# A false choice between sound science and moral values (stem cells, cloning) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847 "2009-03-09T17:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/21 "2009-03-09T19:42:11Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Because some large fraction of the country would go apeshit if the government sponsored that sort of thing now. > As I said before, Obama’s stand against cloning people prevents the outcry. > On the other hand cloning mammals is still tricky, and you end up with lots of failures and even successes that don’t live as long as their supposed to. There needs to be a significant up side to human cloning before anyone will actually do it and AFAIK, we’re nowhere near having such an up side yet. How will the technology improve if it’s not tested and refined? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/22 "2009-03-09T19:50:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Obama himself is presenting a false choice between science and morality. Induced stem cells are a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells. Induced stem cells also have exactly the same set of moral issues as embryonic ones. If you could really cause a stem cell, from whatever source, to be totipotent, then that stem cell, if placed in the right environment, would eventually become a human being-- a clone, in fact, of the original cell donor. Basically, the argument for using induced stem cells boils down to “Using embryonic stem cells is wrong, and human cloning is wrong, and therefore we should do _both_”. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/23 "2009-03-09T19:57:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How will the technology improve if it’s not tested and refined? That is what cows and chimps are for. Except for a small number of Raelians, there’s not much clamor for human cloning these days. Maybe that’ll change in the future, but right now there’s not much call for improving our ability to clone humans. There’s nothing wrong with that. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/24 "2009-03-09T20:01:38Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Yeah, but if you clone a pig that yields the tastiest bacon, do you really care if it has bad knees? I _want_ to have bad knees, so the tasty bacon can’t run away. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/25 "2009-03-09T20:36:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Induced stem cells also have exactly the same set of moral issues as embryonic ones. No they don’t. For lots of people, the biggest moral dilemma with stem cell research is the source. Ie. Embryos. Using a different source would mean we could debate the morality of the end results, without caring about the means. Few people are going to think it’s immoral to research Parkinson’s Disease using skin cells from a person with Parkinsons. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/26 "2009-03-09T20:38:34Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Using a different source would mean we could debate the morality of the end results, without caring about the means. You said something about a “short term solution” earlier. I may not be up to date on the differences between stem cell types, but since we’re dealing with medicine, isn’t the short term actually very important because we’re talking about people’s lives? How would a short term solution be a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/27 "2009-03-09T20:40:08Z")
> [@](#): > > No they don’t. For lots of people, the biggest moral dilemma with stem cell research is the source. Ie. Embryos. But what makes research on embryos objectionable? The fact that embryos develop into persons. If it were just the source that were the problem, then one could justify any sort of research at all on identical twins, since they have their origins as individuals with an event other than conception. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/28 "2009-03-09T20:45:03Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > No they don’t. For lots of people, the biggest moral dilemma with stem cell research is the source. Ie. Embryos. Induced stem cells are, in a sense, fabricated embryos. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/29 "2009-03-09T21:27:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Induced stem cells are, in a sense, fabricated embryos. Not really. They might be totipotent (i.e. able to generate all cell types), but if you implanted a cluster of iPS cells, I very much doubt you’d get a viable fetus as a result. Conversely, if you implant a thawed blastocyst, you can get a viable fetus. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/30 "2009-03-09T22:58:25Z")
Identical twins are clones in every sense of the word. Therefore, how this form of cloning is immoral is beyond me. Artificially causing a genetic duplicate that does not occur naturally and at the same time in the womb does not strike me as inherently immoral. Creating a life just for parts, or a life that because the technology won’t have its health, is the sort of thing that strikes me as immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/31 "2009-03-09T23:26:30Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > That is what cows and chimps are for. > Except for a small number of Raelians, there’s not much clamor for human cloning these days. Maybe that’ll change in the future, but right now there’s not much call for improving our ability to clone humans. There’s nothing wrong with that. This argument places the conveyance before the equine intended to pull it. There’s not much clamor for human cloning because of a reasonably wide-spread sense that it’s immoral, just plain wrong. I do not agree that there’s nothing about it that promises strides in both general scientific understanding and in curing people. **The Second Stone** correctly observes that identical twins are clones. No one (I assume) takes the position that twins or triplets are immoral. And I am positive that no one on thios board would say that twins and triplets are somehow more “natural” or “God’s will” and therefore to be favored over other cloning. The more conversation I read, the more this sense comes through: we don’t have an “ick” facotr for harvesting stem cells, and we do for human cloning. That’s fine… many decisions are made on that basis. But it’s a lie, in that case, to trumpet our commitment to scientific freedom and discovery when we dismiss the stem cell issue, isn’t it? It’s not about pure science; if it were, then no one would blink at human cloning. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/32 "2009-03-09T23:38:15Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Identical twins are clones in every sense of the word. Therefore, how this form of cloning is immoral is beyond me. Artificially causing a genetic duplicate that does not occur naturally and at the same time in the womb does not strike me as inherently immoral. Creating a life just for parts, or a life that because the technology won’t have its health, is the sort of thing that strikes me as immoral. Right. Being cloned is like having a twin decades younger than yourself. But can you appreciate how this is actually the most pointed moral dilemma associated with cloning? If you’re a child growing up knowing that you’re someone’s clone, that person’s life experience will be a perennial burden on you, imposing all sorts of fears and expectations on you. It would be particularly bizarro if you were the clone of someone famous. _Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status All day long you hear him crying so loud ‘I just wanna be myself I just wanna be myself Be myself, be myself, be myself, be myself’_ ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/33 "2009-03-09T23:55:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **The Second Stone** correctly observes that identical twins are clones. No one (I assume) takes the position that twins or triplets are immoral. And I am positive that no one on thios board would say that twins and triplets are somehow more “natural” or “God’s will” and therefore to be favored over other cloning. > > The more conversation I read, the more this sense comes through: we don’t have an “ick” facotr for harvesting stem cells, and we do for human cloning. That’s fine… many decisions are made on that basis. > > But it’s a lie, in that case, to trumpet our commitment to scientific freedom and discovery when we dismiss the stem cell issue, isn’t it? It’s not about pure science; if it were, then no one would blink at human cloning. We should distinguish between the layperson opposition to cloning and the scientific opposition. The layperson opposition might be opposition to playing god, or from watching too many bad scifi movies. From what I understand, the scientific opposition is due to the fact that any work in this area will inevitably produce real babies, a large proportion of which would be badly damaged, and who would either suffer or die quickly. That’s true today of animal cloning - at least for large mammals. Maybe this will be revisited later, but for the moment there are good ethical reasons not to try to clone humans which have nothing to do with religion or ickiness. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/34 "2009-03-10T00:00:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s not much clamor for human cloning because of a reasonably wide-spread sense that it’s immoral, just plain wrong Well maybe a little of that, and the fact that there’s no profit in it. It doesn’t pay to ignore the market when targeting research dollars. Also, given our nation’s recent dalliance with so called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, it seems a little early to claim that there’s some sort of nationwide and generally accepted moral high ground on stem cell issues. The anti choice crowd is going wild: [Opponents say stem cell reversal leaves too few rules](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/opponents-say-stem-cell-reversal-leaves-too-few-rules-2009-03-09.html) > [@](#): > > [@](#): > > “He’s telling [the National Institutes of Health (NIH)] to write rules, and there’s nothing in his statement that is limited to leftover embryos,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. "It appears he’s opening the door to NIH funding researchers who would deliberately create embryos for the purpose of research. > > “It’s starting to look like he’s basically giving NIH the green light to do whatever they can get away with,” Johnson told The Hill. They should have worked harder this past year, then maybe they’d have had the votes to carry on with their own stem cell agenda. As is, that article is chock full of sour grapes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/35 "2009-03-10T00:23:54Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Right. Being cloned is like having a twin decades younger than yourself. > > But can you appreciate how this is actually the most pointed moral dilemma associated with cloning? If you’re a child growing up knowing that you’re someone’s clone, that person’s life experience will be a perennial burden on you, imposing all sorts of fears and expectations on you. It would be particularly bizarro if you were the clone of someone famous. That same argument can be made now for a not-insubstantial number of father-son and mother-daughter pairs. It’s not a moral argument, it’s an “ick” argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/36 "2009-03-10T00:27:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We should distinguish between the layperson opposition to cloning and the scientific opposition. The layperson opposition might be opposition to playing god, or