From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 17:41:49 MST
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> I wonder if using the example of plants would be a good way to
> argue the benefits of cloning. Many, many, food crops are cloned.
> Every navel orange in the world is a clone of a single plant, for
> example. I'm sure the luddite faction would just trot out "but
> people aren't plants", but I think that's pretty easy to counter.
> I'm just not sure if the PR value of plant examples is positive
> or negative on balance, but I think it's probably positive.
A reasonable point Lee. Since Barbara has raised the point that
we have been cloning plants for centuries the question becomes
"What is new under the sun?" -- and why is that objectionable?
Is it the process of nuclear transfer that is so objectionable?
Or is it the process of working with a nucleus that contains
a human chromosome set? Who would get worked up if it were a
nucleus with a set of chromosomes to produce a rose bush?
This raises the issue that I don't think it is "cloning"
per se that raises the emotional ire of the luddites but
the fact that scientists are messing with human embryos.
I think the activity raises the quite reasonable fear that
we may be on a path towards "extincting" the current human
race. That is bound to raise concerns towards the protection
of oneself and ones offspring. (Also raises some interesting
questions with regard to whether "species preservation" is
built into genomes.)
It requires a significant shift to embrace the perspective
"evolve or become extinct". Most species do not have that.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:38 MST