I encourage folks on this mini-discussion thread to copy cypherpunks@cyberpass.net. I'm taking the liberty of adding it since by copying politech, Nat seemed to intend his message for general distribution. -Declan At 09:59 PM 7/2/01 -0400, Nat wrote:

...

No, it's not. The risk in cloning is that of creating a human being with serious genetic defects, not of injuring existing human beings. This is identical to the risk in "permitting" people with genetic defects to procreate. I'm sure you oppose forced sterilization, which means you think the risk is worth it in one case, and not the other -- for a variety of reasons, perhaps good ones -- but please don't demagogue.

How am I being a demagogue? Tim framed this as an issue of scientific research. Human cloning has yet to be accomplished; any attempts (especially on the scale the Raelians seem to be after) at this date will involve much trial and error (and dead babies). That's entirely different from issues of procreation. It'd be better addressed in this case as one of religious freedom (though I doubt they'd be on stronger ground there either). Perhaps in 20 years this will not be an issue, but right now it's still medical testing on humans.

I refer you to this: Jaenisch, R, and I. Wilmut. Science, Vol. 291, Issue 5513, 2552-2552, March 30, 2001 Ian Wilmut is the creator of Dolly, FYI.

Lastly, as the authors cited point out, it doesn't seem to be possible to tell whether a viable infant cloned mammal will survive till adulthood (in good health). Genetically diseased parents, on the other hand, can have the fetus tested for this disease- and aborted, if necessary. At any rate, at least they know what they're facing.

-Nat