File Under: X

[sarahbell]

Gibson Weighs In On Stem Cell Research (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PEOPLE_GIBSON?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME)

I'm glad Mel has "ethical issues" with cloning, because technically we all should. Pandora's box has been opened in other countries, and I'm not sure we need to help raise the lid any further.

If quantity of eggs/embryos for research is the issue, there are plenty of eggs & embryos that were going to be used for in-vitro or other procedures, but since they're no longer needed will be destroyed.

Does anyone understand the need for cloning to be a part of this government proposal?

[Crispin]

Tell him it might help find a cure for baldness and see what tune he sings.

[wileE]

I couldn't care less what Mel or any Hollywood person has to say, but cloning could be very helpful.

When you think of cloning, don't think of just making a duplicate of yourself, think of growing new body parts that are lost, destroyed, or damaged. Think of somebody who lost their arm and being able to grow a new one that their body won't reject. Think of liver, kidney, heart transplants with their own organs and where the person doesn't have to take tons of drugs to prevent their body from rejecting it.

[sarahbell]

A clinical research friend of mine just said if you want to propagate adult-derived cell lines, you'll need to clone them.

So it looks like, once again, stem cell research is being painted with too broad a brush. If Mel were more specific, and said he's against replicating cells - the clinical term is cloning - he's essentially against stem cell research.

Calling it cloning is a bit misleading, since the common person's understanding is that cloning = creating a duplicate person. That's not the goal of stem cell research as it's currently defined.

I can now see that Mel Gibson is mentioning cloning in relation to stem cells as a way to get a rise out of people who are against full human cloning - even though that's not what most stem cell researchers aspire to do.

[Sovrana]

He may change his mind if one of his 7 or 8 kids was diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Then again, his concern is that his tax dollars would be used for something he is morally against. Sounds more like he is merely adopting the anti-abortion argument. If that's the case, then his children will always have access to the best medical research as well as safe abortions. His argument to protect his tax dollars doesn't put his family at risk.

same old...same old

[jps]

Something to think about in terms of the ethics of cloning...
We are supposed to be a (the) superpower, and thusly we are expected to be on the leading edge of just about everything. If pandora's box has indeed been opened elsewhere around the world, the U.S. should be working to at least stay ahead of the curve in this technology so that we will have some basis for leading an argument on the ethics of the technology.
You can't really argue for a so called pandora's box to be closed

edit: Plus, there are a boat load of arguments to be made in terms of the benefits to society that could be gained by advancing these technologies rather than ignoring them.

[Duemellon]

We'v focused on 2 forms of "Superpowerism" might & money. We'v let technology, culture, diplomacy, environment, quality-of-life, all sliip to othr places. We'v focusd on that limited view b/c we believe that might & money r the truest forms of power.

we'r wrong

& unless we change that view it's small events like this that will undermine our (soon to b) worthless & overstretched money & military.

[classicgrrl]

you know, it has occurred to me that cloning isn't really possible.

genetically it is, but psychologically it isn't. eventually that clone will develop a self concept that is completely different than the original. and environment and culture will help shape that self concept and those experiences coming from environment and culture will assuredly not be the same for the orignal human that the clone came from.


just a thought.

[jps]

Due=> Well put. There has to be other things that we do as a "leader" in the world, to maintain a position as being a leader of people, rather than a ruler of people. Its an old saying, but might doesn't make right.

classicgrrl=> Unless we perform some kind of lobotomy, at some point a clone will gain consciousness, and from there develop into a unique being. They may be genetically the same, but their life experiences, the context of everything the see, read, feel, and do will make them individuals.

Now using cells to clone organs, not people, is a different thing altogether. A new heart when this one wears out... that'd be kind of cool. Not to mention the research that is being done that will hopefully provide ways to reverse degenerative diseases, and paralysis. We won't know until we do more research.

[Crispin]

I'm always behind any type of scientific advancement that makes life easier or gives hope for solutions to illnesses. So I'm firmly behind stem cell research using newer lines of cells.

As for cloning, the only worry I have is that biotech companies will clone a human being and because of current patent laws have "ownership" of that human. This is fuzzy area that I believe we're eventually going to have to face. What kind of rights will humans created by a corporation have?