SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 1:26:14 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
I agree with all your points and cannot find anything to argue with.



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 1:34:15 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Goodness, what can we argue about Karen???!!! <VBG>



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 1:42:04 PM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Uh oh, nothing to box about.



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 1:52:07 PM
From: hobo  Respond to of 82486
 
in Re: your posted views:

You should volunteer for this...

wirednews.com

(You)2

Human cloning has always been frightening, seductive - and completely out of reach. Not anymore.

By Brian Alexander

In four hours, the Creator will ask me for $100,000 to help finance the cloning of a dead man. But by then, he'll have swallowed too much alcohol, driven us recklessly around the city in his sports car, and tried and failed to pick up a waitress. So I'll be accustomed to a little flamboyance from him, and his strange request will seem like ordinary conversation.

Right now, though, we're just starting dinner when he spells out his desire to be the first scientist in history to clone a human being. "This will be the biggest leap for mankind," he says. "It is the central core of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, the promise of eternal life!" The Creator, an intense, dark-haired man in his thirties, looks a little like Peter Lorre in The Beast With Five Fingers when he says this, so I have to remind myself that he's not a nut. He's a real scientist, a pretty good one, too, with a PhD in molecular biology, a list of peer-reviewed publications, and a research job at a big-name university. (Where, he says, he would be fired instantly if he went public with his human-cloning plans - hence his demand to remain anonymous.) The Creator conducts research on a protein that he was the first to identify, one that could have a tremendous impact on cardiovascular disease.

Tonight, he's not thinking about this work. Tonight, he's excited - thrilled, really - by the prospect of cloning a person. "This is the easiest thing you can do! You just get the damn nucleus, and put this damn nucleus into this enucleated oocyte, and pray to God something happens, and put it back into the surrogate mother, and wait. The easiest thing we could do right now, believe me, is to damn clone a human being!"

Other scientists have told me similar things, so I know it's plausible. Still, I'm skeptical that the Creator will get there first, because he's sounding a little too much like Richard Seed with this riff, too evangelistic and frenzied. Seed, you'll recall, was the retired veterinarian and physics PhD who gained brief notoriety in early 1998 by declaring his intention to clone humans and make us one with God, like so many seraphim.

Unlike Seed, the Creator has some of the skills necessary for cloning a human - namely, an advanced knowledge of cell biology and the ability to cultivate cells. He has never worked in cloning, but he has spent a great deal of time thinking about it. As a postdoc in 1990, long before the 1996 birth of Dolly the sheep - the first clone of an adult mammal - he correctly visualized how to remove the biggest obstacle to adult cloning: getting cells to revert to an embryonic state. His idea was to force cells into a kind of stasis before injecting them into eggs - the technique eventually adopted by Dolly's scientists. Davor Solter, a renowned cell biologist then at Philadelphia's Wistar Institute, tried to pull off such a reversion in the early 1980s, failed, and declared it impossible. The Creator tells me he knew Solter was wrong and tried to convince other researchers to take him into their labs. "They did not believe me because they had a paper by the very well-established scientist Davor Solter," he laments, "and who the hell was I?"

He reaches over his plate of shrimp to hand me a copy of his old research proposal, along with the polite brush-offs he got in response. This is proof, he says, that he was the real visionary all along. Now he wants his moment.

The Client may give him a chance to seize it. A businessman living in Western Europe, the Client lost his son to disease more than a year ago, but he had the foresight to keep tissue samples from the body. Following leads picked up from the human-cloning underground - an evolving worldwide network of people who communicate mostly online and who desperately want to see cloning happen - the Client contacted animal-cloning scientists to learn how these tissues should be preserved to yield usable cells when the time comes. Based on the experts' advice, he had tissue stored in both liquid nitrogen and paraffin blocks. Then the Client cruised the underground until he found the Creator.

When I call the Client, he's angry because he thinks the Creator revealed his name to me. He's obsessed with staying in the shadows, so I have to assure him several times that I found his name another way, and that I'll protect his identity. Eventually he confirms that, yes, "there is a plan. We are definitely going to proceed. We intend to go ahead. We are literally going to have our son back."

The plan goes like this: The Creator and the Client will fly to an in-vitro fertilization lab in one of Asia's largest cities, in a country that has no legal ban against cloning humans. The Creator says the lab's director is on board, and is skilled in the handling of human eggs and the IVF manipulations that closely resemble those used in cloning. The procedure will work like so: Nuclei will be taken out of eggs obtained from the clinic's regular donors. Then, in a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, the son's cells will be injected into the eggs. The eggs and cells will be fused together, and then the eggs will be activated to begin cell division. These embryos will be implanted into five to ten surrogate mothers in the hope that an egg will take hold and develop into a clone of the Client's son.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Alexander (alxander@pacbell.net) wrote about DNA microarrays in Wired 8.06.

Page 2 >>

there is more on Page 2 (actually... 10 pages)

wirednews.com

<snip>

The Creator's spirit has been awakened by the historical moment we're in right now, a convergence of under-the-radar pro-cloning agitation, falling taboos, and the inexorable march of science. These spheres are overlapping so neatly that "human cloning could be done tomorrow," says Alan Trounson, an animal cloner and IVF clinician at Australia's Monash University.

