be met - security.

What is that need here?

I didn't realize that we were trying to impress people. The point of this research is not to gather popularity, but to understand the processes involved in reproductive cloning so that the technology may be developed and improved.

Again, to what end? What need is there for the technology? If there is no need for it, it's only purpose is "It's cool!"

In addition, the point of the research would be to further utilize this technology to improve the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of humans throughout the world and its regions by providing ready-made and tailored tissue samples at a fraction of the cost of current technologies.

Reproductive and therapeutic cloning are two separate subjects. Reproductive cloning is not at all necessary for what you are describing.

I'm not expecting anything in particular. Are you?

If you aren't expecting this to happen, you've identified no need for reproductive cloning.

Actually, it does; it just isn't the answer that you wanted or expected. As I stated later on in that paragraph, the question posed was not capable of being answered using a binary opposition. If you need a clearer statement, I will reiterate my stance which was, "it depends."

Then your answer is ridiculous. The ethical concerns are not, in any way, the same. In fact, there is no ethical concern whatsoever in allowing a woman to try and get pregnant. That is her choice.

I thought that patient-participants were capable of logical, rational thought, deductive reasoning, critical thinking and at least some level of understanding. So, why couldn't each human make their own decision instead of having a group of people who these individuals did not select make it for them?

Are you suggesting that scientists should sit around until laypersons approach them with an experimental plan and volunteer for it?

Scientists (for the most part - many IRBs do include laypersons) decide what research will be carried out - whether it is useful and ethical and therefore can proceed. We then seek volunteers if they are necessary. It would be a bit backwards if we did it the other way around, don't you think?

Agreed. The devices themselves are irrelevant. The overarching idea that was demonstrated by using the devices as an example was the relevant part. Forest for the trees and all that.

But you didn't demonstrate a relevant idea. The idea you were putting forth was irrelevant, because none of these devices fell under the same ethical concerns as a technology involving human subjects and their health.

I think that would depend on several factors, especially cultural and psychological factors regarding life and the idea of suffering. Some cultures might say, "Hey, it's another life. Big deal -- we have plenty of those already." Some might share your point of view. It depends.

If you are really advocating the idea that it's ok to harm people so you can have a game console at home, I really think we're looking at a fundamental difference in viewpoints here.

While the root, "health" is not a value word, the word unhealthy is; its meaning could be different across cultures. I will, however, for the sake of the argument, use what I assume you mean to use as its definition in context (lack of soundness of body or mind). With the appropriate services, patient-participant health can be maintained at an extremely healthy level. While some of the project outcomes may lead to patient distress, counseling, psychotherapy, and other services would be made available to patients who, after extensive evaluation and numerous opportunities to decline, do suffer physical or mental ailments. Not to mention, they would probably be withdrawn from the program altogether.

You don't know much about pregnancy and miscarriage, do you?

Pregnancy itself is quite a strain on the body - and it involves health risks that continue for the rest of the woman's life. Miscarriage is an unhealthy state - one that can lead to problems such as deadly infection and difficulty conceiving in the future. In a reproductive cloning program, we would be expecting to cause this unhealthy state and put the women through all of the risks associated with both.

When you go into something with the full knowledge that the most likely outcome is an unhealthy state, you can hardly suggest that patients will be kept "extremely healthy."

That is assuming, of course, that a group is seeking funding from an international organization rather than a government or private-sector entity.

No, it isn't. I explained this above.


With regards to direct human testing I am sure they are. I am just unafraid of asking the person who is in the research whether or not they want to participate despite a high likelihood of failure and at great personal sacrifice on their part.

It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of ethics. It is only ethical to ask someone to do so when you can justify that sacrifice.

And direct human testing is not the only ethical concern we face in medical and biological research that is not seen in most technology.

IRB = Institutional Review Board, not international. To do research with living subjects (human or animal) - and often even with tissues or cells - at any institution, approval from the IRB is a necessity.

More than likely, this would depend on the structure of the institution.

Indeed. Because they see a specific need that must be met - security.

Security is not a need -- it's a want.

IAgain, to what end? What need is there for the technology? If there is no need for it, it's only purpose is "It's cool!"

IReproductive and therapeutic cloning are two separate subjects. Reproductive cloning is not at all necessary for what you are describing.

Dully noted.

If you aren't expecting this to happen, you've identified no need for reproductive cloning.

No, it simply means that I'm keeping my mind open and acknowledging that I do not know what is coming in the next 50 - 200 years.

IThen your answer is ridiculous. The ethical concerns are not, in any way, the same. In fact, there is no ethical concern whatsoever in allowing a woman to try and get pregnant. That is her choice.

Yes, it is. It is also a human's choice -- or to be more specific, a woman's choice -- to decide whether or not they would wish to get pregnant as part of an experiment.

IAre you suggesting that scientists should sit around until laypersons approach them with an experimental plan and volunteer for it?

Were you suggesting that scientists should make decisions for a large group of people based on a set of philosophical responses couched in Western philosophy?

IScientists (for the most part - many IRBs do include laypersons) decide what research will be carried out - whether it is useful and ethical and therefore can proceed. We then seek volunteers if they are necessary. It would be a bit backwards if we did it the other way around, don't you think?

