The Cloning Debate
November 17th, 2007 by Joe CiccantiBill O’Reilly had a familiar ‘local’ face and voice on the O’Reilly Factor last night—-Republican strategist Christine O’Donnell, on the issue of cloning. Is cloning monkeys morally wrong? You can read the transcript here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.html
There is also a video available:
November 17th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Bill O is a cloned monkey……You decide
November 18th, 2007 at 5:18 am
I watched that segment when it was on. In my opinion, she did not carry her argument very well.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I read the link to the transcript and feel as Pete does…the entire discussion with O’Reilly just seemed nobody really made the argument and O’Donnel had little of substance to say. Then again, with O’Reilly, it’s usually him quibbling with his guests than anything worthwhile. That aside, don’t favour cloning at all…animal, vegetable or mineral.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I agree with Pete. Dr Marrone was more convincing than Christine O’Donnell. Simply put, O’Donnell wishes to shut down the research, based on the potential that it will lead to human cloning, and Marrone wants to move forward with research with appropriate controls in place based on the potential to cure chronic diseases such as MS, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s, not by drugs for which there are none, rather by cell replacement.
Nancy, do you realize that you are cloning whenever you plant a seed? The odds are overwhelming that you will get an exact duplicate of the plant from which the seed came. Plants utilize an asexual reproduction process.
I understand, Nancy, your objection based on sacrificing the life of a blastocyst and on undesired consequences. Regarding the former, there is a process that has been developed recently to extract stem cells without destroying the blastocyst. Regarding the latter, research on monkey cloning will enable perfection of the science before it is practiced on humans.
Also regarding the latter, there is the ethical issue of using/sacrificing animals for research that benefits us humans, a concern of yours as well I know. I understand that concern. However, most drugs we have today followed the animal testing route before being approved for humans. Do we therefore discontinue to test new drugs coming down the line? It’s a very difficult decision!
PS: Old Bill O did a good job of framing and conducting this segment, I must say!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
When you play the job of God then there are consequences and they aren’t pretty. When will scientist learn this costly mistake? That’s all I have to say about that. Congrats to O’Reilly who has the #1 rating for news TV with 2,491,000 viewers. The next closest thing to him is Hannity and Colmes at 1,616,000. O’Reilly even generates 1,184,000 viewers during his rerun at 11pm. Man he must be doing something right.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Perry, regarding your pointing out ny opinions with respect to stem cell research…I’d point out, again, I’m only opposed to embryonic, not adult nor am I opposed to placental usage for the same thing. But cloning…to what purpose do we have a need for cloning animals or humans? Quality assurance? A master race? Or just so-called “perfection”. It was done with Dolly, it’s been done on other animals. Dolly lived such an abbreviated life how much was learned from her in either the pros or cons, health, longevity?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Nancy, embryonic stem cells (blastocysts) are pluripotent, adult stem cells are not, which limits the potential of adult stem cell research. For what good may come of it, as has already, adult stem cell research should be continued. However, in light of what I pointed out about the stem cell extraction technique which simultaneously salvages the life of the blastocyst, doesn’t that nullify your objection? Regarding cloning, a distinction has to be made how far along the process is permitted to go. There is a huge difference between carrying the process through to the final organism and carrying the process to select for example nerve cell duplication to be used to replace nerve cells in a person with MS, a process by the way which probably does include placental usage.
Fabio, if one were to follow your logic about “playing the roll of God” to it’s logical conclusion, we would never conduct scientific research, rather, just leave everything in God’s hands since he is all knowing and all controlling. You are stating a belief rather than to address scientific researches, so your comment is not useful. As far as the consequences that are “not pretty”, whatever you mean by that expression, part of scientific research is to perfect that which is “not pretty” so that our understanding increases to the benefit of us all.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Aah, come on, Perry! Not quite fair to imply belief has less value than scientific reasearch (which pretty much starts out as just hope, no?) and therefore “not useful”. You know my views on religion but what about the natural order of things…where we meet challenges, face them and learn from them. To strive for a world of physiologic or mental perfection…in attaining this what do we learn, what can we teach that would be of intrinsic personal value or growth? Perfecting the so-called “imperfect” increases understanding of what and derives which benefit other than society becomes increasingly insistent on discarding, nullifying or despising that which isn’t. I’m sure I don’t hold Fabio’s specific beliefs but whatever one names them, I do agree with his post. (Except for the O’Reilly part…lol!)
November 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Nancy, you missed my point. It was this statement by Fabio to which I was responding: “When you play the job of God then there are consequences and they aren’t pretty.”
In other words, he is saying that scientific research on stem cells is playing the job of God. Is that your position too?
I did not mean to imply that belief has less value than scientific research. The relative values of the two depends on the topic being addressed. Again, belief is an act of faith, science is an act of investigation of observable reality that involves hypothesizing, making measurements, analyzing, and forming conclusions leading to the next cycle of refinement. Pedagogically, the two are totally different, and applicable to different human needs.
Stem cell research is not playing God, it is stem cell research. With anything we do, ethical considerations must be part of the decision equation, don’t you agree?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:03 am
Actually, Perry, while I might not say it’s “playing the part of God” I do, personally, believe that it is too much interference in natural process or order. If, as I also believe, we’ve already done this with too many drugs (of the Rx variety) it boggles the mind just contemplating how far we are prepared to go and damn the consequences. People laugh or believe the science of cryogenics is heinous to contemplate (and those who do are basically flakes) but then is it worse than cloning? (And no…I’m not a proponent of crygenics either!). And yes, I most certainly do believe that ethical considerations must be part of the equation…but who’s ethics?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:28 am
Whose ethics? Great question. Societal ethics ideally should be determined by public debate and Congressional action when required. Moreover, we have personal choice, like cryogenics, whether to have it done or not. For those of us who choose not, should we then actively oppose those who choose yes?
As an aside, but related, it is in the news now that two research groups, one in Japan and one in Wisconsin, have successfully caused somatic (skin) cells to revert to the embryonic cellular state by injecting 4 enzymes into the somatic cellular soup. This is remarkable, because this technique obviates the use of an egg cell as is used in cloning procedures that produce embryonic stem cells (blastocysts). If this technique proves viable and successful, it changes the ethical debate because it broadens the practice of cloning in which the human reproductive process is not mimicked, nevertheless a clone of the donor somatic cell is generated. Now go get a cup of coffee, folks, and contemplate this one!
November 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I saw that report on last night’s news, Perry, and it is, indeed, more heartening news.