It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Polarization Prevents US Cloning Ban

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The USA does not have any federal laws on human cloning, while most developed countries do, because polarized debate in Congress and the Senate has blocked efforts to pass cloning laws. Two types of cloning are at issue: "reproductive cloning," which leads to a baby, and "therapeutic cloning," which is used to develop treatments for diseases. A bill to ban both types of cloning has failed to pass twice since 2001, but was reintroduced on Thursday by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). A new conservative group, led by Leon Kass, chair of the President's Council on Bioethics, has developed a plan for an even more comprehensive total cloning ban - and promises to polarize debate even further.

 



www.wired.com
The United States is one of the few developed countries without legislation regarding human cloning. Debates have fallen apart amidst squabbling over when human life begins and the inability to separate reproductive cloning from therapeutic cloning. ...Discussions about human cloning legislation are heating up once again, with two opposing conservative camps vying for the best strategy to outlaw the practice. On Thursday, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) reintroduced a bill to ban human cloning that has failed to pass twice since 2001. The bill would ban both reproductive cloning, which would lead to a baby, and therapeutic cloning of the type researchers believe could lead to treatments for human diseases.

But a new group has entered the debate. Led by Leon Kass, chair of the President's Council on Bioethics, and Eric Cohen, editor in chief of The New Atlantis, a conservative journal on technology and society, the group says Brownback's strategy is flawed. ...Brownback's bill "appears unlikely to succeed in the next Congress as well," the group wrote in a document listing its goals. The American Journal of Bioethics blog published text from the document.

Titled "Bioethics for the Second Term: Legislative Recommendations," the group's plan says in part: "Meanwhile, South Koreans successfully cloned human embryos; British HFEA authorizes human cloning-for-research; Harvard scientists get permission to do human cloning-for-research; a right to do such research is constitutionalized in California and endorsed in several other states. We did not get the preferred convention passed at the United Nations. We have lost much ground."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


James Thompson of U.W. Madison is credited as the first scientist to isolate a human embryonic stem cell in 1998. The discovery allowed researchers around the world the ability to study these precursor cells to every human organ. On Aug. 9, 2001, an executive order from Bush ruled that U.S. laboratories can receive federal funding to study only the 22 embryonic stem cell lines already available. Researchers point out that 22 lines are not enough to work with and besides, all of the lines are contaminated.

See: The Stem Cell Gold Rush


The 2001 Senate Hearing on cloning gives an overview of several pro and con arguments. People arguing for a total ban say any cloning, including stem cell cloning, is disrespectful of human life. Those arguing for therapeutic cloning say there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding cloning, and that the polarization is synthetic. Business and other interests in favor of total deregulation do not present their arguments in hearings or to the public. The 2001 hearing minutes are well worth reading.

See: Senate Hearing on Cloning


The polarization may be orchestrated by corporate interests to prevent consensus and any US cloning ban, and thereby, to keep the industry deregulated.



Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
www.nola.com
www.sfgate.com
www.kansascity.com

[edit on 19-3-2005 by soficrow]

[edit on 19-3-2005 by soficrow]




posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Good Article


I do not know if I like a completely deregulated system as I find Human Cloning to be risky at the best of times, but a total ban would set back this field immensely and would push it underground ensuring that we the people do not have access to this technology. It's a sticky situation, I just hope it doesn't go the way of a total ban.

Maybe this is what Industry wants though as you said a completely deregulated system with no oversight. I do not know what I find more scary, a Total ban or an Anything goes system.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Maybe this is what Industry wants though as you said a completely deregulated system with no oversight. I do not know what I find more scary, a Total ban or an Anything goes system.



Thanks sardion. ...I also am wondering if the focus on stem celles and cloning is working to keep attention away from other genetic engineering.

There's a lot going on in nanotechnology - and cross-overs into genetic engineering on the nano-scale. ...I suspect some truly nasty things might be happening with nanobacteria - yet NONE of this stuff is regulated in any way either.

Any thoughts on this one?


.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Interesting editorial, soficrow, the problem with it, though, is that your analysis of the 'two' different types of cloning is lacking key information.

What you and pro-cloning activists have failed to mention is that many scientists want to create human embryos from scratch for the sake of experimentation (in fact, some scientists overseas have already done this). Those who are trying to distinguish between 'reproductive' and 'therapeutic' cloning have deliberately not told the public that, ultimately, their plans can only suceed if new, original embryos are created for the sake of research.

I also find it strange -- and a bit sad -- that the theme of your editorial seems to be that debate is bad because it prevents the specific standards that you want from being enacted. You speak of 'polarization'.... which is what activists who want only their views to be heard call debate and free thought. Sorry, but the debate over stem cells and cloning is not 'polarized' by people in the US who believe in the dignity and sacredness of human life... it is given more than one 'pole' or side by such people and such debate.

I know that some people who consider materialistic, constructivist, and epicurean models to be normative will simply dismiss my comments as 'partisan' (btw, I'm fascinated by how complaints about partisanship only appears when something other than doctrinal liberalism appear around here)... but it's time for ATS readers to take note of the fact that there is more than one side to the cloning and stem cell debates. Many people in the US believe that human life has value in all of its forms. These people cannot be expected to be silent as an industry develops where humans are created for the sole purpose of being used as a commodity for medical research. Complaining about the fact that they are expressing themselves is not enlightened... and it is not fighting ignorance. It is simply complaining about the fact that freedom of speech and more than one political party exists in the United States.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 19-3-2005 by onlyinmydreams]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

Interesting editorial, soficrow, the problem with it, though, is that your analysis of the 'two' different types of cloning is lacking key information.




Hmmm. Editorial? ...Re: key information - I could not possibly cover all the "key" information about cloning - it would take a book. ...I provided a few links, which lead to other links... and those who want to know more can search.






I also find it strange -- and a bit sad -- that the theme of your editorial seems to be that debate is bad because it prevents the specific standards that you want from being enacted.





This is not an editorial. It is a news report about a bill before Congress. I don't imply or say debate is bad - and would never do so.

I believe standards are required - and that a synthetic orchestrated polarization is preventing any legislation from being passed.





You speak of 'polarization'.... which is what activists who want only their views to be heard call debate and free thought. Sorry, but the debate over stem cells and cloning is not 'polarized' by people in the US who believe in the dignity and sacredness of human life...




If you actually read the articles referenced, you will learn that the key polarization is now conservative against conservative.





but it's time for ATS readers to take note of the fact that there is more than one side to the cloning and stem cell debates.




Exactly what I'm saying.






Many people in the US believe that human life has value in all of its forms. ...Complaining about the fact that they are expressing themselves is not enlightened... and it is not fighting ignorance. It is simply complaining about the fact that freedom of speech and more than one political party exists in the United States.



Hmmm. I think you need to reread the article.

KEY sentence: "Business and other interests in favor of total deregulation do not present their arguments in hearings or to the public."

The point: A well-funded contingent wants complete deregulation - they are NOT out front and center with their arguments - they're hiding in the shadows, pulling strings. ...and it's their agenda that's winning out.


.




top topics
 
0

log in

join