Researchers from Stemagen a private stem-cell research company in California, have created human clones by the same techniques used to clone other mammals. The clones only went through a few cell divisions before being discarded [Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF].There's nothing remarkable about the science. It's one step toward cloning humans using standard procedures that have been worked out over the past three decades. What's remarkable is the reaction to this announcement. I'm still having trouble figuring out what is the ethical problem here.
I think it's all related to abortion. If you are opposed to allowing a woman to decide what to do with her own body then you're also against stem cell research. The "ethical issue" is mostly confined to religious people (men?) who oppose abortion. At least that's how it appears to me.
Stemagen isn't doing anything wrong; they make this clear on their webpage.
All research at Stemagen is performed in strict accordance with US Federal Regulations for the ethical treatment and protection of human subjects covered in the 45 CFR Part 46 policy issued by the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP). More specifically, this requires that all research involving human eggs, embryos or human subjects be approved and carefully monitored by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) composed of members of the medical and general community, with additional ethical and legal expertise sought when required.This is an important point in so-called "ethical" debates. The scientists are not being unethical and many observers, like me, don't see any ethical problem. Others see an ethical problem as described in the newspaper article.
Those who choose to donate oocytes (eggs) and embryos for this type of research do so through informed consents that follow the guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research from the National Academy of Sciences (www.nationalacademies.org).
Stemagen's mission is to maintain exemplary standards in human embryonic stem cell research in accordance with the highest ethical and research principles.
John Smeaton, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: "We have got scientists wandering around in an ethical wilderness, forgetting about matters of justice relating to our fellow human beings.Here's the issue. At what point does something become an "ethical" issue for society? How many people have to be against something on "ethical" grounds" in order for it to become an ethical problem?
"We have people creating human beings with the intention of destroying them. That's appalling."
And the Vatican condemned the cloning of human embryos, calling it the "worst type of exploitation of the human being".
"This ranks among the most morally illicit acts, ethically speaking," said Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the Vatican department that helps oversee the Church's position on bioethics issues.
What if their objections are irrational? For example I imagine that US Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is against stem cell research but his reasons are likely to be as ridiculous as his reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. Does that still count as an ethical problem? It seems to me that elevating stupidity to the level of "ethics" is not the way we want to go.
Why couldn't the headline have been "No Ethical Problem, According to Most Atheists?" Why do we let religious groups define ethics for us? I don't subscribe to their version of ethics, do you?
10 comments :
The problem is defining when "human life" starts and thus when it is "murder" to end it. No ethicist has given a good answer. You can argue that some answers are worse than others though. But noone has a good answer and you would become famous if you actually came up with one.
If you're looking for a line, across which a foetus/embryo/blastocyst suddenly becomes human, then you're going to be looking forever.
I think that religiotards who seek to impose their stupid, irrational beliefs on sane people are behaving in a highly unethical way. When can we expect all those highly esteemed "ethicists" to address this problem, one of the most serious ethical problems our society faces?
George in Oregon
My nephews are clones. I have no problem, ethical or otherwise, with my nephews.
I think we need the line. At some point, a foetus becomes an individual human who deserves rights. Birth is a choice for this line, but it crumbles under logic. A developing group of cells may be the religious choice, but that fails logic as well.
I fear the religious will sway the day as long as there is not a logical, scientific alternative line.
Ian B Gibson says,
If you're looking for a line, across which a foetus/embryo/blastocyst suddenly becomes human, then you're going to be looking forever.
Not only that, but even if you could find such an imaginary line it still wouldn't settle the case.
For example, I'm perfectly willing to accept the arbitrary line at fertilization if it makes you happy. This means that a zygote is a "human."
It doesn't make a difference to me. I still favor allowing a woman to have an abortion if she chooses.
George in Oregon
So Larry, do favor allowing a women to abort her child after birth - by say 12 hours. What about before birth by 3 days?
For me, the logic breaks down near term and I cannot see why a recently born child is different. Certainly a women has rights, but at some point so does the child.
When do we start limiting the mother's rights to provide some rights to a child. Birth just is not logical.
I do not have the answer.
With regards to "the line", I just became aware of an issue that I haven't seen the "life begins at conception" group address. Since that single fertilized egg can result in multiple genetically identical humans (up to at least 4). I am assuming that the religious crowd would maintain that each of these humans would have a separate spiritual accountability. That single cell might be pretty crowded with souls...
a
Most people agree that at conception the "groups of cells" is human, what the disagreement is about is when that human becomes a person. Right now society says that it becomes a person when it is no longer in the womb. This is an arbitrary distinction. It is no less arbitrary to say it becomes a person at conception. So if this human is a person at conception, it should be protected and the women carrying them should receive the full support of society. Of course, this would be problematic for those of us who would prefer to do experiments on them for the "good of society." It is easier to just define a person in a way that is more convenient for us - just like it was convenient for slave owners to say Blacks were not really persons.
Vance, I do not understand your problem - yes, a religious person would say there would be four souls. Souls are not material so they would not take up space. Just because they are genetically identical does not mean they cannot have souls.
anonymous says,
It is no less arbitrary to say it becomes a person at conception. So if this human is a person at conception, it should be protected and the women carrying them should receive the full support of society.
This is where you go wrong. Making some arbitrary decision about "personhood" doesn't have the consequences you envisage.
I could easily agree with you that a zygote is a person and still support abortion on demand. There's nothing inconsistent about such a position as far as I'm concerned.
Post a Comment