------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:21pm Oct 25, 1997 ET (#600 of 602)

Carl Nicolai: Here in Asia you can buy human placenta as a traditional chinese medicine.I do not know if they still do it, but back in the sixties, the Red Cross bought blood for transfusions. I knew sailors who periodically sold a pint of their blood for extra drinking money. I didn't see too much wrong with it. Where I would draw the line is if somebody tried to sell somebody else's blood for the same purpose.

Carl Nicolai: So for a thought experiment, just what do you think would happen if someone bought this human milk and made cheese from it and then offered it for sale.I would have no objection to this as long as the human females supplying this human milk was not forced to supply it, and the people who bought it wanted it.

However, put some human females in sealed cubicles from which they can not escape, inject them with hormones to promote production of the milk, and harvest the product for the purpose you mention, and, yes, I would object. Suppose these "normal" human females were replaced with cloned human females. It would make not one bit of difference to me; I would still object. And if they were "specially cloned" so as to have no head, I will still object. In my opinion, slavery--in any form, with, or without, a head--is wrong.

Carl Nicolai: 30 years ago science fiction talked about the clone wars which were to take place in the early to mid 1990s. It now looks like maybe the 2020s before the division between countries that allow human cloning and those that ban it have a major conflict.Sounds reminiscent of the American Civil War to me. The amazing thing is that there are people in this country who still defend the ethics of the slave owners prior to the Civil War. These are some of the same people who defend cloning as a "wonderful technology."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. caprile - 07:06pm Oct 25, 1997 ET (#601 of 602)

vancouverite: I think it is one of the best ideas science could have come up with. Cloning indicates an advancement in our medical field that will enable us to put smiles on many dying faces. Of course it is still a good idea to use the organs of many dead people because it helps us decompose and make use of those bodies, but when there is a lack, it is good to have an alternative around.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barrett Clark - 07:30pm Oct 25, 1997 ET (#602 of 602)

M.A.DeLuca - 06:53pm Oct 23, 1997 ET (#573 of 601)

"But Mr. Clark, are you then suggesting that all the good to be gained from cloning technology is to be dismissed because of the actions of an occasional extremist?" (MA DeLuca)

Would you then try to tell me that some of Hitler's actions were good? I think we would all agree that he would probably fit into the "occasional extremist" camp with his human experiments and other actions.

Some things are better believed to be a bad idea than proven. I think this is one of those, and I really don't care if you agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 03:54pm Oct 26, 1997 ET (#603 of 604)

Clark, I suppose it's pointless to try to extract from you any sort of rationale for associating cloning with Hitler. By your argument, any technological or medical advance we could hope to make should be stopped just because Adolf Hitler existed.

Frankly, I don't share your perception that cloning is a bad idea, and anyone who really cares to look at the issue with a measure of open mindedness can see a plethora of benefits to be had from the process.

Your post indicated a worry that some "sick bastard" might decide to create human life (presumably using cloning). Did you forget that people, sick or moral, create human life every single day? I can only assume you didn't so then the issue must involve the process of creation. Let me reiterate something I posted on this board many months ago: cloning is impractical for the creation of standing armies of Adolf Hitlers. First, it would take 18-20 years to raise them after conception, and second it would presuppose that every one of those Hitlers would have the same mindset and want to cooperate with other power-hungry tyrants.

As far as cloning individual sets of organs are concerned, which just so happens to be the most legitimate and practical application for human cloning, I would be the willing donor for my new heart or kidneys. I would donate my cells for my health benefits. I wouldn't have to sit worrying whether or not some other poor bastard was going to die so that I'd have another chance, and I wouldn't have to face the sick realization if I got lucky that my body now hosted the only remaining tissues of another person who had dreams and a life. I wouldn't be forced to take immuno-suppressants the rest of my days, and I'd be sure that the new organs were a perfect match for my body.

Oh! Wait! Some sicko might decide to use this process to prolong their life too, right? That's right, just like they probably use every other existing medical technique of

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 03:59pm Oct 26, 1997 ET (#604 of 604)

(Cont'd) Oh! Wait! Some sicko might decide to use this process to prolong their life too, right? That's right, just like they probably use every other existing medical technique of self-preservation already. And that's no excuse to ban the last hundred years of medical progress or curtail any further breakthroughs.

Tell me, just what is it about the 'C' word that sets you off? How does a process that can save lives, feed more people, and in fact is used in nature for reproduction by a variety of plant and animal species spell doom for the upright and virtuous?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:00pm Oct 26, 1997 ET (#605 of 619)

M.A.DeLuca: As far as cloning individual sets of organs are concerned, which just so happens to be the most legitimate and practical application for human cloning, I would be the willing donor for my new heart or kidneys...I wouldn't be forced to take immuno-suppressants the rest of my days, and I'd be sure that the new organs were a perfect match for my body.

M.A., First, I wish to stipulate that I would like to have a "civil" exchange of ideas with you. I have read your exchanges with Barrett, and I want none of that. But I think we can have fun with an argument of the relative merits of the process if we do not take ourselves too seriously.

That said, I would argue that cloning and growing human tissue for transplant is a bad idea. I hold this opinion for a number of reasons. But, here, I will mention only that the process would be expensive and have a low potential return for the money. (Wait, keep reading.) Even with growth hormones, the process of growing appropriate organs for transplant will be a time consuming and expensive process. The potential reward is, as you say, "a perfect match for my body." However, how are you to know what you will need? You could wait to find out, but then it might be too late. You might die waiting for your perfect match heart to mature to the point it can be transplanted into your body.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:01pm Oct 26, 1997 ET (#606 of 619)

On the other hand, perhaps you think it best to plan ahead. Suppose you have several organs grown, a heart, a liver and a lung, and then it turns out what you need is a pancreas. Okay, add a pancreas. But what if you have an accident and need a leg. Oh, what the heck, grow them all in case you need any of them. Its only money, and maybe you have plenty. But what a waste of money if it turns out you do not need any of these organs? Most people do not need transplants. And they are of no use to anyone else since they are a match only for your body.

I think there is a better way. It is called regeneration therapy. Granted, cloning has a head start. It has already been done, and it is in the news. But regeneration has far greater potential in my opinion, and none of the disagreeable aspects of cloning. Some animals already have the ability to regenerate organs, naturally. If you cut off a limb of a gecko, for example, it grows back. This CNN page contains a link to a number of articles on "genetics and cloning." If you click the "genetics and cloning" link near the top of this page, you are taken to a number of articles. To me, the most exciting article is the one on regeneration. When regeneration is perfected, it will do everything that you want cloning to do, without all the disagreeable aspects.

Your comment please.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 03:42am Oct 27, 1997 ET (#607 of 619)

The regeneration you are talking about is currently based on research using stem-cell which are harvested from cloned tissues from embryos. The adult human body (such as you and I) also has stem-cells and research is currently being conducted that would allow for regeneration of human tissue and organs without the use of embryo cloning. This is called direct "cell-line" therapy and offers the regeneration of both non-dividing (hearts and brains) as well as dividing tissue in the human body. I see no reason why this would not lead to effective immortality of the individual without the ethical issues resulting from cloning. As I've said before, cloning is an enabling technology that will aid in the development of the more advanced stem-cell regeneration technology which, in my opinion, will be cheaper as well as free of any ethical problems. As for the quest of immortality, it is a personal issue that can only be freely chosen by the individual. I've decided that ageing and death sucks and that no luddite is going to get in the way of my quest for immortality. As I've also said before, my mind is not for rent by any god or government.

Sayonara,

Kurt

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 06:04am Oct 27, 1997 ET (#608 of 619)

Cliff, I think you'll find that opinion counts for little in the face of the facts, so although it may be your opinion that regenerative therapy may be of greater significance to the future of medicine, that has yet to be researched to conclusion. My point is simply that these two advances are in their infancy and require more research before someone can simply arbitrarily decide, on the merits of opinion, what won't work.

It frightens me when someone brings a political agenda to science in an attempt to control the growth of knowledge. Like censorship, such an effort is stifling, not nurturing, and bankrupts a culture's future. Ideas should be pursued; if not by you, then by another, and only then, if found wanting, abandoned in the light of reason and wisdom, not some shadowy, ill-defined fear.

This culture has a fear of cloning as a result of bad fiction in the popular media. It has been associated repeatedly with eugenics and slave labor. As a word, 'clone' has taken on negative connotations denoting a knock-off or dronish quality. As a result, too many people have a conditioned response to the subject without first considering the implications or understanding the process. This, and similar knee-jerk reactions to other ideas, limits our growth as a culture.

Actually, I share your enthusiasm for regeneration, and over the long-term, even more advanced concepts like nanotechnology. On the other hand, I doubt cloning is a dead-end; it will surely prove useful for agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and at least some medical procedures. I have an "extropian" view of the future, one in which many technologies combine to improve the overall quality, length, and awareness of life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 09:01am Oct 27, 1997 ET (#609 of 619)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

I don't really see where any ethical/moral issues exist when discussing the use of cloning technology to produce discrete organs. Certaily these issues exist when discussing the production of complete persons, but a kidney in a vat shouldn't rouse anyones "Frankenstein" phobias.

The supisition that cloning of "replacement parts" may prove economically unviable is a strong and very reasonable argument. I believe that a much more productive use of this technology would be for the use of genetic research.

We would be able to bypass many of the ethical restraints that hamper this research today. It is unkind (at least) to cause monkeys and dogs to grow cancers. Wouldn't it be quite preferable to study this genetic phenom in a raw organ that never was a complete feeling being?

Research utilizing cloning could greatly accelerate our understanding of genetic processes. Instead of thinking of growing replacement hearts we could be thinking of designer viruses (or some other suitable mechanism) that could instruct our bodies to repair themselves.

As far as the "bad people will do bad things with it" argument against developing cloning technologies; I hate to put it this harshly, but tough! They probably will, but trying to suppress the ligitiment research will not stop this. Once it is known to be even marginly possible a technology will be unfailingly explored if anyone can see a profit in doing so. By restricting ligitiment research we only reduce the "good" results we can realize, we do not prevent the "bad."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 09:25am Oct 27, 1997 ET (#610 of 619)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

I no longer have enough time to maintain my arguments, but I fully endorse M.A.DeLuca to carry my point of view, judging from the last few posts.

Goodbye (for now anyway), Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 09:47am Oct 27, 1997 ET (#611 of 619)

Thanks, Tom! I'll try not to dishonor your endorsement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barrett Clark - 10:57am Oct 27, 1997 ET (#612 of 619)

MA and Tom and whoever else wants to charge ahead. Go for it!!! All I was trying to say is that I think it's a bad idea to play with human genes like this. If you think the benefits to society outweigh the bad, than that's great. I am a HUGE RAGING utilitarian. Our world has seen a lot of good and bad ideas and a lot of good and bad deeds. Besides, what does it matter what I think? I'm certainly not going to be the guy who stops the whole process.