from watching too many bad scifi movies. From what I understand, the scientific opposition is due to the fact that any work in this area will inevitably produce real babies, a large proportion of which would be badly damaged, and who would either suffer or die quickly. That’s true today of animal cloning - at least for large mammals. Maybe this will be revisited later, but for the moment there are good ethical reasons not to try to clone humans which have nothing to do with religion or ickiness. Really? If we’re producing clones, and we agree that science will control our analysis here, is there some reason to adhere to the “instant it’s born it’s a human being; an instant before, it’s not” model? Why would the suffering and death of those babies be a big deal, especially if we accept that many genetic abnormalities can be detected and treated before birth. But even immediately after birth, is there some scientific reason to not simply terminate the clone’s life if it’s unsatisfactory? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/37 "2009-03-10T00:32:17Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Well maybe a little of that, and the fact that there’s no profit in it. It doesn’t pay to ignore the market when targeting research dollars. If that were the issue, then why prohibit it – why not simply let the market answer the call for cloning research with zero dollars? No, your answer doesn’t make much sense. And it’s not even a fair comparison; at its worst, the prohibition involving stem cells was simply against federal dollars for human embryonic stem cell research. Human cloning is flat-out illegal, no matter who pays for it. > [@](#): > > Also, given our nation’s recent dalliance with so called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, it seems a little early to claim that there’s some sort of nationwide and generally accepted moral high ground on stem cell issues. I don’t follow this argument. Everyone asserting, directly or by implication, that there is a serious, scientific reason to ban human cloning has failed to articulate that reason. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/38 "2009-03-10T00:33:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why would the suffering and death of those babies be a big deal, especially if we accept that many genetic abnormalities can be detected and treated before birth. Because it’s suffering ? > [@Bricker](#): > > But even immediately after birth, is there some scientific reason to not simply terminate the clone’s life if it’s unsatisfactory? Lack of data. We can’t yet be sure that a newborn qualifies as a person yet or not ( even assuming that it’s a neat line, which is unlikely ). > [@Bricker](#): > > Everyone asserting, directly or by implication, that there is a serious, scientific reason to ban human cloning has failed to articulate that reason. And to make it clear, I have no problems ( scientific or ethical ) with human cloning as such; I just think the technology isn’t ready yet. I’d also have no problems with the cloning brainless bodies for organ transplants idea, which often gets thrown out as an anti-cloning argument as if it was a **bad** thing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/39 "2009-03-10T00:43:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? > > If we’re producing clones, and we agree that science will control our analysis here, is there some reason to adhere to the “instant it’s born it’s a human being; an instant before, it’s not” model? Why would the suffering and death of those babies be a big deal, especially if we accept that many genetic abnormalities can be detected and treated before birth. But even immediately after birth, is there some scientific reason to not simply terminate the clone’s life if it’s unsatisfactory? I’m not involved in the ethical debate, I’ve just read about it. I suspect people make an ethical distinction between accidental conception or the discovery of defects and the deliberate creation of children with a high percentage of defects. If all the problems could be found before implantation, I think the story would be different, but a high percentage of animal clones now have problems, so that is beyond us. I don’t know what percentage of viable births would make this acceptable - I assume it would be at least a high as the natural percentage, if not higher. Not just here, but there is seldom any good and ethical reason to do human studies before animal studies are finished and point to a good chance of human studies being successful. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847/40 "2009-03-10T00:45:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? > > If we’re producing clones, and we agree that science will control our analysis here, is there some reason to adhere to the “instant it’s born it’s a human being; an instant before, it’s not” model? Why would the suffering and death of those babies be a big deal, especially if we accept that many genetic abnormalities can be detected and treated before birth. But even immediately after birth, is there some scientific reason to not simply terminate the clone’s life if it’s unsatisfactory? Why would we adopt that model for clones instead of the model we use for every other human–that is, the viability model set forth in Roe v. Wade? If human clones were created, they would be every bit as human as you or me (failing some deliberate engineering to create them, for example, without a frontal lobe). Exactly the same laws ought to apply to them as to every other human being. Deliberately engaging in activities that have a very high chance of producing tremendous suffering? Laws against cloning address exactly this issue; and that’s an excellent reason to create a law. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-false-choice-between-sound-science-and-moral-values-stem-cells-cloning/488847.md?page=3)