Human cloning is not yet available, but we are not far from a time when cloning human beings could be possible. The question is, what are the ramifications (both ethical and scientific) and is it worth it? Wilmut cites three common justifications for the pursuit of human cloning, and goes on to explain the validity (or lack thereof) of each. "The first is to overcome infertility, the second is to 'bring back' a dead child, the third is to duplicate someone of astonishing ability or talent- to give the world another Mozart, Curie, or Einstein" (36).
In answer to the first point, it may not be worth the trouble. IVF (in-vitro fertalization) has given many an alternative to infertility, and new research outside of cloning is making progress. The second and third justifications: bringing back the dead and re-creating the exceptional are, unfortunately, out of our reach, and it is likely they will never be within the grasp of science.
When looking at the prospect of cloning specific persons, one has to look to real-life examples for information. As man-made clones are impossible to observe (there are none), one has to look at "natural clones" for context. The closest thing to a clone? An identical twin. But even identical twins are not exactly identical, are not clones. "Small variations in cell division. . .may slightly alter the appearance of one twin to another" likewise, nurture, innate personality, and environment play a role in how children develop (42). In reality, no twin is identical. The same goes for potential clones, but with added pressure.
"In an attempt to undo their terrible loss, some parents might want to clone their dead child from one of the infant's cells. . . drawing on the example of bereaved parents who try to deal with the loss by having another child in the hope that the new child would be a replacement for the one who died" (40). While cloning a dead child may seem like a good idea, the results would be heartbreaking, not only for the parents but for the clone. A person can never be truly reproduced like a document or photocopy. Genes are not enough. Nature, the surroundings, the moods around them, the times, the politics, the way life is will always be different, and so they will always be different. A clone could never "fill the shoes of the ghost" (40). They would either develop into their own person, or be miserable trying to be "a living memorial to the dead" (40). This approach is both unethical and sad, for all involved the emotional trauma has no rewards.
Another issue posed for the possibility of cloned persons (children or otherwise) is the "original" or "parent" donor. A clone would face expectations and bias from caregivers, making life more difficult. This is best illustrated by the real example of step-children, who are not biologically related to both parents. "Stepparents tend to invest less time and effort in the offspring from their partner's previous marriage than they do with their own children. . . the genetic parent of a clone may feel the child is 'mine' rather than 'ours'" (39). Children could receive less attention from parents because they are not a copy of that parent, the narcissism unfulfilled, the clone could be ignored or mistreated. On the topic of narcissism, the actual donor, the clone's original could be upset by the inconsistencies in their "copy" the same way parents get upset when their children fail to live up to their idea of what their kids should be. A clone in this postition, trying to develop their personality and life would suffer because the "parent or sibling" would feel "entitled to expect a clone to be just like him or his ideal" (39).
While the scientific community and citizenry could expect great rewards from cloning as far as progress in medicine and treatment of disease (which raises other ethical concerns that I'll adress in later posts), it appears the purley emotional desires for cloning, replication, narcissism, and replacement would be unethical to pursue, and impossible to satisfy.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Phase 5: Asleepyness
To those of you who don't know, the title references 21 Jump Street, which is probably still in theaters. It's sophmoric humor, but incredibly funny. Asleepyness is phase five of the drug the two protagonist buffoons are trying to find and eliminate. The other phases are not quite appropriate for this blog, so go see the film to find out what they are.
So, it's the Monday after prom, and so far there have been 9 kids in my gym class, 6 in my issues class, and 5 in my English class. I don't blame them for ditching. It's looking more and more attractive with each tick of the clock, frankly. It's not that I don't care about school, just the opposite, actually. But I am too tired to function. After getting no sleep on Saturday night and just a few measly hours last night, I not in a good state for learning. Things I am in the perfect state for include (but are not limited to) falling, napping, power-napping, straight-up sleeping, sprawling, lying down, and drinking water/caffinated soda (but never energy drinks: the taste and heart palpitations are icky).
Until today, I had thought senior ditch day was silly. Why couldn't kids go to school? Did they just not care? Now, I realize that people are exhausted, and to something from class at this point would be miraculous. But I didn't want to take the 3% grade hit after all my hard work these last four years.So here I am and here I'll stay, right in Phase 5, waiting for Pase 1: the giggs, when I can laugh it up with my friends and enjoy the memories that come from four years well-spent.
So, it's the Monday after prom, and so far there have been 9 kids in my gym class, 6 in my issues class, and 5 in my English class. I don't blame them for ditching. It's looking more and more attractive with each tick of the clock, frankly. It's not that I don't care about school, just the opposite, actually. But I am too tired to function. After getting no sleep on Saturday night and just a few measly hours last night, I not in a good state for learning. Things I am in the perfect state for include (but are not limited to) falling, napping, power-napping, straight-up sleeping, sprawling, lying down, and drinking water/caffinated soda (but never energy drinks: the taste and heart palpitations are icky).
