Hi Burgy,
Your question, posed a couple of weeks ago, was prescient. Now we
have all heard of Dr. Antinori's claim of an 8-week pregnancy. The
information I have heard, however, makes it unclear if this was actually the
result of a reproductive cloning attempt. I pray not.
Your question is a difficult one to answer. Are all efforts to
block misuse of science doomed to failure? It depends on your standard of
success. I would argue that an international ban on reproductive human
cloning (which is currently being considered by the UN) should provide a
major deterrent -- but it will not be 100% effective in stopping those few
kooks who decide to proceed anyway. Still, I think the mandate is very
strong to do the best we can to prevent such outcomes, and punish the kooks,
when real human suffering is involved -- as will be the case with human
cloning.
Francis
-----Original Message-----
From: John (Burgy) Burgeson [mailto:hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:01 PM
To: Collins, Francis (NHGRI)
Subject: RE: GENETICS
>> I AGREE WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT
>> REPRODUCTIVE HUMAN CLONING SHOULD BE BANNED. >>
If I may, I'd like to pick up on this one. I suppose I would count myself
as one who believes that reproductive human cloning is a bad idea and ought
to be discouraged. But being a pragmatist, I don't see that a "ban," i.e. a
State or Federal law against it will do any long term good. All it will do,
I think, is make sure that the human cloning experiments will take place
(probably) somewhere else on the planet earth.
So my question is this: Assume that the US, and most major countries, all
pass legislation criminalizing human cloning. Do you see this as doing
anything more than possibly delaying the accomplishment of such cloning by,
at most, a year or two? Or do you think that delay might be more in the
range of several decades?
John Burgeson (ex-physicist)
>From: "Collins, Francis (NHGRI)" <francisc@exchange.nih.gov>
>To: "'Shuan Rose'" <shuanr@boo.net>, asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: RE: GENETICS
>Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:59:19 -0500
>
>Hello Shuan et al.
> Wow, any one of these questions could occupy many paragraphs. Please
>forgive the brief responses below, which is all that time will currently
>allow.
> Francis
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
>Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:45 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: GENETICS
>
>
>Dear Dr. Collins,
>Greetings and welcome to the ASA listserv! A few questions, if you please:
>
>
>1. How has your study of the human genome added to your understanding of
>relationship between man and the rest of creation
>THE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DNA, HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN, ADDS FURTHER CONFIDENCE
>TO THE RELATEDNESS OF ALL LIVING ORGANISMS. I AM BOTH AMAZED AT THE
>INTRICACY OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS, AND AWED BY GOD'S PLAN IN CREATING
>THROUGH THIS MECHANISM.
>
>2. A famous scientist (Richard Dawkins) once wrote:
>
>DNA doesn't care. DNA just is -and we dance to its music ( River Out of
>Eden, in the Chapter, "God's Utility Function".)
>Would you agree that our genes determine not only our physiology, but our
>conduct. NOT AT ALL! DAWKINS OVERPLAYS THE GENETIC DETERMINISM CARD TO A
>RIDICULOUS EXTREME. CERTAINLY THERE ARE INHERITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO
>PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR, BUT ANYONE WHO HAS GOTTEN TO KNOW IDENTICAL TWINS
>VERY WELL CAN TELL YOU THERE IS A LOT MORE TO CONDUCT THAN THAT. THE
>KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENOME WILL NOT TELL US VERY MUCH ABOUT LOVE. IT WILL NOT
>ABOLISH FREE WILL. AND IT WILL ONLY INCREASE OUR NEED FOR GOD.
>
>3.What in your view should be the Christian position on stem cell research
>and why? REASONABLE PEOPLE OF SINCERE FAITH WILL DISAGREE ON THIS, SO
>PERHAPS IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO PROPOSE A "CHRISTIAN POSITION". IT IS A
>MATTER OF TRYING TO ASSESS THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEGATIVES (KILLING A
>HUMAN EMBRYO, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT MOST LIKELY THIS AN EMBRYO ALREADY
>TARGETED FOR DESTRUCTION AFTER IVF) AND THE POSITIVES (THE POSSIBILITY OF
>HEALING TERRIBLE DISEASES, WITHOUT KNOWING IN ADVANCE IF THIS WILL REALLY
>WORK).
