LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  November 2001

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE November 2001

Subject:

Re: cloning ethics

From:

NEWMAN STUART <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:41:46 -0500

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (199 lines) , Boston Globe cloning.pdf (199 lines)

Colleagues:

I disagree with Leon Wofsy about the cloning issue.  I was one of the
pro-choice progressives who urged the House to support HR 1644, banning both
experimental ("therapeutic") and full-term ("reproductive") cloning.  The
other was Judy Norsigian of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, one
of the authors of "Our Bodies Ourselves."  There was not one word in the
House billabout the embryo being considered a human being.

Since there are already scientists, physicians, and others advocating
full-term cloning (including Lee Silver at Princeton and Gregory Stock at
UCLA) the only way Congress could prevent full-term clones once embryo
clones were permitted would be to pass laws restricting women's reproductive
autonomy (i.e., these things exist legally but you are prohibited from
carrying them to term; or, you have implanted something illegal to
implant--you are required to terminate the pregnancy; or, you have carried
it to term so you must go to jail).  In the absence of such laws we will
have full-term clones among us before long, as well as quasi-human
experimental organisms.

Some of our reasoning can be found in our Congressional testimonies:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06202001Hearing291/Norsignian45
5.htm
<http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06202001Hearing291/Norsignian4
55.htm>


http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06202001Hearing291/Newman453pri
nt.htm
<http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06202001Hearing291/Newman453pr
int.htm>

a Boston Globe op-ed (see below), and at the website of the Council for
Responsible Genetics:

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/embryo/embryo.html
<http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/embryo/embryo.html>

Being pro-choice doesn't require endorsing a market in human eggs and
laboratory-grown human embryos.

Stuart

***********************************************
Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D.
Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy
Basic Science Building
New York Medical College
Valhalla, NY 10595

Tel:  (914) 594-4048
Fax: (914) 594-4653
E-mail: [log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Wofsy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: cloning ethics


This week's announcement of the Massachusetts cloning experiments has set
off a clamor for the Senate to pass the same banning legislation that the
House passed last July, 265-162. This seems to be the main consequence of
the report, although the publicity may also bring large sums of investment
capital to the company despite its essentially negative results.

I'm against the banning legislation. A group of progressives supported the
ban as passed by the House and they sharply criticized the 162 who voted
"No".  This group is properly concerned with the misuse of "new human
genetic technologies" to pursue eugenics through germ line genetic
engineering. However, a ban will not resolve such issues. What the House and
proposed Senate action does is curb stem cell research and grant something
that anti-choice fundamentalists have wanted desperately: to establish by
legislative fiat that a fertilized egg is a living human being.

The day after the Massachusetts story, George W. Bush weighed in again with
the demand that the Senate join the House to protect life. He also
forcefully reaffirmed his plan for military tribunals and repeated that
Afghanistan is only the beginning in the "global war".


What follows is a comment written at the time of the House action:

"A STRONG ETHICAL STATEMENT" BY THE HOUSE?


Leon Wofsy  http://homepage.mac.com/leonwofsy

George W. Bush, July 30, 2001: "Today's overwhelming and bipartisan House
action to prohibit human cloning is a strong ethical statement, which I
commend. We must advance the promise and cause of science, but must do so in
a way that honors and respects life."

Progressives who organized to sound the alarm about the dangers of
"techno-eugenics" have made the campaign for a ban on human cloning the
centerpiece of their effort. Bulletin #3 of the Exploratory Initiative on
the New Human Genetic Technologies (available from [log in to unmask]) sees the
House vote to ban human cloning and clonal embryo research as "a clouded
victory."  The Bulletin offers no objection to the House's action. The
"cloud" is simply that most liberals in Congress showed "little
understanding of the issues" and voted the "wrong" way against the GOP bill.

In my view, a "cloud" hangs over deeper problems and dilemmas that deserve
serious thought and debate.