MA mentioned that an occasional bad seed would not be worthwhile enough to consider given the huge benefits that would be served. When I think of occaisional extremist, I think of Hitler. If we have 1 Hitler in every lifetime maybe the population wouldn't be so out of control. This could also be good, I suppose. And we (humans as a whole) have already been experimenting with chemical weapons.

I see you & I both liked "A Modest Proposal" & we are both quick with the sarcastic retort. When it is all said and done I hope we can both live with the actions we have chosen for ourselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 12:50pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#613 of 619)

Let me share a bit of personal perspective on this matter. Although I frequently fall on the side of unfettered research anyway, in this case I have something of a personal stake in the issue. Or I would if chance had operated a little more favorably.

My mother is lying in her deathbed at the end of a ravaging battle with chronic lung disease. Her heart is being squeezed by a pair of lungs bloated with the effects of emphysema and asthma. At seventy-three, she is considered too old to be eligible for a transplant, but if an organ clone had been prepared three years ago at the time of her first diagnosis, a new set of lungs and a heart would be at least as developed as a two year-old version of herself by now. Instead of staring grimly at the ceiling over her bed and days now long behind her, she could be preparing herself for a transplant, donated by herself, that would help her recover.

She'd have a good chance to be at my wedding two years from now, and would probably live to hold her grandchild.

But that technology doesn't exist yet; nor does any other alternative that might be in some stage of research right now. When someone objects to research like cloning on moral principles, simply because it might be misused or because of a vague uneasiness conditioned by uneducated media, I can't help but think about those people, like my mom, whom they would condemn to a lingering, smothered death.

Cloning might turn out to be impractical to solve this or other medical problems. It may turn out to be one of the greatest red herrings in the history of biology. But it probably won't, and I have great difficulty distinguishing between those who would deny future victims of disease the chance at recovery and those monsters of history who also kill at political whim.

Let the researchers explore the limits of what's possible, and let doctors apply what is learned for the benefit of all of us. Leave the politics out of science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 01:15pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#614 of 619)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Bravo!

People have to realize that knowledge is nuetral, it is application that is good or evil.

If people just have to have a law regarding cloning, then why not a usefull law, limiting the scope of applicationto deal with the ethical issues. It seems reasonable to set ethical limits to a potential technology's application, but it does not seem ethical to restrict research because the potential for unethical application exists. Even specific limitations on research practices would be acceptable, such as "no growing complete babies and then killing them," etc., but just saying, "OOOHHH, scary, don't look at that!" is just ligitimatizing the further worship of ignorance that is so popular in this country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:28pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#615 of 619)

cathy davis: -You know...... 'maybe its not true-but what if it is , I'd better buy the policy just-in-case'.

I (and Blaise Pascal) thought about this, too. I came to the conclusion that it made the horrible assumption that there are only two choices. Suppose the pagans are right?

Noel Yap: Life itself is emergent behaviour coming from the interaction of all these (and some other) processes.

Tom Anderson: No, it actually is a sum of the parts.

So, then you're saying we're all equivalent to a bunch of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, ... atoms?

Noel Yap: If you do, try (randomly) separating populations and then reintroducing them.

Tom Anderson: That is essentially the story of human races today.

Yes, and diversity is increasing. I know someone with natural, gold-colored hair; he's 50% Irish and 50% Chinese. This hadn't (to my knowledge) existed before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:31pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#616 of 619)

Noel Yap: At a certain point, only a miracle can change a person's beliefs drastically; this goes for God-believing and atheistic people alike.

Tom Anderson: most atheists' beliefs are based on reliable knowledge and change according to evidence and logic.

Even so, they are beliefs.

Tom Anderson: No longer? When did people want to die?

Duh!!! There is a difference between accepting death and wanting to die.

Tom Anderson: Who's talking about third world countries?

You were talking about overpopulation. Third world countries are the ones with this problem. You only need to travel to the Midwest to see that the US does not have an overpopulation problem.

Tom Anderson: Christians also symbolically eat their savior!

According to the Vatican, it's not symbolic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:33pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#617 of 619)

Tom Anderson: How can a cannibal possibly complain about a perfectly ethical medical practice?

How is cannibalism ethically wrong? After all, we're just a bunch of meat.

Tom Anderson: You should only believe what is true, not what would be nice to be true.

You should never dictate what others should believe.

Cliff Beall: Religious people will cling to these beliefs regardless of the strength of yours or my arguments against them,

I don't think Tom'll believe this ;)

Cliff Beall: I don\222t think cloning to create controlled experiments in genetic engineering is more ethical than the forced use of twins for the same purpose.

I agree, I was just asking Ralf to clarify hist statement.

Cliff Beall: What is the definition you remember from bio?

I had thought that organs were composed of specialized cells (ie lung, heart, liver, kidney, ...) I had thought that this did not include limbs. Upon digging up my old books, I found that I had thought wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:35pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#618 of 619)

M.A.DeLuca: Leave the politics out of science.

You have the right to research this yourself. Politics is not stopping cloning research. Back in the days of Galileo and DaVinci, scientists were not funded by the government and, yet, they were still able to contribute a great deal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Neubauer - 06:32pm Oct 27, 1997 ET (#619 of 619)

If they can grow a headless human is it not so far fetched to assume that they can grow a humanless heart? That is their goal and they should be allowed to pursue it. No matter how difficult it is for us, we must always remember that they are not evil people. They have our best interest at heart. Everybody always forgets that...

By "They" I mean the same people who freed us from Polio, Small Pox, and The Plague. They're working on spinal injuries, cancer, and AIDS. They fight the un-winnable fight until they die and they never complain. It takes half a life to get where they are and another half a life to do anything about it. This is not the 13th century! They are our Columbus. Everybody said he was crazy too. But he knew, and he did, and here we are.

David Neubauer

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Hillier - 12:16am Oct 28, 1997 ET (#620 of 626)

I believe we are all one people, the world's people. I think we have no option but to trust in our own 'strong arms'to take us into the future. If genetic engineering can modify our biology so that we can regrow organs and repair damaged ones in place, that is a good thing. If we can modify our form and biology to be able to endure space travel and work in space then we will survive and populate other planets, or even other galaxies in the distant future.

I hope we continue out efforts to understand what the code means. Full speed ahead.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:45am Oct 28, 1997 ET (#621 of 626)

Kurt, I appreciate your explanation of direct "cell-line" therapy and find myself in agreement with everything you said. In the sense that "cloning is an enabling technology that will aid in the development of the more advanced stem-cell regeneration technology," I have no objection whatever and support cloning for this purpose. I see no ethical problems with immortality.

M.A., why do you say the I will find that my opinion counts for little in the face of the facts? Exactly, what are the facts? I think I gave a fairly comprehensive description of the logistical and economic problems with cloning--as you have described it. Whether individual human limbs and organs can be grown in a soup remains a major question, but even it is proven that it can be done, I think it is clear that it would not be economically feasible, except for the wealthiest among us. On the other hand, I think that regeneration of the type that Kurt describes is likely to be found to be a viable solution, and will probably be cheap enough for everybody to enjoy.

Regarding your fright at my political agenda, why is it frightening that I oppose funding of this dubious process. I would support funding for the research that Kurt describes. With respect to your dirge against bad fiction in the popular media, I think it is the truth. I point to a number of comments on this board as evidence.

Keith, I fully agree with your first three paragraphs. But I think you got emotional and stumbled on the fourth.

Tom, I have to agree with your assessment of M.A. He is tough, all right. I hate to think of what he is going to do with my response to his post. (And I thought you were tough!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:04am Oct 28, 1997 ET (#622 of 626)

Barrett, does research of the type Kurt described bother you? If it does, please explain it to me.

M.A., I have the greatest of sympathy for both you and your mother. But, I have to tell you that I think I would oppose any such major surgery for my mother in a similar circumstance. Major surgery is a terrible shock for a body. If she were my mother, I would want the doctors to keep her as comfortable as possible, and avoid any procedure likely to cause her additional pain and suffering.

Noel Yap: Even so, they are beliefs.

Exactly.

Noel Yap: According to the Vatican, it's not symbolic.

Your right.

Noel Yap: How is cannibalism ethically wrong? After all, we're just a bunch of meat.

Noel, you sometimes stretch an argument to the limit. Correction, you sometimes stretch an argument to the extreme. As I recall, Tom has complained about this a number of times.

Cliff Beall: Religious people will cling to these beliefs regardless of the strength of yours or my arguments against them,

Noel Yap: I don't think Tom'll believe this ;)

Sigh, I suppose you are probably right. Oh well.

Noel Yap: You have the right to research this yourself. Politics is not stopping cloning research. Back in the days of Galileo and DaVinci, scientists were not funded by the government and, yet, they were still able to contribute a great deal.

Well said, Noel.

David, I am crying, but I still think I have a right to oppose funding for dubious research.

Robert, I can't argue against ice cream, apple pie and the American way. But why should you be allowed to take the high road? I think you ought to have to get down in the gutter like the rest of us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 08:20am Oct 28, 1997 ET (#623 of 624)

Cliff, my point is really very simple: you are presuming the outcome of research that hasn't been done yet. In your opinion, regeneration will prove much more useful to the practice of healing than cloning. Perhaps you are right. But until proper research and development of these and other techniques not yet discussed or conceived takes place it is ridiculous to dictate the direction of science and medicine so prematurely. The relative value of regeneration over cloning is your opinion. Proper research and development will reveal the facts.

With regards to funding, my position is also simple: cloning is useful for a lot more than simple organ farming. If it's ok for the government to fund research into every other breakthrough biological science, then why isn't it ok to fund cloning? Noel, this is my answer to your question as well! And as an aside, both DaVinci and Galileo ran into trouble with an ignorant society who opposed some of their research on moral grounds. I think this funding nonsense is just a dodge around the untenable position that there is something morally wrong with cloning.

Finally, your approach to treatment for your mother is between you and her, and I certainly respect that. But at the moment, my mother and I don't even have that choice -- and by the policy you espouse, no one ever will. That horrifies me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:30pm Oct 28, 1997 ET (#624 of 624)

M.A.DeLuca: But until proper research and development of these and other techniques not yet discussed or conceived takes place it is ridiculous to dictate the direction of science and medicine so prematurely.

If you're gonna take over for Tom, you'll need to spell it as "rediculous" :)

Anyway, when you're talking about budgets, you need to make a guess as to which one'll have the most bang for the bucks. This will necessarily dictate which direction research travels.

M.A.DeLuca: If it's ok for the government to fund research into every other breakthrough biological science, then why isn't it ok to fund cloning?

We don't research everything under the sun. True, I would choose to research other things than bees and honey and whatever else they've got, but the government still must decide how to allocate whatever budget they've got.

M.A.DeLuca: both DaVinci and Galileo ran into trouble with an ignorant society who opposed some of their research on moral grounds.

Society may have hindered their progress, but it didn't stop them.

M.A.DeLuca: But at the moment, my mother and I don't even have that choice

Choice is nice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:08pm Oct 28, 1997 ET (#625 of 626)

M.A.DeLuca: Cliff, my point is really very simple: you are presuming the outcome of research that hasn't been done yet. In your opinion, regeneration will prove much more useful to the practice of healing than cloning.

It is my opinion that it has the greater potential. Furthermore, it does not appear to involve the profound ethical questions that cloning does. And yes, I do think that questions of ethics are legitimate.

M.A.DeLuca: But until proper research and development of these and other techniques not yet discussed or conceived takes place it is ridiculous to dictate the direction of science and medicine so prematurely.

M.A., in so far as I know, neither you nor I are in the position to dictate anything. We are just a couple of people matching wits on this messageboard for our own amusement. (Or, at least, that is what I am doing, and I intend to continue to do just that, until I get tired of it.)

M.A.DeLuca: With regards to funding, my position is also simple: cloning is useful for a lot more than simple organ farming.

Certainly. But it just so happens that this is the potential use that seems to hold your interest, as well as most of the people who have voiced their support for the process on this messageboard. Kurt was an exception.

M.A.DeLuca: I think this funding nonsense is just a dodge around the untenable position that there is something morally wrong with cloning.

I have never denied that I think there are serious ethical questions with respect to cloning. If you are not shocked by some of the comments that have been voiced on this messageboard, I am. (And you express horror that I would oppose taxpayer funding to feed this frenzy.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:12pm Oct 28, 1997 ET (#626 of 626)

Noel Yap: If you're gonna take over for Tom, you'll need to spell it as "rediculous" :)

Noel, I think we both miss Tom. Maybe we should have been nicer to him.

Noel Yap: Choice is nice.

There you go with your generalities again. It depends on your choices, Noel. For example, if your choice is between the gas chamber and the electric chair...(You might want to rephrase that.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Carey - 01:45am Oct 29, 1997 ET (#627 of 631)

Noel Yap #117 : '' You should never dictate what others should believe '' Isn't this an example of dictating what others should believe ? '' Even so they are beliefs '' I'm not sure What you,re implying. Epistemological relativism ? Beliefs should be accorded similar respect and value because they can be subsumed under this same rubric ? It's O. K. to believe in a flat earth as opposed to a (generally ) spherical earth? Idon't think thats what you mean. Friendly Questions!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 11:55am Oct 29, 1997 ET (#628 of 631)

Cliff, a careful review of my comments on this message board would reveal that all the potential uses of cloning hold my interest. Only relatively recently has the discussion of cloning focused on organ farming, thus my apparent focus. Certainly I can see an application for alleviating suffering in patients like my mother (even though such uses are still years away in my estimate), but I can also see ways that I will personally benefit from every application.

You said, "I have never denied that I think there are serious ethical questions with respect to cloning." I'm sure you do feel that way, why else would we be arguing? But just what are the ethical questions that worry you? I'm not shocked by any of the educated proposed uses for cloning; just the opposite, I feel humanity has a lot to gain. Again, this should be obvious, why else are we arguing?

Let me reiterate something that I think is important, though. I don't feel cloning is a panacea for all of humanity's medical troubles. Regeneration, bionics, nanotechnology, gene therapy, and other techniques will all have significant contributions to the future of health care, and I'm sure that there will be applications that overlap. That kind of diversity is good, because it's always possible that one technique might not be useful on a patient whereas another might. You seem to favor limiting this diversity to technologies that don't make you squeamish, and I feel the consequences of such a narrow policy will allow needless suffering.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:29pm Oct 29, 1997 ET (#629 of 631)

M.A.DeLuca: You seem to favor limiting this diversity

Given an infinite amount of resources, I would favor careful and planned (as opposed to reckless and ad hoc) research into anything we can know provided that we can use these technologies to our benefit way more often than it can be used against us.

However, even if we can control its uses, we don't have an infinite amount of resources. Any basic financing book will go into some details as to how to decide which projects to take.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:30pm Oct 29, 1997 ET (#630 of 631)

Cliff Beall: if your choice is between the gas chamber and the electric chair

If those are my only two choices, I'd take the gas chamber. But at least I was given a choice.

Noel Yap: You should never dictate what others should believe

Philip Carey: Isn't this an example of dictating what others should believe ?

No, that was a suggestion as to how someone should act.

Philip Carey: It's O. K. to believe in a flat earth as opposed to a (generally ) spherical earth?

Yes, so long as those people aren't placed in a situation where they might negatively act on that obviously false belief. For example, all else being equal, a doctor performing a routine checkup can do the job equally well regardless of his/her beliefs in this matter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 05:54pm Oct 29, 1997 ET (#631 of 631)

Noel, "However, even if we can control its uses, we don't have an infinite amount of resources. Any basic financing book will go into some details as to how to decide which projects to take." Ok, I'll bite on that one. What do you recommend? How do you propose allocating resources?

Philip, it is nice to see your smiling rhetoric again.

Philip Carey to Noel Yap: '' Even so they are beliefs '' I'm not sure What you,re implying. Epistemological relativism ? Beliefs should be accorded similar respect and value because they can be subsumed under this same rubric ?

Beautiful language, Philip. Every time I read one of your posts, I have to head straight for a dictionary. If you continue posting your comments, I might eventually have a vocabulary.

With respect to Noel's comment, I took it simply as a rejoinder to Tom's denial that he has a "belief system." I see no significant difference between Tom's belief system and any number of belief systems held by any number of people, even if he insists on calling it a "reliable knowledge system."

M.A., congratulations, you almost got through a whole post without issuing a personal attack. In your last several posts, you have expressed fright at my "political agenda" to "control the growth of knowledge," made mention of my "shadowy, ill-defined fear" and my "knee-jerk reactions" which "limits our growth as a culture," my "vague uneasiness conditioned by uneducated media" which will condemn people to "a lingering, smothered death," and compared me to "those monsters of history who also kill at political whim." accused me of attempting to "dictate the direction of science and medicine" and hiding behind a "a dodge around the untenable position that there is something morally wrong with cloning." And now, I find myself described as "squeamish," and that the "consequences of such a narrow policy will allow needless suffering." My, my.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:13am Oct 30, 1997 ET (#633 of 633)

One last time, M.A., cloning involves duplication, essentially a simple cut and paste operation. In the sense that it is an enabling technology for the more difficult genetic engineering techniques that may actually be helpful, it should be encouraged. I have no objection to Dolly. Nor do I object to further animal study, provided it is done in a humane way. Dr Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly, contends that animal cloning may have many potential medical uses. I support that.

But, lets be realistic, with respect to human cloning, you do not clone a heart or a liver. The idea of growing a heart or a leg in a soup is a pipe dream, nothing more than a "dodge" around the real ethical questions of what you propose. How would the heart or leg be exercised? Growing a headless clone would be very expensive. To realize how expensive it would be, ask these questions: How would you feed it, and how would this headless body get the exercise it would need to remain healthy until you decided to harvest an organ or two. It is simply not a viable solution. The only halfway economical way to harvest the organs you desire, or may desire, by cloning, is to clone, grow and kill a complete living duplicate of yourself containing the heart or liver you need. I find this unethical. Dr Wilmut has said, "I personally have still not heard a potential use of this technique, to produce a new person, that I would find ethically acceptable." I agree.

Noel Yap: However, even if we can control its uses, we don't have an infinite amount of resources. Any basic financing book will go into some details as to how to decide which projects to take.

I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 02:35am Oct 30, 1997 ET (#634 of 644)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Every new advancement in teknology causes new rights to be created. A number of years ago I invented a device that using only solar energy and hygroscopic chemicals takes water out of the air and turns it into liquid water. I had researched water rights and discovered that there was only one case where a state clamed its water in the form of clouds was being stolen by an upwind state seeding them. In other words the existance of a practical way of extracting water brings the question of the rights to use the "air aquifer".

Cloning tecknology in addition to all the conventional patent rights that will emerge also involves a whole different set of rights.

The law has only recently reconized some of the rights to own blood. My right to own even my own blood is dependant on my right to withdraw it from my body. No where is this right handeled in any thing like a rational way by the law. After whole blood has been seperated into individuals chattal ownership becomes possable.

Several types of human cancer cells (hela cels) have been cloned for many generations and are now available as chattel property. The boundries of this property have never been fully tested.

One doner who donated his cells to a doctor later found out that the doctor was clonning them and selling them to research labs. At this point he went to court to recover part of the profit from these sales, and won.

The patent office will not issue a patent on human cells but will on animal cells which have been altered by genetic engineering.

In general though human body parts are not ownable even though some types of human cells appear to be.

So I own a human cell and grow a clone from it.

At some point I loose ownership over the mass of cells because the clone is a human being in its own right.

Does it then get to own the rights to it's cells which are just copies of my cells.

There is a huge religious/curtual/legal vacume here.

It is going to

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 12:50pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#635 of 644)

Cliff, did you post that with a straight face? I can't imagine how you can make side-of-the-mouth remarks about Philip Carey's "rhetoric" while in the same message taking a high moral stance on my ire about a general public attitude. Of course, you seem to have misinterpreted my statements as an attack on you. The closest I came to going after you was when I suggested you played favorites with research that didn't make you squeamish, and even that I tagged with the italicized qualifier seems. Anyway, if it isn't too offensive, I'd suggest that instead of chiding me about my direct style, please get off the high-horse and look to your own backyard; you don't exactly seem to be warm-and-fuzzy yourself.

Slings and arrows aside, let's take a closer look at Wilmut's technique in creating Dolly, because I think there's a valuable lesson there. For years now, a dominant school of thought in biology held that once a cell matured and became differentiated (for example, skin, bone, nerve or other tissue), it was impossible to reverse the process and create an undifferentiated cell. Ian Wilmut shattered this belief and reversed the process, using a mature, differentiated cell as the starting point for cloning Dolly's mom. The applications for the technique to do this range beyond cloning and might ultimately lead to regenerative therapy, which we both somehow agree is a good thing.

(continuation follows...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 12:52pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#636 of 644)

Now a few years ago, someone might have argued that it was pointless to research cloning, because an adult animal could never be cloned. An argument that is, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, clearly wrong. But that wouldn't have been proven unless the attempt had been researched and developed. Now you're telling me that cloning separate organs is a "pipe dream." And you know, you might be right. Growth and development of many organs is regulated by changing hormones and I'm not sure how easily this can be simulated or ignored. But we can't be sure until the idea is seriously looked at, something you would rather not happen (at least with government funding, if I read you and Noel correctly). I'd prefer to see thorough research.

As far as the final cost of the process is concerned, I don't think that should even be an issue yet. If it is possible to clone an individual organ fed by banks of hormone-secreting, genetically-engineered bacteria and a rudimentary circulatory system, then the cost should be comparatively low. Consider that transplant patients today must pay not only for the transplant, but a lifetime supply of drugs to prevent rejection. And that's forgetting complications and side-effects. A cloned organ might actually turn out to be cheaper.

