Ethics of animal cloning

From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 10:20:47 MST


Further to Harvey's message about the current problems with reproductive
cloning, today ethicist Arthur Caplan (generally biotech-friendly, not a
neophobe at all), made some critical comments about Genetic Savings and
Clone's pet cloning service. I think he is going too far in comparing this
to the TV psychics fraudulent practices. John Sperling, who set up the
company, set it up in order to clone his own dog, Missy. Being a
billionaire, I don't think his real motivation is to make more money, but
more to promote the technology.

I think there are some issues here, though I haven't read the company's
literature to see how clearly they explain that cloning is not copying. It
doesn't seem to me unreasonable for someone who can easily afford it to
have a much loved companion animal cloned, with the intention of raising it
in a similar environment to produce a probably behaviorally similar but not
identical animal. If the disclaimer is clear, I believe Caplan would be
unfair to lump this in with TV psychics, who do not in fact have the powers
they claim.

Miss Cleo,
meet 'cc' the
kitty clone Pet cloners, TV psychics both prey on human weakness By Arthur
Caplan, Ph.D
http://www.msnbc.com/news/716323.asp?0dm=C11PH

Max

_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more@extropy.org>
________________________________________________________________
Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
--- Thought leadership in the innovation economy
m.more@manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:43 MST