From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Apr 30 2002 - 00:02:09 MDT
On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 09:37 pm, Hal Finney wrote:
> B. I want to wait for more data.
B is the only rational response to any medical decision.
> We can subdivide B into some categories:
> B1. I want to wait for more mouse tests to replicate the results.
> B2. I want to wait for the results to be replicated in another animal
> model like dogs or cats.
> B3. I want to wait for the results to be replicated in a primate model
> such as chimpanzees.
> B4. I want to wait for the results to be replicated in human beings,
> then I would be willing to go forward.
All four of these seem to be an obvious progression from experimental
animal procedures to reliable human procedures. The question is similar
to asking, "Do you want an experimental animal veterinarian to operate
on you, or a trained experienced human surgeon?"
Give me repeatable human results every time. Science demands repeatable
results. Why would I ignore science when it comes to my health?
> If your answer to question 1 was B or C, then the question is what
> limitations, if any, you think should be imposed on other people.
If they were truly experimenting with their own health, that would be
different. But when they are using unproven experimental techniques on
others (i.e., babies), that is another matter. Self-experimenters
should be given some leeway, but we should have zero-tolerance for
experimenting on others.
Yes, this leads to the real-world situation that human cloning should be
banned until we get it working in animals. Current animal cloning
techniques kill or deform hundreds of times before a single
normal-appearing specimen is obtained. This low-success rate is not
acceptable in medical circles for any elective procedure.
-- 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 - 09:13:43 MST