If, however, the entire body must be cloned to produce an anencephalic source of replacement parts, then you're right, the cost will be high. But so high that nobody could afford it? Only a few? A hundred? A thousand? My guess is that even this approach would be affordable for a few thousand people, and if they have the money for it, I don't begrudge them the chance to live just because they're wealthy. It'll give me an additional incentive to try to earn more so I could afford the same care. Are we worried about social stratification and imposing a society of haves and have-nots? Tough, that already exists, and has existed throughout history.

(One more continuation...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 12:53pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#637 of 644)

Look, all I'm arguing for is unfettered research, something too many people don't want because they're scared of some Brave New World that is really very impractical in the first place. Let's argue policy from a standpoint of knowledge rather than ignorance. (And I'm not calling anyone "ignorant")

Oh, and Cliff, my question to you before wasn't rhetorical. What are the ethical worries you have about cloning in general (if any) and cloning humans in particular?

(Ugh, sorry to be so long-winded! I'll try not to let this happen again.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:54pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#638 of 644)

M.A.DeLuca: How do you propose allocating resources?

Well, I think you and I agree that basing these decisions on morality is not the way to go. However, I feel ethics must still be factored into the decision.

With that said, you start by valuing (not necessarily predicting) future cash flows and modeling (again, not predicting) future interest rates.

This assumes that you can value everything (including ethics and knowledge) or that you'll toss in these extra subjective variables later on. Valuing such things as ethics is highly subjective (ie from your posts, I would surmise you would give it a value of zero.)

The current method of modeling interest rates is to assume they fit a log normal model. Either interest rates go up, or they go down. To what extent they go up or down is computed from forward rates (which are computed from par or zero rates) and from the sector's volatility. The riskier the sector, the higher the volatility. When comparing cash flows across different sectors, a spread is also taken into account.

Now, the above is all rather basic, to see how it's done in the real world, you must look at companies such as Merck, Hoechst, and others that allocate monies for long term research. Even then, these companies only look ahead maybe ten years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:54pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#639 of 644)

Carl Nicolai: There is a huge religious/curtual/legal vacume here.

I agree. This is my ethical reason to slow down research. Technology is starting to move faster than society can keep up. This'll cause the technology/society chasm to widen even further. Members of this board must remember that Clinton postponed government funding, he did not halt it completely. Whether he did this 'cos of the religious right makes no difference -- it's in effect now. We should use it to our advantage.

M.A.DeLuca: Ian Wilmut shattered this belief and reversed the process, using a mature, differentiated cell as the starting point for cloning Dolly's mom.

If this is possible, I don't see why cloning only the organs is not. For example, if you can reverse the process, then start differentiating at the point a heart cell would, you should be able to clone a heart. I can see some problems with aging the heart, though.

M.A.DeLuca: But that wouldn't have been proven unless the attempt had been researched and developed.

You can say that about any research. For example, I propose building a Dyson sphere (a bunch of solar panels wrapping the sun, obviously far enough away that they won't melt.) Currently, I would expect everyone to say that this is not feasible. The same goes for cloning some time ago.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:55pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#640 of 644)

M.A.DeLuca: I'd prefer to see thorough research.

What's wrong with private funding?

M.A.DeLuca: A cloned organ might actually turn out to be cheaper. M.A.DeLuca: (Ugh, sorry to be so long-winded! I'll try not to let this happen again.)

No problem, you're doing a good job taking over for Tom ;)

This is a big might (no, not mite ;) Valuation of 'maybes' is done using expected value to weight the cash flows.

M.A.DeLuca: if they have the money for it, I don't begrudge them the chance to live just because they're wealthy.

I agree.

M.A.DeLuca: Are we worried about social stratification and imposing a society of haves and have-nots? Tough, that already exists, and has existed throughout history.

Yes, but revolutions occur when the disparities are too high. I think the government is already trying to keep a nice balance (ie through taxes and welfare.) I don't think they're doing a horrendous job, but I think it could be better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 04:03pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#641 of 644)

Noel, I think you and I are almost at consensus here. I take it you have no problem with privately funded human cloning research, with no extraordinary constraints -- is this correct? If so, I think then the only difference in our positions is that I don't have a problem if the NSF decides to fund human cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 04:06pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#642 of 644)

Oh, by the way, if you want to build a Dyson sphere, I am one hundred percent behind you. Where do I send the checks? I'm that crazy!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:02pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#643 of 644)

M.A.DeLuca: I take it you have no problem with privately funded human cloning research, with no extraordinary constraints

It depends upon what you mean by extraordinary constraints. I wouldn't want the research to move "too" fast. But, the constraint of private funding may make it move at "just the right pace."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:05pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#644 of 644)

Oops, I forgot to post Part II of making a financing decision.

Anyway, once you've got the present value of the expected value of projected cash flows, you choose the project with the highest present value, provided you have enough to fund the initial cost and there are no other negatives (ie legal issues, PR issues, ...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 08:25pm Oct 30, 1997 ET (#645 of 650)

Ok, Noel, how do you cover basic science that has no predictable return, like particle physics, space exploration, etc? NASA, for example, is funding research into what they call Breakthrough Propulsion Technologies; techniques to power and move space vehicles that go beyond Newtonian concepts. Some of the ideas being considered could make the Starship Enterprise look like a rowboat. The problem is, they might not work. Would you seek a lot of government funding, just a little government funding, or no government funding?

Back to human cloning, your pacing probably isn't too far off from my own, although I doubt there are any technical limitations remaining, so don't be too surprised to hear about one in the next year or so. The obstacles now are financial and political. A cloned person doesn't scare me in and of itself; I'd expect a clone to grow up like an ordinary person. I worry about how society will react to such a person, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:42am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#646 of 650)

First of all, M.A., I made no side-of-the-mouth remarks about Philip's rhetoric. I have the highest regard for Philip and would greatly enjoy trying to match wits with him on this or any other board. I meant exactly what I said. If it sounded disingenuous to you, I am glad you mentioned it so I could clarify. I want no misunderstanding with respect to my regard for Philip.

Of course, you are right that I do sometimes make side-of-the-mouth remarks. For example, the remark I made in response to Tom's post passing the torch to you could be put in that category. That was intended as a gentle dig, in good humor. I think the comment in parenthesis "(And I thought you were tough!)" made that clear. If it didn't, I wish to correct. I suppose, also, that my remark about Tom's "reliable information system" could also be placed in that category. People are funny sometime. I enjoy that fact. I think you went, perhaps, a bit further than I ever have--but enough of that, your present post is a nice one, and I enjoyed it. Back to the argument at hand:

I appreciated the information about Dr Wilmut's technique. (Yes, I am sincere. You sounded like you knew what you were talking about. And it was something I did not know.) I don't agree, however, that a few years ago it was generally considered pointless to research cloning. There has been speculation about the possibility of cloning a human for generations, and it seems to me that I remember hearing about the cloning of a frog as far back as thirty or forty years, and hearing specific speculation about the possible cloning of higher animals at that time. (If I am incorrect about this, I am sure you will correct me.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:44am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#647 of 650)

I do not consider that analogous to the difficulties of cloning of separate organs, however. In the first case, the research is the difficult part, and the application of the technology is relatively easy. In the first case, just put it in motion, and let nature take over. In the second case, while the research may be incredibly difficult, the application is worse. Even if it turns out to be possible to grow an individual organ in the laboratory, reducing the procedure to widescale practice, would meet with incredible obstacles.

The brain does more than help us think and write messages on messageboards. It continually sends signals to every organ in the body to keep them functioning, even when we are not thinking. Whether you use a natural brain, or an artificial brain, those functions must be maintain throughout the life of the organ. In short, laboratory conditions would be required for the everyday variety as well. To a lesser degree, the same holds for the headless body. Without attachment to a brain of some kind, the organs in that body will simply not function.

My wife tells me that approximately a year ago, a baby was born without a brain, and was immediately put on life support to maintain its life. As I understand it, after the parents lost practically everything they had trying to pay the hospital charges, they asked that the child be allowed to die. But the doctors and the pro-lifers objected, and the last she heard, the case was going to court. And then she heard no more. (In case you are wondering, my sympathies would be with the parents who wanted to let the child die. No one should have to endure that kind of hardship, and for what?) The point here is that the headless variety of clone could probably be maintained with current technology, but at incredible expense. (Incidentally, if you are you aware of the case I mention, what can you tell me about it?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:45am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#648 of 650)

In your post, you said, "If it is possible to clone an individual organ fed by banks of hormone-secreting, genetically-engineered bacteria and a rudimentary circulatory system, then the cost should be comparatively low." I think this is ridiculous because it neglects the problems of maintaining the organ in a healthy condition for the long term. That would be the real problem. Your reference to a "rudimentary circulatory system" is, in my opinion, absurd. Any successful life support system for individual organs would have to be incredibly sophisticated. I think the chances of this happening are nil.

The life support system for a headless clone would not need to be nearly as sophisticated as one for individual parts since it would already have it's own circulatory system. In other words, all it would really need would be an adequate artificial brain (essentially, a standard hospital life support system) plus extensive physical therapy. But that is a great deal. In other word, a person who has several millions of dollars to spend on it over a period of years could probably handle it.

Your estimate of the cost of cloning an entire body is also contrary to the facts, except the other way. You said, "If, however, the entire body must be cloned to produce an anencephalic source of replacement parts, then you're right, the cost will be high." On the contrary, relatively speaking, cloning an entire body is the "cheap as dirt" solution. Coning a complete human and letting nature take its course is the easy way out. Realistically, it is the only economically feasible method. (But when one decides to take that course, the real issues of morality and ethics come into play because when one decides to harvest the organs of a complete clone, one has to commit murder to do it.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:48am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#649 of 650)

Okay, you wanted to know what my ethical worries are with respect to "cloning in general (if any) and cloning humans in particular." I think I answer the question about non-human animal cloning last night. I agree with Dr. Wilmut. If animal cloning can result in improved medicine, and if it can be an enabling technology for the more difficult genetic engineering techniques, I have no objection at all.

With respect to human cloning, I have no moral or ethical objection to the cloning of individual organs. Also, any moral or ethical objection to the headless variety that I might have is slight. (To be consistent, I must take this position. If someone wants to keep a loved one on life support, and can afford it, I support their right to do it. On the other hand, if someone wants to pull the plug on a brain dead loved one, I support that also. I don't think that anyone should be forced to bear that kind of financial burden against their will. The parents of the little girl, born without a brain, wanted a child. They could afford a child. They just couldn't afford to maintain a child on life support. I say, pull the plug.)

But with respect to cloning whole humans for the purpose of harvesting organs, I have no question with respect to what I think my moral and ethical objections should be. Pure and simple, this is murder, and I do have moral and ethical objections to murder.

