Posted on 05/17/2007 7:58:14 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
THE way was cleared today for scientists to conduct experiments using hybrid animal-human embryos after the UK Government bowed to a storm of protest from researchers who said a proposed ban could hurt British science.
The Department of Health said it would accept a recommendation from the Commons Science and Technology Committee that inter-species embryos could be created for research.
Scientists want to use the hybrid embryos to find cures for illnesses such as Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's.
In December, the Government had proposed a ban on creating the hybrid embryos, due to what it called "considerable public unease," with the door left open for later regulations that could allow such research under licence.
The change comes after sustained pressure from scientists and politicians who argued the hybrid embryos would help overcome a shortage of human eggs for research.
Researchers currently rely on human eggs left over from fertility treatments, but these are in short supply.
The hybrid embryos, which would be destroyed within 14 days, would be more than 99 per cent human but would contain a small amount of animal DNA.
Scientists say that any imposition of a ban would see research in other countries, such as China and Canada, overtake Britain.
The Government made its announcement as it published its draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill.
The draft legislation as written still bars the creation of inter-species embryos, with the Government leaving it to a committee of MPs due to scrutinise the Bill to find the best way of allowing the research.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Paging Dr. Linebarger............(a.k.a. Mr. Smith)
Without feeling the need to use any of the nastyisms that you almost felt compelled to use, here I present my rebuttal...
Its only ‘immoral’ if you take a religious viewpoint. Delving into theology a little, as I think it has relevance, what could ‘God’ or whoever hold against the prospect of increasing our life spans and improving the quality of life for ourselves and other around us? If he is the kind and understanding benefactor of us all, then he would understand what we are trying to do.
These aren’t people yet, they are DNA constructs, not even that. Its the raw material that we grow from.
I trust that as you have such a strong moral conviction on this matter that you will refrain from any medical science that has been tested in such a manner? Thats going to leave you with a hell of alot of placebo’s and mysticism. Faith does not cure diseases, medical science on the other hand, has proven to.
I suppose its the argument between the scientist and the theologist. I would rather have cures for disease, and deal with the repercussions later, than not progress as a species.
In all good conscience I find your argument baffling, and in the end, self defeating for us all.
;)
“Faith does not cure diseases, medical science on the other hand, has proven to.”
There is no proof that faith does not cure. There are many, many doctors who can document miracle cures that can be attributed to nothing but faith.
You have presumed that I am ignorant in medical matters solely because I cannot justify the creation of a part-human for experimental purposes.
And, I submit that the ONLY reason they suggest a non-human component is to attempt to destigmatize the moral notion that men should not aspire to be divine.
Indeed, a pure human that has been aborted would be a better choice. If you have no moral compunction to protect a creature that is even part human, why not destroy one that is all human?
If you don’t see the slippery slope, some near-perfect grandchild of your own could be in line for research.
The creation of transgenics and chimerics involves the manipulation of a living human embryo who is the genetic offspring of human parents, which in 10 days or so will end in his planned death. This in itself is an act of disrespect for the moral status of an embryonic human being, made quasi-animal by a laboratory process.
The third project, the making a cytoplasmic hybrid, is cloning. Legislation, agreements, and covenants in many countries as well as the World Health Organization and the 1997 G7 Summit meeting in the USA put a moratorium on human cloning, although the definitions are conflicting and the enforcement faulty.
My point in mentioning this is that the ethical problems that have been raised did not come from the science-illiterate "man in the street," but from people at the highest levels of research, international law and human rights.
I'm sure a lot of interesting experiments could be done with sheep-pig chimeras, chimp-dog trnsgenics, or babboon cytoplasmic clones.; and nobody (except maybe Jeremy Rifkin) would have any objection.
But it is a basic ethical principle that human lives at any stage should not be treated as nonconsenting experimental subjects.
But what is the significance of this? Perhaps they think that killing the clones early is morally preferable to letting them grow to a more mature stage; but why? They are drawing a moral line, it seems to me, without a moral basis.
A man who is prepared to insult is generally one who is not prepared to argue.
Chimeras huh?
These Brits are stuck in mythology.
Someone should remind them about what happened at Sodom City. They are really pushing the Big Guy’s buttons.
Sick, evil, suicidal, vicious - there aren’t words that described this.
Will do pingthing later, thanks for alerting me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.