Stem Cell Cloning...

Thoughts?

 

A good decision. Good for medical/scientific research, and also I suspect potentially good for the UK economy long term.

 

And apparantly now a major "issue" in the American elections!

 

Shows how stupid/superstitious the Americans are. The potential of this technology is enormous.

 

split feeling tbh

 

I'd have thought that religion plays a big part in the americans concern about it too. Or is religion covered under the stupid/superstitious subset?

Personally, I'm in favour of conducting research, provided it is done ethically and to appropriate guidelines.

 

i'm very pro this.
why is it that cloning immediately engenders images of fankensteins monster or little german dictators originating from south america. literature has a lot to answer for.
cheers


julian

 

I'm all in favour of it. I do think its potential for curing all sorts of diseases in the relatively near future has been rather hyped up though and is possibly giving some people false expectations. I hear 10 years being bandied about but no one yet has the first clue how to do the re-programming of the cells to make them grow into what they want.

Michael.

 

I think I heard as little as 5 years!!!

 

Twins are good, triplets are better but cloning is best!

I am sure it will be a race between Nanobots and Cloning to see which technology has the biggest impact in the medical field over the next twenty or so years.

Auric

 

I agree here the potential for a lot of untreatable (at the moment) ills is great, so is the abuse of it, very carefull policing of labs is called for here, how long before a synthetic is replicated? 15-20 years or sooner?
Correctly handled this could bring stunning results, if not serious consiquenices could be fatal, if the wrong ethical idiots got hold of it. Playing at being God is no mean feat, we will be judged on our handling of it.

 

Ethics and profit are they a zero sum game?

Those who wish to play God will be a problem, at the moment in time anti-retroviral drugs for adis and hiv suffers are in short supply and someone has to decide who gets them and who does not. The same may well happen with cloning and nano technology.

 

and on a similar theme........

From the NY Times.... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/opinion/25kristof.html)

and the Belgian Blue....

 

ohhh is that a knee i see jerking? i refer you to my earlier post in this thread. this kind of 'speculation' as fact reporting makes me want to vomit. perhaps if they took their heads out of their arses in the search for a sensationalist story they'd actually see the benefits of this technology. but of course that wouldn't sell their raggy scream sheet, now, would it? this is one of the major reasons all media whores should be shot, just after all the lawyers.
cheers


julian

 

It is not about muscle. After watching the Games I think I follow the theory that it is the brain that athletes need to look to technology to improve. They need to have brains with faster processing speed. A brain that could out think all the opponents. A brain that they could at a turn of a switch to set the correct pychological mind set and strength to believe in yourself.

 

wolfgang,
if it was ALL about brains stephen hawking would be doing the 100m sprint in 5 seconds. muscles are important too, in the end it's about both, the will to use the available muscle. a certain amount of one can make up for a lack of the other but in the end there has to be a minimum level of both in order to perform.
cheers


julian

 

Nope. It is all about brain power. 80% brain 20% muscle. If Hawkings have normal and not diseased muscles he could well be a good natural sportman. Err..... Another example is Jonathan Edwards who has been documented to score a high IQ test. Since he is good in long jump it suggest that even in a simple event that involve run as fast as you can and jump must requires lots of processing brain power to do it well. Err....errr..... it is midnight and I can't come up with any better idea how to prolong this debate. I give up. You win.

 

:lol:

LMAO!!!

 

wolfgang,
don;t worry about it i only took such an extreme contrary position so i could use the analogy mo found so funny. of course it's about both, two physically matched people racing, the one with the better attitude (not just intelligence imho) will be the winner more often. i reckon that's one of the reasons paula radcliffe just stopped during the marathon - mental burnout - unless a physiological reason has been found - not watching tv as much as possible does have it's disadvantages i guess.
cheers


julian