So what is my position. I oppose human cloning, period. Why? Because I think the first two possibilities are dead ends that we can not afford, and the third is murder.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:50am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#650 of 650)

Okay, M.A, I've gone. Now it is your turn. What, if any, are your ethical objections to the three types of cloning above described. I read your paragraph starting with, "If, however, the entire body must be cloned..." very carefully and saw no indication, whatsoever, of any moral or ethical objection to the harvesting of organs from whole human clones (the one I call murder). If I have misunderstood you, please illuminate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 01:31am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#651 of 658)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

The first thing to realize is that there is NO way to stop human cloning or any other valuable enterprise. It can be slowed down if the major countries outlaw if. It can be vastly slowed down if 75% of the citizens greatly oppose it.

The hazzard here is that some countries will try to stop human cloning and others will promote it. Atomic energy is as tricky and dangerous a tecknology that most people are now opposed to and even more so with atomic weapons. Yet the 2nd and third world countris continue to persue both types of necular tecknology.

So the only way to procede is to keep the subject current and allow the population to work out how to let these advances continue. Most people become rational about even a dangerous subject unless they are lied to or kept in the dark as was done with atomic energy.

Noel: A Dyson sphere is ok, but how about gravity ballencing mirrors to redirect the photons and turn the sun into a rocket engine. Then we can move the entire system. Of cource we still havent overcome the religious objections to planetry relocation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:38am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#652 of 658)

M.A.DeLuca to Noel Yap: Back to human cloning, your pacing probably isn't too far off from my own, although I doubt there are any technical limitations remaining, so don't be too surprised to hear about one in the next year or so. The obstacles now are financial and political. A cloned person doesn't scare me in and of itself; I'd expect a clone to grow up like an ordinary person. I worry about how society will react to such a person, though.

M.A., you put this on the board while I was composing my "masterpiece." I didn't notice it until later. However, I can't help but reflect on the change in your attitude a few posts back when you insisted that both cloning and regeneration technique were in their infancy. (Could it be that your position tends to shift back and forth as it is convenient for your argument? My, my;)

I agree with your present post. Coning is very close to being a mature science. I would not be surprised if it happened within the year. However, I am not worried how society will react to the child. People will love the child. I will love the child.

What I worry about is the "owner's" intention for the child. (The very first thing I'm going to want is a law that makes it a capital offense to murder a clone for the purpose of harvesting organs. And I don't mean the gas chamber; I mean the electric chair.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 04:00am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#653 of 658)

Peace in our time on the Cloning Board? It might not be that far off!

Cliff, you've said so much that I'm at a loss to decide which to reply to at 4:00am. If I don't cover a point to your satisfaction, don't be shy! (Malicious Grin)

First, I'll cover your suggestion that I pick my positions for the convenience of my arguments; nope. I don't know if I mistyped or you misunderstood and I don't really care. For clarification, I think cloning in general is maturing rapidly, although there are still important hurdles to be lept. It is an interesting research topic for higher organisms, and a common tool for simpler animals and plants. I intended to suggest that cloning individual organs and regeneration are techniques in their infancy, not cloning as a whole. No change in position at all, I'm afraid.

You're quite right about frogs having been cloned quite some time ago. When I first heard about Dolly, my reaction was, "So what?" I had expected that much of an advance already. Only later did I learn of Wilmut's breakthrough.

I think you'll find some organs might be easier to reproduce than others. For example, at the UCSD Medical Center, doctors grow a culture of skin cells taken from infant foreskins on a thin plastic mesh. This artificial skin is then used as a temporary covering on burn patients to help them stabilize. Eventually, this Dermagraft is replaced with tissue taken from the patient's back. They are researching techniques that would allow the Dermagraft to be used permanently; techniques that include cloning the patient's own skin. It seems likely that skin will be the first organ cloned, but others might not be far behind. While a heart might be very difficult to clone, what about a bladder, or segment of an intestine? What support and nurturing does a kidney require? Honestly, I don't know, but I doubt very much that they need the vast attention and resources you seem to think they do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 11:02am Oct 31, 1997 ET (#654 of 658)

How odd, the second half of my response now seems to have vanished. It was there this morning, and didn't have anything offensive, so there must have been a system glitch. I'll try to reformulate and post it later.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 03:23pm Oct 31, 1997 ET (#655 of 658)

I think I was getting on about anencephalic infants. Specifically, I don't know anything about the one you mentioned, but there are a number of babies born each year missing a significant amount of brain mass. I seem to recall one incident where the parents and doctors agreed to donate the organs, but another group intervened and protested the decision on the basis that it would set some sort of precedent for using aborted fetuses as organ farms.

I believe, but I'm not sure, that it is presently illegal to use anencephalic infants as organ donors. Creepy as the idea is, though, I don't see any reason why they can't be, as long as the parents agree.

To answer your question about my stand on the ethics of cloning, I have no problem at all with cloning in general. I have no problem with cloning a full person as a form of reproduction, although I have trouble seeing the point; the natural way is much more fun! I have no problem with cloning individual organs or collections of organs (alright, assuming it is possible). Creating an anencephalic clone seems wasteful to me, however, since certain organs, once used, condemn the entire clone to death, wasting the remaining organs. I don't oppose this idea, but it seems rather inelegant. Finally, I absolutely oppose the creation of a complete clone for organ farming; that is an atrocity.... Great Scott! Do we actually agree on this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:03pm Oct 31, 1997 ET (#656 of 658)

M.A.DeLuca: how do you cover basic science that has no predictable return, like particle physics, space exploration, etc?

Most projects don't have predictable returns. The valuation takes into account expected values (if you remember your probability.) So, for example, I'll guess that particle physics has an initial and annual investment of 1 million dollars. It has a 1% chance of returning 10 trillion dollars, a 10% chance of returning 1 billion dollars, and 89% chance of returning nothing; all returns are in present value dollars. At an interest rate of 10%, this project would have a net present value of -1/.1+.01*1000000+.1*1000+.89*0 = 10090 million dollars. Assuming this is the only project we're deciding on and we have the initial 1 million dollar investment, we should go ahead with this project.

It's true that the original numbers are hard to come by, but this sort of thing is done by medical research labs all the time (ie should we undertake a project to cure the common cold?)

M.A.DeLuca: Would you seek a lot of government funding, just a little government funding, or no government funding?

When deciding upon several projects, you need to weigh each of their values against what you can afford. If you underfund a project, it can lengthen the time to completion and thereby, actually increasing the overall costs of the project. It's a very complicated matter, but the alternative is relying on how one feels about a project. Though you are entitled to your own opinion, Tom was under the impression that no decision should be based upon feelings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:03pm Oct 31, 1997 ET (#657 of 658)

M.A.DeLuca: A cloned person doesn't scare me in and of itself;

Specially if they don't wear any signs pointing themselves out.

M.A.DeLuca: I worry about how society will react to such a person, though.

Although, technically, I agree with Tom (who said that there will be no problem 'cos you can't tell them apart from "normal" humans), on the whole, I agree with you. I feel society needs some time to get used to the idea of clones before we make them part of the crowd.

Cliff Beall: Even if it turns out to be possible to grow an individual organ in the laboratory, reducing the procedure to widescale practice, would meet with incredible obstacles.

I don't consider this to be a valid reason to abandon research. If it were valid, we wouldn't have the space program.

Cliff Beall: Without attachment to a brain of some kind, the organs in that body will simply not function.

I don't think this is completely true. Brain dead bodies can be kept alive through artificial means. No brain is necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:08pm Oct 31, 1997 ET (#658 of 658)

Cliff Beall: Any successful life support system for individual organs would have to be incredibly sophisticated.

Maybe not with the advent of nano.

Cliff Beall: I don\222t think that anyone should be forced to bear that kind of financial burden against their will.

Not to mention emotional burden.

Carl Nicolai: So the only way to procede is to keep the subject current and allow the population to work out how to let these advances continue. Most people become rational about even a dangerous subject unless they are lied to or kept in the dark as was done with atomic energy.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: (The very first thing I\222m going to want is a law that makes it a capital offense to murder a clone for the purpose of harvesting organs.

You really should instead fight for clones having the same basic rights we do.

M.A.DeLuca: I don't see any reason why they can't be, as long as the parents agree.

I agree. Although, now I understand the pro-lifers' stand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 08:09pm Oct 31, 1997 ET (#659 of 660)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Hey guys, just a quick break now that its the weekend... You guys didn't chase me away, I just have lots of work to do (23 credits along with 30 hours of work and 30 of hours swimming each week makes it hard to sit down and write responses to the board). I've just perused most of the new messages. M.A.D., I still fully agree with your defense. However, most of the arguments I've been seeing lately against cloning have already been made earlier in the discussion. Consequently, I have already answered most of them; just read back a little bit. Noel, I had never realized my tendency to misspell "ridiculous" until you pointed it out. Cliff, you seem to have an incongruent morality in respect to life and killing it. You have no problem killing animals for research, food, etc., but you don't like the idea of "killing" a brainless mass of organs. Personally, I don't find it ethical to destroy an advanced animal (basically anything with a brain), but nature forces me to accept it (you know, canine teeth in my mouth and stuff like that). However, there is no ethical problem with killing something that lacks any awareness (it is not even killing it, just dividing it, when transplanting organs). In fact, I would not consider beheading a person murder so long as the person could be maintained without a body; it would just be considered maiming.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 08:09pm Oct 31, 1997 ET (#660 of 660)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

As for financial concerns, I think you guys (Noel and Cliff) have it wrong; this would not only be a relatively cheap technology to employ, but how much would you pay to keep your life? It is worth any amount of money you could muster. But, that should not even be an argument against the research anyway, because this should be researched for general scientific knowledge; the research is reason enough for itself. The breakthroughs that will inevitably result from this path of knowledge will be innumerable. They will include regeneration technology, cancer treatments, age prevention, brain and psychology comprehension... so many as to be unlistable, and many new things that we cannot even imagine right now. There is no reason not to continue this research, and every reason in the world to do it.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:12am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#661 of 667)

Tom, I was just getting ready to post, and decided to check the board first. God, it sure was nice to see that "Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat" dillybopper of yours. Of course, we knew we hadn't chased you off. That "maybe we should have been nicer to him." comment I made was just a joke, and you know it. But dad-gummit, Tom, please do get something straight. I have not, until now, expressed an objection to the idea of "killing" a brainless mass of organs. Instead, I have written the following:

Cliff Beall: With respect to human cloning, I have no moral or ethical objection to the cloning of individual organs. Also, any moral or ethical objection to the headless variety that I might have is slight...

