FC: More on Feds, Raelian cloning lab, and trying to stifle research

[Declan McCullagh]

I encourage folks on this mini-discussion thread to copy 
cypherpunks at 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