Many animal cloners and in vitro fertilization experts are certain that a human has already been cloned in secret.



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 2:21:19 PM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
<<The practice of abortion can be expected to naturally subside over time through technology, availability of birth control,...>>

I want to mention, as an aside, re birth control, that the GWB executive order re foreign aid funds "for abortion" isn't really that, though it has been repeatedly referred to as that in the media.

It is to cease funding, at all, any organization that, as one service among others (maternal prenatal care, well-baby clinics, birth control...), offers abortion counseling. (Not just abortion; abortion "counseling.")

I see an item in the abortion category we may actually have some disagreement about:

You say:

<<and the consciousness raising of those who are cavalier about abortions.>>

And I'm thinking that consciousness raising is the only deterrent you would consider for ending late term abortions.

And I think late term abortions are infanticide.

Infanticide is an issue that, like all issues, can be discussed, of course. But I don't think it's fair to call infanticide "abortion" because it's ideologically convenient to obscure the distinction between embryos, fetuses, and infants.

I mean, of course, those differences that don't fall in the category "In" or "Out" of womb.



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 2:51:26 PM
From: YlangYlangBreeze  Respond to of 82486
 
It's my husband's Birthday. I hate to miss all the good stuff. I am bookmarking your post.



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)1/27/2001 4:40:14 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
Bland will weigh in here on a few:

Abortion: Bland cannot personally escape the notion that at some point in aborting a fetus, you are killing a sentient being. At some point, it's just not simply the woman's body alone. Abortion on demand is tantamount to the right to destroy a living being based on personal choice and convenience. Bland doesn't feel there's any honest way to escape that conclusion. That said, he believes there are circumstances and situations when abortion is necessary. He doesn't believe abortion should be illegal. He does feel it shouldn't be candied over with euphemisms and dubitable slogans. It certainly shouldn't be actively encouraged simply for the sake of politics. On a purely practical political level, he believes the Republican Party should place abortion on the back burner. It is not a winning issue for them at this stage in our nation's history.

Gun control: Personally, bland has never owned a weapon of any sort, and is unlikely ever to. The only possible reason he might would be if he felt it was truly necessary in order to protect his family (bland is currently a bachelor, but has been married twice). If push came to shove, bland would want the right to protect those he loves. If he felt it was necessary, he would even be willing to go as far as breaking the law to do so. In short, bland believes in the right to bear arms. But he does not believe in the right to bear tactical nuclear missiles, armoured personnel carriers, hand grenades, or other military type weapons. Bland believes automatic weapons should be restricted. Common citizens do not need machine guns. They do not need the ability to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible period of time.

Affirmative Action: Bland believes in equal pay and equal opportunity. He does not believe in affirmative action.

Sexual harassment: Bland typically does not tell dirty jokes, but in today's working environment, he is often leery of telling jokes of any kind whatsoever, even to people he has worked with for several years. Some reality needs to be introduced into this particular debate. Bland has heard of an individual from the south being terminated from a bank in Connecticut for repeatedly using "ma'am" when addressing an evidently rather too damn touchy female. Twenty years ago, bland commonly dated women he worked with. Now he is afraid to look at them. At the same time, employees feel they have the right to have their radios blaring jokes and comments about oral sex, etc., by obnoxious disc jockeys. Bland remembers once sitting in a prospective jurors waiting room listening to a judge giving a very serious and grave speech about the law and the responsibility of the public in serving their role as jurors in the judicial system. The judge was standing beside a television set that prospective jurors watched while waiting to be called. It so happened there was a soap opera on at that moment depicting a couple rolling around obviously naked in bed. The juxtaposition could not have more stark and incongruous. Bland doubts anyone heard what the judge had to say.

Drugs: Personally, bland does not use recreational drugs, although he tried them as a teenager. His experience at that time was that there was a great deal of social pressure exerted on all kids by their peers to participate in drug use or be ostracized. For that reason, and numerous others, he feels it's inaccurate to describe recreational drug use as a victimless crime. Bland does believe the laws should be revised and common everyday marijuana smokers should not be put in prison. But he doesn't believe it should be legalized either. For one, he believes employers should have the right to require drug testing for prospective employees...this does matter, it can and does have an impact on performance in the workplace.

Defense: Bland is in favor of a strong, modern, effective defense. That is government's primary responsibility to its citizens (in tandem with law and order).

Haircuts: Bland wore shoulder length hair as a teen, but now tries to keep it above his collar and ears. With that in mind, he must curtail his comments on any other issues at this time and cruise past the neighborhood Supercuts to see how the line is doing...



To: Lane3 who wrote (3638)11/11/2003 7:32:26 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Sorry for responding to such an old message (almost 3 years old). Since it is old I'll refrain from commenting on most of it and just ask one question.

The argument that people need to own guns anonymously to protect the citizenry from a government run amok, in the day and age of nuclear missiles, is easily dismissed.

Why do you think it is so easily dismissed?

Tim