I admit that I have said I thought the cloning of individual organs is a bad idea, but that was based not on ethical concerns, but economic and technical ones. And I continue to believe that regeneration techniques hold the greater promise. Indeed, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the cloning of individual organs is, at this time, not even a serious proposal within the scientific community (except for the Dermagraft procedure M.A. has mentioned). On the other hand, in my search of the Web last night, I found one article after another on the advances being made in regeneration techniques. One of the articles on regeneration techniques I found in USA Today was quite detailed, indicating significant progress in the development of regeneration techniques.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:15am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#662 of 667)

With respect to the headless clone, I have found the information contained in a FAQ published by New Scientist Magazine particularly informative, and as a result, I am changing my position on the headless variety. (I now have significant ethical concerns about headless clones.)

According to the New Scientist FAQ, the answer to the question as to whether people could be cloned without a conscious brain, the answer is no. The authors of the FAQ point out that "whatever consciousness is," is not limited to a "brain structure, or set of genes" that could easily be removed, either before or during development. Furthermore, it would be hard to determine if the technique worked. They point out that a person can look and act like a vegetable, but still have a very active mind, and they give the example of the paralyzed French writer, Jean-Dominique Bauby, who "dictated a 130 page novel by moving an eyelid."

If New Scientist has ethical concerns about the procedure, I guess I do too.

With respect to the cloning of individual vital organs using cloning without the rest of the body, they indicate that it might be a possibility, but that nobody is even close to knowing how, and that the "technical obstacles will be huge."

I can't say that I disagree. It is essentially what I have been saying all along.

M.A.DeLuca: Peace in our time on the Cloning Board? It might not be that far off!

I doubt it. This is pretty heavy stuff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:18am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#663 of 667)

M.A.DeLuca: First, I'll cover your suggestion that I pick my positions for the convenience of my arguments; nope. I don't know if I mistyped or you misunderstood and I don't really care...I intended to suggest that cloning individual organs and regeneration are techniques in their infancy, not cloning as a whole. No change in position at all, I'm afraid.

Actually, I am interested in that question. It appears to me that you and I have had an inordinate amount of misunderstanding in the last several posts. When something like that occurs, I think it is well to ask why in an effort to avoid a repeat. Before I reviewed the applicable posts specifically, I was certain you were wrong, however, my review indicates to me that I was the one who erred. Sorry.

M.A.DeLuca: You're quite right about frogs having been cloned quite some time ago. When I first heard about Dolly, my reaction was, "So what?" I had expected that much of an advance already. Only later did I learn of Wilmut's breakthrough.

Also, I must say that I had no idea of the far reaching effects it will have for medicine until I started reading up on it last night. I am now convinced that his techniques can reduce the cost of important medicines significantly.

M.A.DeLuca: For example, at the UCSD Medical Center, doctors grow a culture of skin cells taken from infant foreskins on a thin plastic mesh.

The Dermagraft procedure you describe appears to be a major advance. The skin is an organ, a relatively simple one, but it is an organ. Your point is well taken. I give you this point. (But see above my response to Tom's post with respect to "vital organs.")

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:21am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#664 of 667)

M.A.DeLuca: I think I was getting on about anencephalic infants.

I note that you have previously used that term "anencephalic" which resulted in (another) misunderstanding on my part. Specifically, in the prior post, you said: "If, however, the entire body must be cloned to produce an anencephalic source of replacement parts, then you're right, the cost will be high.

At the time I read the post, I attempted to look up the word. Failing to find it in the dictionary, however, I assumed it to be a misspelling. And in the context it was used, it did not seem to be very important anyway. I knew what an "entire body" consisted of, and I knew what a "source of replacement parts" was. Therefore, I thought your intent was clear: I thought it referred to the harvesting of organs from a "whole clone," of which I was ethically opposed.

However, when you used it in the present context, I realized it had to be a medical term, of which I was unfamiliar. As a result, after a search on the web, I discovered that anencephaly is a severe form of birth defect that typically involves the absence of the skull, the scalp and the forebrain. The hindbrain is typically present, however, and there is usually some rudimentary forebrain tissue.

With respect to the prior use, I might mention that you came very close to misusing the term. If you had referred to an "anencephalic body" from which the organs might be harvested, I think I would have taken your use of the word more seriously. In other words, this time, I think you were the one at fault--not that it is important.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:25am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#665 of 667)

M.A.DeLuca: I believe, but I'm not sure, that it is presently illegal to use anencephalic infants as organ donors. Creepy as the idea is, though, I don't see any reason why they can't be, as long as the parents agree.

My understanding, from some of what I read last night, is that there is widespread use of organs from aborted anencephalic infants, as well as other aborted infants. However, if an anencephalic infant is brought to term, it is illegal to take the organs until after the hindbrain is completely dead and the other organs are, as a result, useless.

M.A.DeLuca: To answer your question about my stand on the ethics of cloning...

Total agreement on every point, M.A. But now I have two additional questions to ask you. The first one is, how do you feel about the use of transplanted organs from aborted fetuses? For example, last night I read about a Canadian man who had kidney failure and on dialysis, and not doing well. His wife (and presumably, a doctor) had a solution. She proposed that she get pregnant and the kidney from the aborted fetus could be transplanted into his body. This was done. The fetus was aborted in the 28th week, transplanted into his body, and it worked. (I have previously assumed that any prospective organ donor for an adult would have to be an adult, or be kept on life support until the organ matured, before the organ could be transplanted. Apparently this is not the case.)

So how do you feel about that. And my second question is: would it make a difference to you, ethically speaking, if the aborted fetus was a clone?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:31am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#666 of 667)

Noel Yap: Brain dead bodies can be kept alive through artificial means. No brain is necessary.

When I said "brain," I meant an artificial brain. In other words, a standard hospital life support system.

Cliff Beall: Any successful life support system for individual organs would have to be incredibly sophisticated.

Noel Yap: Maybe not with the advent of nano.

Nanotechnology is an idea which is not yet a physical technology, but is said to be likely to exist within a few decades. Around 2015, a self replicating nano robot is supposed to be invented which will be the beginning of everything good and pure. (I once mentioned in a post on another board that I was skeptical when someone says something could not be done. Tom responded by saying that he was skeptical when someone says that something can be done. I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to Tom's point of view in this regard.)

Noel Yap: You really should instead fight for clones having the same basic rights we do.

Why? It looks to me like they have already won the battle. All the clone "owners" have to do is take the organs before the baby is born. Legal as hell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:33am Nov 2, 1997 ET (#667 of 667)

Noel Yap: I agree. Although, now I understand the pro-lifers' stand.

In general, I do not, and I am so sick of the Pro-Lifers I can't see straight. I have written a "Living Will" and have instructed my family that under no circumstance are they to allow me to be put on life support. Why? Because, I know that once I am on life support, and if I do not recover, they will not be able to have the plug pulled before they face financial ruin. I just can't allow that to happen. I want my family to be comfortable when I am gone. And yet, I know it has the potential to save my life. I would prefer that my family have the option to make that determination for me, when to put me on, and when to pull the plug. They are the ones I trust. But I can't do it, because of the pro-lifers.

Also, I don't understand why the organs of an anencephalic infant can not be donated before they become useless. If I were the parent of such a child, I would want the option of making the organs available immediately after birth, and not to be forced to wait until the hindbrain is fully dead and the other organs are useless. It don't make a lick of sense to me.

But, having said that, I have to say I have a great deal of difficulty in differentiating the killing of a fetus for the purpose of harvesting its organs, and killing a child after birth for the same reason, whether that child is a clone or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 03:40pm Nov 2, 1997 ET (#668 of 677)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Clones, and by that I do not mean normal identical twins even though thy are clones of each other, are mono parent individuals. This will vastly alter the way they relate to their parent because their parent has no system of morals and etheics to guide them. Mankinds entire history of family relationships is based on having two parents. (even though there are many cases of people with three genetic parents this fact is not generally known) If, as many scientists beleive parent child bonding takes place partially because of chemical similarities as with animals, (they smell right) Then it is logical to assume that a parent of a clone may become much more bonded to it than a parent who shares only 1/2 of its charactistics.

The parent may lavish much more attention on it's clone child than normal and may want to give it more advantages because it is "the same as me".

Just as the single children in China today are called little emperors because they act differently, so society may resent the clone children because they are somehow different. Or they act different.

A tribe of clones might face extreme difficulties from "normal" people. This is even more possable if they become finantually successful.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:36pm Nov 2, 1997 ET (#669 of 677)

Carl Nicolai: Just as the single children in China today are called little emperors because they act differently, so society may resent the clone children because they are somehow different.You have lost me here. What do you mean by the single children in China today. I think I basically understand your argument, but the example of the "single children" snows me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 05:07pm Nov 2, 1997 ET (#670 of 677)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Carl,

What do you mean the parent has no ethics?

Just because a child is produced asexually does not mean that it will not be raised by two parents. For instance, one or both of them may be infertile. The other will simply adopt it.

Even if there is only one parent raising the child, we have enough single parents already for this not to be a new concept.

Tom

PS probably the last post until next weekend

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Hardin - 10:48am Nov 3, 1997 ET (#671 of 677)

Carl, a clone has two genetic parents, and as you stated a mono-parent, the individual with the same DNA. So if I cloned myself, my son(the clone)'s grandparents, my parents, would be his genetic parents. Since, my DNA is a combo of my mother's and father's DNA, and the same as my son's. So my cloned son, who will be calling me father and my parents grandma and grandpa, should call me brother, and my parents, mother and father. Weird. But my idea is to clone my wife every ten years, begining when she is 25, so that when she is 50, her clone will be twenty-five, and much firmer. hehehe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 02:54pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#672 of 677)

For some reason, I haven't been able to post more than brief test messages to this site for the past weekend. Anything longer was simply ignored.

Cliff, I don't necessarily have a problem with the use of aborted fetal tissue, but the story you relate seems to go a little too far for me. At 28 weeks, that fetus is highly developed. I'm not sure when consciousness occurs in humans, but seven months is old enough for premature infants to survive with appropriate care, isn't it? I hope I'm never put into a position where I have to make the decision that couple made.

Ethically, though, it makes no difference to me if the infant was conceived naturally or cloned. It's still human and should be treated in a consistent manner.

The only way what that couple did would sit well with me would be if the doctors had somehow repressed the development in a brain in the fetus. In any event, doesn't the recent ban on late-term abortions make this option moot?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:31pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#673 of 677)

Tom Anderson: (23 credits along with 30 hours of work and 30 of hours swimming each week makes it hard to sit down and write responses to the board).

It's great to be young.

Tom Anderson: how much would you pay to keep your life?

The answer is subjective. It depends upon how much one values his own life.

Tom Anderson: [finance] should not even be an argument against the research anyway, because this should be researched for general scientific knowledge;

We live in a capitalist world. Finance is always considered in any endeavor -- if you look at any good engineering curriculum, you'll see an engineering economics course.

Tom Anderson: research is reason enough for itself.

It may be for certain individuals, but the government still must decide what it spends its moneys on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:32pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#674 of 677)

Tom Anderson: The breakthroughs that will inevitably result from this path of knowledge will be innumerable.