That is somewhat comforting -- it would seem somewhat counterproductive to have institutional review boards (sorry for the misuse above -- I figured there might be an international research board who also confers and decides what research is to be done) are staffed with tenured, distanced, ivory-tower medical practitioners.[/quote]



But you didn't demonstrate a relevant idea. The idea you were putting forth was irrelevant, because none of these devices fell under the same ethical concerns as a technology involving human subjects and their health.

IIf you are really advocating the idea that it's ok to harm people so you can have a game console at home, I really think we're looking at a fundamental difference in viewpoints here.

I, personally, am not advocating anything; what actions a government, research scientist, and/or medical institution decide to make is of their own doing. I prefer to leave my personal viewpoints out of an argument -- I tend to find that they cloud and color my thinking. Besides, it's more challenging to attempt to take on a viewpoint other than what you normally hold -- and there is some small amount of satisfaction in doing so.

IYou don't know much about pregnancy and miscarriage, do you?

I remember a good deal from my anatomy studies when I was a child. I also keep up with varying medical developments on a relaxed basis. I am not, after all, a research scientist; medicine is more of a hobby, if a somewhat strange one.

IPregnancy itself is quite a strain on the body - and it involves health risks that continue for the rest of the woman's life. Miscarriage is an unhealthy state - one that can lead to problems such as deadly infection and difficulty conceiving in the future. In a reproductive cloning program, we would be expecting to cause this unhealthy state and put the women through all of the risks associated with both.

When you go into something with the full knowledge that the most likely outcome is an unhealthy state, you can hardly suggest that patients will be kept "extremely healthy."

True, but the "unhealthy" state is temporary and after a period of recovery, most individuals seem to return to relatively normal health. You make it seem as if a woman would be nothing more than a fetal drop-forge. Although I have known women who do that.

Yes, there can be side-effects of pregnancy -- tearing, postnatal depression, and other medical ailments, such as hemorrhoids, can occur. In addition, there is a chance for psychological disturbance due to hormone imbalance.

As you stated before, it is a woman's choice to decide whether or not to risk these and other side effects that are part of the pregnancy process.[/quote]

No, it isn't. I explained this above.

Yes, I can see that now.

It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of ethics. It is only ethical to ask someone to do so when you can justify that sacrifice.

Ethics are subjective.

To keep this brief, as I can see no other way for me to continue my defense at this time (I lack sufficient knowledge and world experience at this point), I shall yield. If someone else would like to take up where I left off, feel free.

Please note that I, personally, do not hold any or all of these views -- I simply enjoy taking on a challenge. Thank you for debating with me.

More than likely, this would depend on the structure of the institution.

I can assure you that an IRB is standard throughout most scientific institutions.

Security is not a need -- it's a want.

Really? So what is a "need" in your lexicon?

Yes, it is. It is also a human's choice -- or to be more specific, a woman's choice -- to decide whether or not they would wish to get pregnant as part of an experiment.

You miss the point yet again. The comparison was of an experiment to a woman trying OUTSIDE OF EXPERIMENTATION. Grave said that the ethical issues with planning an experiment that would result in multiple miscarriages were exactly the same as letting a woman who has had a miscarriage try to get pregnant. The latter has nothing to do with an experiment - it is her choosing the course of her own life.

Were you suggesting that scientists should make decisions for a large group of people based on a set of philosophical responses couched in Western philosophy?

I'm not. I'm suggesting that scientists make decisions on what science is performed, since we're the ones performing it and the best qualified to determine the way in which scientific resources can be most effectively and ethically allocated.


I remember a good deal from my anatomy studies when I was a child. I also keep up with varying medical developments on a relaxed basis. I am not, after all, a research scientist; medicine is more of a hobby, if a somewhat strange one.

True, but the "unhealthy" state is temporary and after a period of recovery, most individuals seem to return to relatively normal health. You make it seem as if a woman would be nothing more than a fetal drop-forge. Although I have known women who do that.

Yes, there can be side-effects of pregnancy -- tearing, postnatal depression, and other medical ailments, such as hemorrhoids, can occur. In addition, there is a chance for psychological disturbance due to hormone imbalance.

There is also a risk of diseases like Type II Diabetes and osteoporosis later on in life. And, as I pointed out, the very real risks of fertility problems after a miscarriage and deadly infections from that occurrence.

As you stated before, it is a woman's choice to decide whether or not to risk these and other side effects that are part of the pregnancy process.

Indeed, but in the subject of reproductive cloning, it is first up to the researchers to decide if the risk they wish to put her through is justified.

If I wanted to, I could find human subjects willing to have me cut off their arms and sew on other people's arms to see if it would work. The risks would be great, but I could find people willing to do it. But would those risks be justified?

To keep this brief, as I can see no other way for me to continue my defense at this time (I lack sufficient knowledge and world experience at this point), I shall yield. If someone else would like to take up where I left off, feel free.

Please note that I, personally, do not hold any or all of these views -- I simply enjoy taking on a challenge. Thank you for debating with me.

N/P. Thank you.