Because of the news about the copycat, the Fox All Stars are discussing cloning. They all think that human cloning is a bad idea, and Tony Snow just cited a poll showing varying levels of public support for cloning various classes of animals, with humans having a low of 7%. In my opinion, such polls probably indicate nothing except the abysmal ignorance of the American people on matters biological specifically, and matters scientific generally.

The argument was made by Bill Sammon that we already have too many cats, many are being euthanized every day, so why are we cloning them? Well, Bill, because a) it helps us learn how to clone higher mammals (a concept he and the others are obviously against), and b) it allows us to make copies of animals that, for whatever reason, we find pleasing or useful. It's really no different than breeding for desired traits, except it's much more precise.

Fred Barnes thinks that any cloning is a slippery slope toward human cloning, so therefore we have to outlaw all cloning. At least someone had the sense to point out that there's no practical way to do this worldwide. As usual, none of them are able to articulate a reason as to why cloning humans is a bad thing.

I think that cloning puts a new twist on the abortion debate. I would think that women would be in favor of it, especially feminists, considering the idea of reproductive freedom. Or is it because men may soon have the option to bear their own children (either in test tubes or artificial wombs) that has them worried?

The reason to be against human cloning is quite clear, which may be why some people don't think they need to state. What do you do with failures? Every scientific advance has always been preceeded by failure, why do we expect this vernture to be different? It is not about playing God, but the simple moral question of creating a human life that is profoundly distorted from the norm. We are already hearing problems with the long-term health of the sheep that was cloned. Shouldn't we work out all the kinks there before we advance? But egos are racing to be the "first" with no regard for the consequences. I'm sure you are familar with the Can we vs. Should we question. With no way to control these egos it is just easier to attempt to shut down all research, rather than screen for responsible research. Just as politicians enjoy the power they derive from their positions, so do scientists. Maybe even more so, since they don't have to maintain the facade of being a common man.

I agree that the"kinks" should be worked out. However, most of the scientists that have the ability and the resources to undertake this endeavor will not settle for failure, it's too costly. Granted, there will be mistakes. But does the onset of infant death, birth-bearer death, or any of the hundreds of genetic disorders stop people from having kids? Should it? If there is any iota of risk involved in anything, should we try despite? Or should we back down from the challenge just because we may, in some inconceivable instance, not prevail. I'm glad somebody tried the polio vaccine. I'm glad that there are still astronauts after the Challenger explosion. I'm glad that people test the limits of cosmetic surgery, for the sake of WTC survivors. I'm glad that people kept venturing tothe New World, despite the risk of death at sea, or by starvation. Risk is a part of life. With the amount of knowledge and systems that we have in place now, it is prime time to tackle risk. There weren't computer simulations 500 years ago. Cloning will be a risk, but not something that we should back down from.

First, I am not talking about normal risk here, where the results of procreation by normal means will tend to follow an even distribution. You have just a good a chance to have a child with an IQ of 130 as you do of a Down Syndrome child. I am talking about outlying results at an increased rate because of duplication of genentic material. These results will tend to cluster around the ends of genetic distribution, well beyond three sigma. I do believe that recessive traits are more often harmful than positive, but could be wrong on this point, as it has been a long time since Bio 101.
I notice all of the examples that are cited by Brian are about people who chose to undergo the experimentation or voluntarily take on risk. I do believe that it is well outside the accepted ethics of medicine and science to test on subjects without their consent and knowledge. How do you go about gaining this consent? The results of your research is, at the end of the day, a human being. It is easy to talk about all the good that may come from cloning, when you aren't the one being asked to sacrifice. I will admit I am not a scientist and have taken a bare minimum of courses in biology, but am puzzled by the apparent ignorance of ethics in this case. I thought that one reason for ethics was to act as a control on the exuberance of scientists. Another was to control the hacks who would take short cuts to produce their research. As I said earlier, and no one seems to refute this, that egos will drive the process, not public good. I have seen repeated reports on the Internet of people claiming they will have a clone in a few years. Some of this bravado is for funding reasons, I am sure, but they must be working on it at a breakneck pace. They may not be willing to settle for failure, but there sure will be failures along the path. And this is a bit more complex than in-vitro. If this is the 'ick' factor, so be it. Calling it that does nothing to dispute the legitimacy of it. The other position could just as easily be called the 'Omlette' factor, as in breaking a few eggs, no big deal.
So I ask again, what do you do with the failures? Maybe we should answer that question before we move forward. If we as a society can answer that question to our satisfaction, then we can proceed.
And Rand, just because we can't stop something doesn't mean we should legalize it. I do believe we have been trying for some time now to stop murder, but have been unsuccessful to date. Should we legalize that to? There is good murder(Ted Kennedy) vs bad murder(not Ted Kennedy).