Here is something on the sinterface between science and religion.
Kyla Dunn, the author of The Atlantic's June cover story, talks about the
state of therapeutic-cloning research and why it should not be banned
s scientific advances bring cloning out of the realm of science fiction and
into the domain of medical reality, concern is growing about what the
possible implications will be. Tinkering with human DNA, many fear, amounts
to playing Godˇand it could have disastrous consequences. Will experiments
gone awry result in deformed human beings? Will people replicate themselves
for egomaniacal reasons? Will the concept of human identity drastically
change? "Life is a creation, not a commodity," President Bush argued last
month in a speech before Congress, and as such, he emphasized, it should not
be manufactured through cloning as though it were some kind of specialty
But many also argue that an important distinction needs to be recognized
between "reproductive cloning," in which the goal is the creation of a
full-fledged human being, and "therapeutic cloning," in which the goal is
the creation of a several-day-old embryo from which undifferentiated stem
cells can be harvested and potentially used to cure a variety of devastating
diseases. Those who believe that human life begins with the very existence
of an embryo cannot countenance a procedure that involves an embryo's
creation and destruction, even at a very early stage. But those who believe
that human life does not begin at least until an embryo's cells have begun
to differentiate themselves into distinctly human tissues feel that
prohibiting such researchˇwhich could save the lives of many people with
cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other
illnessesˇwould in itself be reprehensible and disrespectful of human life.
Read the rest of the article at
name="Atlantic Unbound Interviews 2002.05.22.url"
filename="Atlantic Unbound Interviews 2002.05.22.url"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 31 2002 - 12:40:17 EDT