From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 21:50:51 MDT
On Sunday, April 21, 2002, at 07:42 pm, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> The second at least is in the way of research most of us support. True
> human cloning is something that I would be quite happy to put off for a
> while. I don't think the techniques are good enough and I have my own
> misgivings about some of the possible applications.
I agree with this. Cloning produces 90% malformed fetuses for every 10%
good ones. Even the ones that appear good develop degenerative disease
later or have random health problems. It is also now known that the
"clones" are not exact genetic copies of the host. They include damaged
DNA from the host, mitochondrial DNA from the egg, and various gene
expression factors that are different. We don't know enough to clone
animals yet. Most of the clones fail and die. A few fail and survive.
None of the claimed successes lasted until adulthood without serious
problems.
I support a ban on human cloning until the technique is improved. Just
as we require new medicines, medical devices and medical procedures to
be tested and perfect on animals before using them on humans, we should
get animal cloning working first before we clone humans. If any of
these cloning attempts on humans leads to a deformed baby, it will set
back the cause for cloning farther than any Luddite legislation or
fear-mongering would do.
In this case I fear the renegade scientists more than the Luddites. We
can overcome Luddites with logic and reason over the years. It would be
hard to dismiss a deformed child with persuasive rhetoric.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:37 MST