First, an obvious fact should be acknowledged. Those who voted in the
minority are as opposed to cloning human beings as the pious Republican
majority. Very few people could be found anywhere who would regard that
prospect as anything but an abomination. So why are we not all joining
George W. in celebration of the House vote?

There are several questions to ask about the proposed Congressional ban on
cloning. If the ban becomes law, what is accomplished? Why does the issue of
human cloning loom so large? How does it relate to the critical ethical
problems affecting public health and medical research? How should society
deal with the new genetic technologies?


It's an illusion to think that the House's action, and Bush's support for
it, will do anything to mitigate problems associated with "techno-eugenics".
Huge profits drive the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
Anointing test tube embryos and stem cells with a symbolic "right-to-life"
does not disturb that reality. The gospel of George W. Bush and most of
Congress remains unchanged:  "What's good for big business is good for the
country." The race to patent genes and cell lines will be unabated, the
fleecing of the public through exorbitant prices for drugs and medical care
will continue, the health needs of the poor at home and abroad will be
rejected in favor of market considerations.

For politicians of the Christian Right, the public's revulsion at the idea
of cloning humans is an opportunity to advance the idea that the overriding
moral issue of modern times is the sanctity of the fertilized egg.  For
progressives who have focused on human cloning, it symbolizes the danger of
a new eugenics spawned by the unrestrained merger of molecular genetics and
biotechnology.

There are sound reasons for condemning attempts to clone humans and
experiments that involve germ line genetic engineering (i.e. altering genes
that are passed on by reproduction to succeeding generations). Such
experiments on humans are unconscionable, not least of all because they are
terribly unsafe and unpredictable. This is not simply a matter of technique,
but of the enormous uncertainty about how inserted genes will interact with
other genes, how they will alter a highly complex biological environment,
and what the consequences may be for subsequent generations. A few
charlatans will ignore any restraints and pursue their demonic gamble
somewhere in the world. That sorry prospect does not justify exaggerated
alarms that "techno-eugenics" has the potential to change the course of
human evolution. In fact when progressives speak in such terms, they give
credence to the extreme hype by advocates of eugenics, including a few
famous scientists, who tout a mythical future run by genetically engineered
super humans.

The House majority --and the Pope-- deliberately link human cloning and
embryonic stem cell research in furtherance of a religious monopoly over all
matters related to human reproduction. There is no good reason to prohibit
research on stem cells, the cells that have the potential for
differentiating into a variety of cell and organ types. From the study of
stem cells, science may learn more about developmental processes, how they
are influenced by environmental factors, and whether ultimately they can be
directed to serve medically useful purposes.

It is important not to be taken in by the false promise of a cascade of
miraculous cures stemming from detailed knowledge of gene sequences. It is
just as important not to be in denial about the real progress and powerful
potential of biological science and medical research. The need is to make
public interest the main dynamic in health science and technology instead of
the greed of the biomedical complex. That is a tall order. Among other
things, the tone and substance of the debate on medical ethics and morality
needs to be changed. Concerns about experiments on humans, and differing
views on embryo research should and will continue.  But the greatest ethical
issue concerns whether health care is a universal human right, or whether
medical science is governed primarily by the giants of biotechnology,
insurance, and the "health" industry.

Left to its own and the lobbyists' devices, most of Congress would prefer to
pontificate about the ethics of stem cell research while it guts Medicare,
subverts demands for patients' rights, and defends global patent "rights"
that deprive the poor of essential medicines. Nor are bioethicists or most
of the scientific community likely to rise above their own interlocking
associations with the biotech market. That leaves everything up to political
action and education. After all, there was a time when Medicare was won,
when scientists with no conflicting commercial interests guided the
government's investment in biological science. Even in present conditions of
globalization, it has been possible to force pharmaceutical conglomerates to
retreat somewhat from blocking generic anti-AIDS drugs.

Meanwhile, George W.'s praise of the House Bill's "strong ethical statement"
is as credible as his "compassionate conservatism"SSS(PostScript 11/27/01:
or his concern for human life lost in bombing assaults abroad or in
execution chambers at home.)

--


Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager