----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: new interpretive perspectives?


> 1. I did *not* say "every politician was wrong." I said "every politician
> I've heard so far."
>
> 2. JF has the science wrong as well. JF wrote "the cells that are used to
> clone humans
> with come from a fertilized embryo." In this case the cells used to clone
> were human epithelia cells, skin from one of the scientists at the lab
where
> this was done. I believe he is a paraplegic and is interested in growing
> nerve cells.
>
> 3. I said nothing about "right" or "wrong" science, I just said that Bush
> the Dubyah *got* the science wrong, same as JF.
>
> Steven

I like to read letters to the editor because I can often begin to get a
brief analysis of the important issues of the day, as well as different
informed opinions.

One obvious failure in Steven's opinions appears to be a lack of
information. An informed opinion is much more important than one which is
uninformed.

Now that you have acknowledged that there are some politicians who have the
science right, could you possibly identify these politicians? If not, then I
guess it is possible to assume that every politician you have heard has the
science wrong....

Which begs the question about why politicians are important in matters of
science and policy? That is a big question. If they are uninformed as you
say, then may be the issue is not one that can be solved by politicians, but
rather by experts....

You are correct about the use of 'differentiated  cells'. This is a recent
development, I used the term 'ground' cells to describe the 'stem cells'
which have been used.

Moreover, is it possible to have the 'science wrong'? I think not.  The
reason is that science is science. You still have not provided any analysis
about the topic of cloning. Instead you have focussed on providing an
unqualified opinion. You may be correct, or incorrect, and someone who knows
nothing about the topic will remain totally uninformed.

Like many issues, genetic engineering and cloning involve risks. Some of
those risks involve possible irreversible effects. Other risks can be
reversed, and damage to environmental quality and organisms corrected, or
mitigated somehow.

Like many other risks, it is not justifiable to intentionally use a
technology knowing of the possible harm that the technology may involve.
There is no excuse that can be used to allow intentional harm. The common
practice is to test out the technology both in a laboratory setting, as well
as in theory. It is illegal and immoral to use genetic engineering and
cloning of humans. There are many arguments, and value systems which make
cloning and genetic engineering of humans a form of malpractice. There are
some 'grey areas' such as the use of human clones (without heads) for the
purposes of organ farms. These humans would be genetically altered so as to
remove most of the brain or head. These would be female clones, and used for
the purpose of growing human organs, and fetuses.

From a purely materialistic point of view, the  practice of cloning humans
appears to be humane and highly ethical. It is also possibly highly
profitable. So in theory the practice appears to be of value. There would be
less risk of disease transmission as is the case with donated organs, etc.,
and reduced rejection.

I think that everyone would agree that the science has to be right,
feasible, prior to the technology becoming an ethical issue. Certainly
Einstein and others were full of good faith and charity when they worked on
the first practical use of atomic theories; but those days of 'naiviety' are
long past.

Science itself is not value...



chao

john foster