Prime example of university-based research that’s proposed
It is currently under review by the university’s Ethics Review Board.
I hope that the Bush Administration would lay off trying to impose ethical standards regarding stem cell research.
Prime example of university-based research that’s proposed
It is currently under review by the university’s Ethics Review Board.
I hope that the Bush Administration would lay off trying to impose ethical standards regarding stem cell research.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bush simply prohibit more FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research? He didn’t BAN IT OUTRIGHT. If so, then I FULLY support him in this case, though for totally different reasons–the government shouldn’t be involved in any scientific research unrelated to the military.
^^ That’s correct; the research itself is not banned as many people seem to think.
I don’t see any ethical issues with cloning as such; you are basically just creating a younger identical twin of someone. Currently, however, animal clones have very high rates of birth defects so I think cloning a human would be unethical because you would knowingly be creating a person with a high likelyhood of serious defects.
–the government shouldn’t be involved in any scientific research unrelated to the military.
Why do you make this exception? Are you assuming that weapons manufacturing should be done by the government?
Why do you make this exception? Are you assuming that weapons manufacturing should be done by the government?
A government’s job is defense. It has to do everything possible without violation of fundamental rights so that it remains secure. But of course, privately-funded research even in weapons is more succesful and economical that government-funded research. A good example would be Wright Brothers vs Samuel Langley.
Why do you make this exception? Are you assuming that weapons manufacturing should be done by the government?
Manufacturing, no, but possibly providing upfront funds for research into new weapons. That’s my take anyway.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bush simply prohibit more FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research? He didn’t BAN IT OUTRIGHT. If so, then I FULLY support him in this case, though for totally different reasons–the government shouldn’t be involved in any scientific research unrelated to the military.
Pretty much how I understand it. 
Manufacturing, no, but possibly providing upfront funds for research into new weapons. That’s my take anyway.
I don’t see why that’s consistent with the proper function of government. Research into improving efficiency of weapons, designing drones that can fly longer or are less detectable, better body armor, are all things that private industry can and properly should engage in. If some John Galt person out there recognises a potential way to build a bunker-busting bomb that digs 3 miles down, then by jove he should take the risk and develop that weapon (paying the price if he’s wrong, reaping the rewards if he’s right).
Government does need weapons to be able to enforce laws, but the folks enforcing those laws also need food and housing. That fact doesn’t thereby legitimize government subsidizing research into better food and housing.
What happens if the government wants some new weapon that does not yet exist, will cost an enormous amount to develop, there might be very few customers for (eg our govt and a few allies), and there is no guarantee how many they will buy? What happens if every private company says “forget it, we’re not willing to take such a big risk on something so speculative”? I don’t see anything wrong with paying for the development of the weapon in stages. Similar things happen all the time on the open market. If I want a house custom-built, I hire a company and pay them in stages as they do the work.
edit: forgot to add an example: Do you think the atomic bomb would have been developed by some private company just on the potential that someone might want to buy it? I can’t really see that as a sensible business decision.
Well,
As I understand the case to be these days, I think full-fledged human cloning is NOT a moral option right now.
Judging by previous experiments, we cannot be reasonably sure that the cloned babies will not die a horrible death within a few months, or years. Accelerated rate of aging, increased chances of genetic diseases - all make the cloning of an actual human being impossible in the short range.
(Correct me if I’m wrong here, I’m no scientist).
Embryos is a different matter, providing they are never developed into thinking beings.
Well,
As I understand the case to be these days, I think full-fledged human cloning is NOT a moral option right now.
Judging by previous experiments, we cannot be reasonably sure that the cloned babies will not die a horrible death within a few months, or years. Accelerated rate of aging, increased chances of genetic diseases - all make the cloning of an actual human being impossible in the short range.
(Correct me if I’m wrong here, I’m no scientist).
Embryos is a different matter, providing they are never developed into thinking beings.
That’s why they call it bleeding edge research. Check out how long the first dozen organ transplant recipients lived.
But the early organ transplants were done on existing people who would have likely died soon anyway. Cloning is not similar at all.