Comment on this entry
Gregory Stock v. Dan Callahan on Healthy Life Extension
April 07, 2007
Debate between Gregory Stock and Daniel Callahan, which was moderated by Aubrey de Grey, at the Edmonton Aging Symposium which took place March 30-31, 2007.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Soren David Jensen on 05/26 at 04:38 AM
Professor Stock,
Isn't the stance against research regarding therapeutic cloning hypocritical?
The accusations against cloning include:
1. Cloning involves the destruction of a human embryo.
2. Cloning using animal embryos could produce maladies in their subjects (cells in therapeutic).
3. It could cause temptations for the investigation of reproductive cloning.
However, as you said, these arguments aren't viable because of a third factor, and the perspective that this third factor incites.
This third factor is the inevitability of cloning research in foreign countries.
Because of this third factor, the deductions of these prior arguments are reversed.
If it is true that cloning inflicts unethical infringements upon its subjects, then an lack of involvement in the progression of cloning technology would result in a slower rate of eradication of imperfected, immoral techniques.
Cloning is inevitable is foreign countries, regardless of US legislation, and therefore remaining evasive of cloning research is hypocritical considering that preventing the situation is not an option, and that the only way that the previous arguments now apply is in the activity of making cloning safer.
I don't know how the US would go about arranging such a project, but the sacrifice of releasing all scientific information to the public would be the only way (that comes to mind) that would prevent others from engaging in risky cloning research after the technical answers are found.
Could you PLEASE argue? I'm so interested, and I could possibly pursue this area of science. Some inspiration would help with morale.
Soren Jensen,
Freshman: University of Oregon
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
|
IEET Blog