Projects such as these are categorized as extremely risky, not just from the tech point of view, but also from a general public opinion point of view. For example, let's say the tech were developed in a cheap and feasible manner but the public doesn't want it completely based on moral grounds, there would then be no return.

Tom Anderson: There is no reason not to continue this research, and every reason in the world to do it.

I agree. It seems we just disagree on how and how fast this research should proceed.

Cliff Beall: If New Scientist has ethical concerns about the procedure, I guess I do too.

I've perused over "New Scientist", I'm not sure what their sources are, but I doubtful about them.

Cliff Beall: I think you had misused the term [anencephalic]

I understood what M.A. was talking about. "an" means without. "enceph" means brain. The medical term may mean something more specific, but I would think the usual English usage is quite clear.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:34pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#675 of 677)

Cliff Beall: She proposed that she get pregnant and the kidney from the aborted fetus could be transplanted into his body.

Personally, I am against abortion. Politically, I believe in the right to choose. I can't imagine ever doing what these people did, but I also cannot judge them as "wrong."

Cliff Beall: would it make a difference to you, if the aborted fetus was a clone?

Very illogically, yes. I must sit back and rethink my opinions and reasons.

Cliff Beall: When I said "brain," I meant an artificial brain. In other words, a standard hospital life support system.

Thanks for clarifying. As a human, I was biased towards thinking that the primary function of the brain was intelligence. Thanks for slapping down my prejudices.

Cliff Beall: a self replicating nano robot is supposed to be invented which will be the beginning of everything good and pure.

Yeah, right. If you've read Drexler's books, you'd know more about the dangers of nano. Again, tech is neither good nor bad; uses can be deemed beneficial or detrimental. With this in mind, we should pace research so as to be able to avoid, or otherwise deal with, the detrimental uses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:36pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#676 of 677)

Cliff Beall: I am so sick of the Pro-Lifers I can\222t see straight.

It is this sort of emotional blindness (on both our parts and of the pro-lifers) that prevent peaceful resolutions.

Cliff Beall: I don\222t understand why the organs of an anencephalic infant can not be donated before they become useless.

To prevent a precedence for the Canadian case that you mentioned above.

Cliff Beall: If I were the parent of such a child, I would want the option of making the organs available immediately after birth, and not to be forced to wait until the hindbrain is fully dead and the other organs are useless. It don\222t make a lick of sense to me.

Me, too.

Carl Nicolai: This will vastly alter the way they relate to their parent because their parent has no system of morals and etheics to guide them.

Huh??? What do you mean?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:37pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#677 of 677)

Carl Nicolai: Mankinds entire history of family relationships is based on having two parents.

This is not true if you're talking about guidance.

M.A.DeLuca: I'm not sure when consciousness occurs in humans, but seven months is old enough for premature infants to survive with appropriate care, isn't it?

I think some five month old fetuses have survived with proper care.

M.A.DeLuca: I hope I'm never put into a position where I have to make the decision that couple made.

They chose to get pregnant and, therefore, chose to be in that situation. If, like me, you don't want to face that decision, don't get pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting and using the organs. Personally (right now, anyway) I would rather die than do what that couple did.

M.A.DeLuca: The only way what that couple did would sit well with me would be if the doctors had somehow repressed the development in a brain in the fetus.

Right. You've helped me rethink my opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:57pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#678 of 682)

M.A.DeLuca: Ethically, though, it makes no difference to me if the infant was conceived naturally or cloned. It's still human and should be treated in a consistent manner.

Precisely.

M.A.DeLuca: The only way what that couple did would sit well with me would be if the doctors had somehow repressed the development in a brain in the fetus.

M.A., I tried to find the article again to make sure of my facts, but I couldn't find it. But I don't believe anything was said about repressing the development of the fetus' brain. Anyway, I'm not sure it would be possible without retarding the growth of other organs.

M.A.DeLuca: In any event, doesn't the recent ban on late-term abortions make this option moot?

I am not aware of any specific ban on late-term abortions. I am aware of a "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act," which was passed by Congress last year, but vetoed by the President. I understand another attempt to pass this law is being debated in the congress. But even it that law were to be passed into law, it applies only to a specific procedure occurring only minutes before normal birth would have occurred. (If they don't have the votes to ban that, how are they to get the votes to ban all late term abortions?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:05pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#679 of 682)

Noel Yap: With this in mind, we should pace research so as to be able to avoid, or otherwise deal with, the detrimental uses.I don't understand your insistence on pacing. You can never avoid the detrimental uses if they exist. Pacing just delays the detrimental uses, unless by delaying it you get something else in front of it that tends to make it moot. For example, if regeneration technology can be hurried enough, it may tend to reduce possible unethical uses of cloning. (By that, I do not mean to say that all cloning is unethical. For example, human cloning would be acceptable to me if a childless couple chose to have a child by this method.)

Cliff Beall: I don't understand why the organs of an anencephalic infant can not be donated before they become useless. Noel Yap: To prevent a precedence for the Canadian case that you mentioned above. Noel, those two things don't have a thing in common. One is the birth of a child with a terminal birth defect. The other is the abortion of a healthy fetus for the purpose of harvesting an organ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 11:14pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#680 of 682)

How do I feel about the deliberate conception of a fetus for use as a source of organs? Wow. Emotionally, I think it is a cold decision to make, but man, that is one heck of a tough-cookie wife! Where I start to get concerned is the age of the fetus, if correct, 28 weeks is pretty late to abort. At seven months, couldn't it survive as a premature delivery? I have no objections to the use of a zygote as source of tissue, or even a young fetus. But the closer you get to actually using a baby as the source of the tissues, the more uncomfortable I am with it. In my opinion, 28 weeks is too old, and this procedure comes terribly close to murder. In any event, doesn't the ban on late-term abortions cover this now?

Would it make any difference to me if the fetus was a clone? Absolutely not. A clone is just as human as a person conceived naturally. It only makes a difference to me if there is a significant absence of brain mass.

New Scientist claims that consciousness is not confined to the brain?! WHAT? This seems ridiculous; what other part of the body is the seat of consciousness? The heart? I don't know about this one, Cliff, it sounds an awful lot like an argument for the soul. My ethical concerns about using another body as a source of tissue rests entirely on the presence of a brain; the seat of the conscious mind in my world-view.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 11:15pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#681 of 682)

How do I feel about the deliberate conception of a fetus for use as a source of organs? Wow. Emotionally, I think it is a cold decision to make, but man, that is one heck of a tough-cookie wife! Where I start to get concerned is the age of the fetus, if correct, 28 weeks is pretty late to abort. At seven months, couldn't it survive as a premature delivery? I have no objections to the use of a zygote as source of tissue, or even a young fetus. But the closer you get to actually using a baby as the source of the tissues, the more uncomfortable I am with it. In my opinion, 28 weeks is too old, and this procedure comes terribly close to murder. In any event, doesn't the ban on late-term abortions cover this now?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:54pm Nov 3, 1997 ET (#682 of 682)

M.A., it looks like your posts have shown up!

Regarding your's and Noel's comments about New Scientist and their source of information, it appears to be a fairly authoritative publication to me. But you can judge for yourself and lambaste me if you wish. The address for the FAQ is:

www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/faq.html

You might want to ask them that question. Me, I am such a trusting soul that it never occurred to me to question such authority. (Do you believe that?)

Best Regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 12:37pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#682 of 691)

How very odd. I'm sorry about the repeated posts, people. It seems that some (but fortunately not all) of my posts eventually made it through the message system--after two days! I'll let one stand, but delete all others.

Cliff and Noel, I've read New Scientist from time to time, and I don't have a problem with the magazine itself. I'm surprised at their conclusion that the brain is not the seat of consciousness. I'll check out the link and comment as appropriate...or at least try to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 02:05pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#683 of 691)

Phew! My world-view hasn't been challenged by New Scientist. The actual statement from the New Scientist FAQ is a little more consistent with how I expect the brain and consciousness to work:

For starters, whatever consciousness is, it doesn't reside in any one brain structure or set of genes that could be easily removed from the clone before or during its development.

This makes perfect sense. If I destroy an individual portion of Cliff's brain (just to use as a playful example), I haven't necessarily destroyed his ability to perceive his environment or act upon it. But if I instead destroy everything down to the medula oblongata, then I've removed all his higher functions and left him as a husk capable of only autonomic functions. I've destroyed his consciousness. This is consistent with the effects of severe brain damage, such as the famous case of Karen-Anne Quinlan, whose brain was essentially killed by drug/alcohol interaction, but was able to survive for several months (if I recall correctly) after she was taken off life support.

New Scientist also concludes that it would be difficult to genetically suppress brain development to prevent consciousness. Considering that there are about 3 billion base pairs that make up a human being, and we've only just begun to map their functions, I'd agree with this statement. I do wonder, however, if brain development could be forestalled chemically.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:30pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#684 of 691)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Darn it, I promised myself I would not get back on here while I've still got work to do, but what the heck, here I am!

M.A.D. (those are some cool initials),

I do wonder, however, if brain development could be forestalled chemically.

Absolutely. Extensive experimentation has been done with regard to embryology and systems differentiation. It has been found that tissues develope by embryonic induction; that is, they receive chemical signals from adjacent tissue basically saying, for example, "hey you, I'm a hand, so you are a finger!" In an experiment by W. Lewis, mica was placed between the optic vesicle and the skin of a tadpole, so an eye lens failed to grow. Then, an optic vesicle was touched to the abdomen, and an eye lens grew there. Apparently, the optic vesicle emits chemicals that tell skin cells to differentiate into an eye lens. So, block the chemicals that tell a certain group of cells to grow a certain tissue, and you prevent that tissue from growing. Applying that approach to the human brain is trivial.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:01pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#685 of 691)

Cliff Beall: I don\222t understand your insistence on pacing. You can never avoid the detrimental uses if they exist.

Currently, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world umpteen times over. But we don't 'cos we've learned how to deal with the problems. If nuclear technologies were ubiquitous beforehand (ie if everyone had nukes in 1942), we might not be sitting here today. Anyway, just an opinion.

Cliff Beall: Pacing just delays the detrimental uses, unless by delaying it you get something else in front of it that tends to make it moot.

Yes.

Cliff Beall: For example, if regeneration technology can be hurried enough, it may tend to reduce possible unethical uses of cloning.

This is a technological example. I was leaning more towards socialogical causes. For example, if everyone expects cloning to be a near term technology, society can be psychologically prepared better to handle it (and it's moral/ethical issues.)

Cliff Beall: those two things don\222t have a thing in common.

You and I see that, but the pro-lifers don't. For example, I could easily see how they would deem it "wrong" to purposefully give the fetus a severe birth defect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:15pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#686 of 691)

M.A.DeLuca: At seven months...

This is a highly subjective measure 'cos it's very dependent upon our technology. What happens when we have artificial wombs? Would abortion be totally illegal then?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:15pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#687 of 691)

M.A.DeLuca: New Scientist claims that consciousness is not confined to the brain?! WHAT?

