Cloning human beings?

Colin A. B. Davidson c.davidson at biotech.cam.ac.uk
Mon Feb 12 03:46:00 EST 2001

"Janu" <janubas at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A848D35.CF396C94 at yahoo.com...
> > Ahh, but you avoid my question. Do you actually accept that this is a
> > appropriate question?
> I agree that there is a great difference between reproductive cloning and
> cloning of embryonic cells. My first question focused on human cloning in
> general. Yes, the question you suggested is more appropriate and clearer.
> However I think this question should be reformulated. Due the moral gap
> both cloning applications, I would rather avoid generalisation.

But in doing so you end up with a question that is of little value, and
indeed fall into the trap of having one big generalisation to aqvoid a small

> >No one is advocating cloning 'human beings'. There's a big moral
> >between reproductive cloning and the cloning of embryonic cells. The
> >is not a step that anyone considers neccesary, the latter is the most
> >avenue open to us to treat/research a range of conditions, most
> >neurodegenerative disorders. You seek to put a break on such research,
> >delaying any possible treatments and condemning people in the future to
> >unneccesary suffering.
> No, I don't. Cloning of embryonic cells (as far as time restrictions are
> respected) is for me acceptable. Reproductive cloning should be tested on
> animals first, but I wouldn't prohibit research in this area as well. I
> cloning should, in all aspects, be allowed, yet it should be strictly
ruled and
> controlled.

In which case I don't think that our two positions differ greatly, except
that I don't accept that human reproductive cloning should be allowed right
now. I can see arguments in favour of some work in that direction (e.g., to
ensure that kids aren't born with terrible debilitating conditions).

More information about the Microbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net