>
>4. What in your view should be the Christian position on cloning research
>and why? AGAIN THERE IS UNLIKELY TO BE A "CHRISTIAN POSITION". I AGREE
>WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT REPRODUCTIVE HUMAN
>CLONING SHOULD BE BANNED. BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION OF SOMATIC CELL
>NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SCNT) TO GENERATE SELF-TOLERATED CELLS FOR
TRANSPLANTATION
>PURPOSES HAS BEEN MOSTLY RATHER NAIVE. SHOULD WE HAVE LEAPT SO QUICKLY TO
>THE TERM "EMBRYO" TO REFER TO THE PRODUCT OF THE FUSION OF A NUCLEUS FROM
AN
>ADULT DIFFERENTIATED CELL AND THE CYTOPLASM OF AN OOCYTE? OUR TERMINOLOGY
>HAS DUG HOLES FOR US, AND WE HAVE FALLEN IN. I DON'T SEE WHY THE PRODUCT
>OF SCNT SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO HAVE A SOUL, JUST BECAUSE IT HAS THE POTENTIAL
>(IF IMPLANTED INTO A UTERUS AND SURVIVING A PROCESS WHICH MOSTLY ENDS
BADLY)
>OF BECOMING A PERSON. SUPPOSE WE LEARN WHAT THE PROTEIN AND NON-PROTEIN
>SIGNALS ARE IN OOCYTE CYTOPLASM THAT ALLOW THIS KIND OF DE-DIFFERENTIATION
>OF ANY ADULT CELL NUCLEUS? THEN WOULD NOT ALL OF MY CELLS AND ALL OF YOUR
>CELLS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME NEW HUMAN BEINGS? WOULD WE CONSIDER
THEM
>ENSOULED? THIS REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM ARGUMENT HASN'T BEEN MUCH CONSIDERED.
>
>
>5. Will we be able to bioengineer certain traits, like blond hair and
>intelligence, in our children any time soon? Should we. WE HAVE VERY
>LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE GENES THAT CONTROL SUCH TRAITS AT PRESENT.
>PERHAPS IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS WE WILL LEARN MORE. BUT THE ABILITY TO
>MANIPULATE TRAITS SUCH AS INTELLIGENCE WILL BE VERY POOR, GIVEN THE
>PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. IN MY VIEW, THE USE OF
>GENETIC TECHNOLOGY FOR THESE PURPOSES CROSSES A LINE INTO ENHANCEMENT THAT
>WE SHOULD PONDER LONG AND HARD BEFORE LEAPING.
>
>
>6. I have heard talk that there are "aging" genes that we may one day be
>able to switch off. Is there any truth to that? CERTAINLY IN EXPERIMENTAL
>ANIMALS THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE FOR GENES THAT AFFECT THE AGING PROCESS.
>IT
>WOULD BE SURPRISING IF THE SAME IS NOT TRUE OF HUMANS. IN FACT, RECENT
>STUDIES ON CENTENARIANS POINTS TO A REGION ON CHROMOSOME 4 AS HARBORING
SUCH
>A GENE. WHETHER SUCH AGING GENES WILL BE SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION IS
>ENTIRELY UNKNOWN.
>
>7. Scientists have speculated about humans changing the course of " human
>evolution", i.e. by adapting us to be able to live on non earth planets. Is
>this possible? What should be the Christian response to such ideas?
>STEPHEN HAWKING AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN PUSHING THIS IDEA. BUT CHANGING OUR
>FUNDAMENTAL NATURE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A PROFOUND EFFECT ON OUR
>RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. WOULD WE GO FROM IMAGO DEI TO SOMETHING ELSE?
>
>I apologize to the doctor and the list serv for asking amateurish,
>speculative questions. Frankly , I don't have the expertise to ask the
>technical stuff. I hope the others will do that. Thanks in advance for any
>answers,
>Regards,
>
>Shuan Rose
>2632 N Charles Street,Baltimore MD 21218
>[410]467-2655
>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 19:55:11 EDT