I have the same objections. However, it is my brain that has the objections, so it could be biased ;)

M.A.DeLuca: For starters, whatever consciousness is, it doesn\222t reside in any one brain structure or set of genes that could be easily removed from the clone before or during its development.

I could've guessed as much. Neural nets don't store things the way we normally do in computers. You'll generally never be able to point to one individual neuron and say, "This holds this particular information." Information is spread throughout the net, so, I would guess that the entire brain, or a good portion of it, contains consciousness.

Tom Anderson: the optic vesicle emits chemicals that tell skin cells to differentiate into an eye lens.

If the cells are caught at the right stage of development.

Tom Anderson: Applying that approach to the human brain is trivial.

I wouldn't think so, but if we could find which gene(s) cause the mutation found in the aforementioned anencephalic child, we could create a virus that would prevent the development of a brain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 04:18pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#688 of 691)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

And people irrationally think it is "wrong" to do lots of things that are only wrong to them because of lifelong conditioning to believe that. Just because some people believe something does not make it so. I know that you know that and I know that you know that I know that you know that ;o) But you are suggesting that our laws should be or are being influenced by these people's crazy beliefs. Fortunately, once a law is passed that goes against their beliefs (if it can get through in the first place), then we have nine people who decide whether it is "wrong" or not, if challenged. And fortunately, I have witnessed that they truly investigate these matters rather than just go on beliefs like the general population. So, if people have a "moral" objection to it, then that cannot influence our laws due to our glorious separation clause. Outlawing it because of moral (not ethical, in that ethics deal with social harmony and morals with supernatural fear) reasons is unconstitutional.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 04:30pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#689 of 691)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

If the cells are caught at the right stage of development. They must be parenchyma (or mesenchyme) which transforms into other cell types when indicated by surrounding chemicals. This form of cell is the most general there is and exists at all stages of life. However, to apply this to the prevention of brain development, I would simply administer the neutralizing agent during the entire gestation period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 04:39pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#690 of 691)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ok, here is a different view: If you had the ability to grow redundant organs, and regrow them if lost, wouldn't you donate one every once in a while to someone without that ability who needed one? Wouldn't you use the natural function of your body to digest food and build tissue to do so? Would it be immoral? Ok, but you have a life, due to that thing rattling around in your skull, and don't have time to just keep donating organs all the time. Well, why not make a body that doesn't have anything better to do?

Now, I realize that this line of thought could be used to justify A Brave New World, but there is a distinct line between creating a retarded consciousness and not creating one at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 06:55pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#691 of 691)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

My point about the lack of ethics and morals concerning cloned indivudals is that most of the way we feel about things is not determined by our carefully and logicly deciding what is right, but rather by just following the models that have been handed to us.

The Chinese society for centuries has been conditioned to deal with large families. In the big cities a "one child" policy has been in effect for only a few years and so the way people deal with their single child is quite different than the way they have been raised.

A cloned child has a single biological parent, and while many couples will raise a cloned child there will be many instances of single parent families.

Now single parent families all ready have unique problems, but a single parent clone family is even more seperated from "normal" and can be andicipated to require additional social and legal considerations.

Biological parents have rights and responsibilities.

Since in a cloned family there is only one parent to consider. The customs and laws will have to change and we dont have a good historical background to guide us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:25pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#692 of 706)

M.A.DeLuca: If I destroy an individual portion of Cliff's brain (just to use as a playful example), I haven't necessarily destroyed his ability to perceive his environment or act upon it. But if I instead destroy everything down to the medula oblongata, then I've removed all his higher functions and left him as a husk capable of only autonomic functions. I've destroyed his consciousness.

M.A., while you are playing with my brain (careful now, it is very delicate--happens when you get old, you know), I don't think that is what NS said. My reading of their answer is that even if you destroyed everything down to (or past) the medula obongata (ah, in the dictionary, so I know what it means!), you still could not be completely assured that you had completely destroyed my consciousness.

As I understand it, the brain is an organ with a concentration of neurons. It is the arrangement of specific neurons in our brains that provides us with our intelligence (some of you more than others of us).

However, neurons are not isolated to the brain. They exist throughout the nervous system, particularly in the spinal column, but there are relative concentrations of neurons in other parts of body also. I am not familiar with the Karen-Anne Quinlan case, but I would suspect that the reason she was able to survive several months after being taken off life support was that other areas of neural activity were established (other than in the brain, which, I understand was dead) during the period of time she was on life support.

I don't know if this is the reason NS said that "attempting to surgically or genetically erase someone's consciousness is itself morally dubious," but it is the major reason I have come to have ethical concerns with respect to the "headless" variety of clone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:29pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#693 of 706)

Noel Yap: You and I see that, but the pro-lifers don't. For example, I could easily see how they would deem it "wrong" to purposefully give the fetus a severe birth defect.

If the pro-lifers want to deem that wrong, they'll have to get in line. I think to do such a thing would be atrocious.

Noel Yap: Neural nets don't store things the way we normally do in computers. You'll generally never be able to point to one individual neuron and say, "This holds this particular information." Information is spread throughout the net, so, I would guess that the entire brain, or a good portion of it, contains consciousness.

Well, as I understand it, the brain stores "feelings." And from this storage of feelings, based on specific arrangements of neurons in certain areas of the brain, signals are sent to other parts of the brain which then rationalizes a reality. In this sense, human memory is a creative process. That is why eye-witness testimony is so unreliable and why "false" memories (memories of things that never happened) are possible.

Tom Anderson: If the cells are caught at the right stage of development. They must be parenchyma (or mesenchyme) which transforms into other cell types when indicated by surrounding chemicals. This form of cell is the most general there is and exists at all stages of life. However, to apply this to the prevention of brain development...

I think a better use of this biological tendency is the regeneration of needed organs, or repair of same using regeneration techniques.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:32pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#694 of 706)

Carl Nicolai: The Chinese society for centuries has been conditioned to deal with large families. In the big cities a "one child" policy has been in effect for only a few years and so the way people deal with their single child is quite different than the way they have been raised. Ah, I see what you meant by "single children" in China.

Carl, I think you have a point, but with M.A. and Tom continually trying to come up with an ethically pure method of destroying a clone's brain (very creatively, I might add), it is difficult for me to get excited about normal socioeconomic problems.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 10:51pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#695 of 706)

M.A.DeLuca: At seven months, couldn't it survive as a premature delivery?

This is a highly subjective measure 'cos it's very dependent upon our technology. What happens when we have artificial wombs? Would abortion be totally illegal then?

M.A.DeLuca: New Scientist claims that consciousness is not confined to the brain?! WHAT?

I have the same objections. However, it is my brain that has the objections, so it could be biased ;)

M.A.DeLuca: For starters, whatever consciousness is, it doesn\222t reside in any one brain structure or set of genes that could be easily removed from the clone before or during its development.

I could've guessed as much. Neural nets don't store things the way we normally do in computers. You'll generally never be able to point to one individual neuron and say, "This holds this particular information." Information is spread throughout the net, so, I would guess that the entire brain, or a good portion of it, contains consciousness.

Tom Anderson: the optic vesicle emits chemicals that tell skin cells to differentiate into an eye lens.

If the cells are caught at the right stage of development.

Tom Anderson: Applying that approach to the human brain is trivial.

I wouldn't think so, but if we could find which gene(s) cause the mutation found in the aforementioned anencephalic child, we could create a virus that would prevent the development of a brain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 10:51pm Nov 4, 1997 ET (#696 of 706)

M.A.DeLuca: At seven months, couldn't it survive as a premature delivery?

This is a highly subjective measure 'cos it's very dependent upon our technology. What happens when we have artificial wombs? Would abortion be totally illegal then?

M.A.DeLuca: New Scientist claims that consciousness is not confined to the brain?! WHAT?

I have the same objections. However, it is my brain that has the objections, so it could be biased ;)

M.A.DeLuca: For starters, whatever consciousness is, it doesn\222t reside in any one brain structure or set of genes that could be easily removed from the clone before or during its development.

I could've guessed as much. Neural nets don't store things the way we normally do in computers. You'll generally never be able to point to one individual neuron and say, "This holds this particular information." Information is spread throughout the net, so, I would guess that the entire brain, or a good portion of it, contains consciousness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:52am Nov 5, 1997 ET (#697 of 706)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Not all neurons hold consciousness; most neurons are sensory neurons or motor neurons. Modulators such as ganglia, the spinal cord, and the brain contain interneurons, or associative neurons. The former two simply perform reflex arc functions; it takes an impulse from a receptor and routes the signal to the appropriate effector. The structure of these simpler nerves do not contain any storage capacity and cannot be conscious. The information in the nervous system is not stored in the impulses, but in the source and destination of the impulses... in the connections. These are static in most nerves. Conscious decisions can only be produced where there is cephalization, a centralization of modulation in which the source and destinations are within the structure and contain information by their interconnections, which change according to experience. In other words, the brain -- namely the cerebral cortex -- is the only seat of conscious thought. Other regions of the brain, the spinal cord, ganglia, and the rest of the nervous system are autonomous or controlled by cerebrally originated impulses. The body, necessarily as a defense mechanism, must be able to survive even when unconscious (for instance, while sleeping or injured). This is achieved through the autonomic centers such as the medulla oblongata (the brain stem), the hypophysis (pituitary), and the spinal cord which are able to perform reflex responses and maintain vital functions through genetically inherited instructions.

<cont...>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:53am Nov 5, 1997 ET (#698 of 706)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

With the cerebral cortex missing, these can still keep a body alive so long as it is provided nutrients (or until its supply runs out). However, there is no conscious person in control of that body... it is an idling car without a driver; the gas station attendent can keep feeding it, but nobody is there to step on the pedal. Continuing this analogy, you may protest somebody taking the radiator out of your personal car, but nobody would protest if you took it out of a driverless, ownerless car. The same can be applied to the situation of a decephalized body in which relatives have no sentimental feeling toward it (nobody inherits the car). Who cares if you relieve it of a few spare parts? Not the driver!

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:12am Nov 5, 1997 ET (#699 of 706)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

I think a better use of this biological tendency is the regeneration of needed organs, or repair of same using regeneration techniques.

Sure, but while I'm waiting for a cure for the common cold, I'll take a few aspirin. While I'm waiting for a car that goes 0-60 in two seconds while getting fifty miles to the gallon, I'll get along with the one I've got. While I'm waiting for a five hundred gigahertz processor, I'll make do with a pentium. Get my point? If we can save lives by cloning organs, we should do it and not wait around for potentially better solutions that may never materialize. Especially when the better solutions may only be found by taking the intermediate steps. For instance, instead of trying to build that aforementioned supercar, I'll try to build one that goes 0-60 in four seconds while getting thirty miles per gallon. In the process of doing that, I may learn how to approach the even better one. Rome wasn't build in a day, or so they say.

Tom