Until today, I had thought senior ditch day was silly. Why couldn't kids go to school? Did they just not care? Now, I realize that people are exhausted, and to something from class at this point would be miraculous. But I didn't want to take the 3% grade hit after all my hard work these last four years.So here I am and here I'll stay, right in Phase 5, waiting for Pase 1: the giggs, when I can laugh it up with my friends and enjoy the memories that come from four years well-spent.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Hello, Dolly!
Never has a celebrity been so lavished upon, and never has one been so carefully watched by media. More than your typical diva, she was a living symbol of progress. Dolly, in her magnificence, represents a change in the times. However, it should be noted that Dolly, while famous and fabulous in her own right, was a sheep just like any other Finn-Dorset. Excepting one small factor. . .
Dolly was originally a cell from the udder of an older sheep, frozen in quiescence, implanted in another type of sheep. In other words, Dolly was a "test tube" lamb, born of the genius of Ian Wilmut and company, and the labor efforts of one Scottish Blackface sheep in Scotland, 1996.
That summer, Dolly shocked the world, when, weighing in at 6.6 kg, she was born healthy and robust. The world's first taste of the awesome power of modern science and stem cells delivered by an average old sheep in a little barn tucked away in Scotland. When the news reached the media, fear broke out (an odd reaction to a lamb, even if she was a little hefty) and headlines shouted of apocalyptic deeds, flesh-eating beasts, and other nonsense of no relation to the oddly outgoing and friendly, cloned sheep. Americans in particular reacted with shock and horror, as the development had apparently "'come out of nowhere' (Dolly was not born in America, after all)" (18). Ignorant of much of the scientific goings on in the rest of the world, Americans cried distress, Time Magazine even reporting that "one doesn't expect Dr. Frankenstein to show up in a wool sweater, baggy parka, soft British accent and the face of a bank clerk" to describe Wilmut (19). A picture had been painted, correct or otherwise.
Dolly lived and thrived, and the media went wild. Then, when her decline began (too early for normalcy, but from common conditions that would have occurred to any sheep used to being stressed by media presence, spoiled, and confined to a barn) the media relished in the "deadly" effects of cloning and dangers of stem cells. What went unheard in all the brouhaha was the real story, the one of a dedicated team of scientists and a bonny little sheep who would be born, live, give birth (to several healthy lambs), and die a quiet, norma death. Instead, questions of ethics, politics, and science bombarded Roslin, Scotland from every corner of the globe, the most important of which being this:
What do we do after Dolly?
Authors Ian Wilmut (who was there from the beginning), and Roger Highfield attempt to explain these next steps and the questions Dolly's life and death provoke in their book After Dolly The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. I'll be reading the unique perspective for the next few weeks, and seeing what I can learn about stem cells and the controversy and argument that surround their use.
Dolly was originally a cell from the udder of an older sheep, frozen in quiescence, implanted in another type of sheep. In other words, Dolly was a "test tube" lamb, born of the genius of Ian Wilmut and company, and the labor efforts of one Scottish Blackface sheep in Scotland, 1996.
That summer, Dolly shocked the world, when, weighing in at 6.6 kg, she was born healthy and robust. The world's first taste of the awesome power of modern science and stem cells delivered by an average old sheep in a little barn tucked away in Scotland. When the news reached the media, fear broke out (an odd reaction to a lamb, even if she was a little hefty) and headlines shouted of apocalyptic deeds, flesh-eating beasts, and other nonsense of no relation to the oddly outgoing and friendly, cloned sheep. Americans in particular reacted with shock and horror, as the development had apparently "'come out of nowhere' (Dolly was not born in America, after all)" (18). Ignorant of much of the scientific goings on in the rest of the world, Americans cried distress, Time Magazine even reporting that "one doesn't expect Dr. Frankenstein to show up in a wool sweater, baggy parka, soft British accent and the face of a bank clerk" to describe Wilmut (19). A picture had been painted, correct or otherwise.
Dolly lived and thrived, and the media went wild. Then, when her decline began (too early for normalcy, but from common conditions that would have occurred to any sheep used to being stressed by media presence, spoiled, and confined to a barn) the media relished in the "deadly" effects of cloning and dangers of stem cells. What went unheard in all the brouhaha was the real story, the one of a dedicated team of scientists and a bonny little sheep who would be born, live, give birth (to several healthy lambs), and die a quiet, norma death. Instead, questions of ethics, politics, and science bombarded Roslin, Scotland from every corner of the globe, the most important of which being this:
What do we do after Dolly?
Authors Ian Wilmut (who was there from the beginning), and Roger Highfield attempt to explain these next steps and the questions Dolly's life and death provoke in their book After Dolly The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. I'll be reading the unique perspective for the next few weeks, and seeing what I can learn about stem cells and the controversy and argument that surround their use.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Dinosaurs, Divorces, and Birthdays, Oh My!
New York City public schools are playing a word association game. It's called state-mandated testing, and the goal is censorship. According to an article by Brian Vitagliano from CNN, "divorce. Dinosaurs, Birthdays. Religion. Halloween. Christmas. Television. . . are a few of the 50-plus words and references the New York City Department of Education is hoping to ban from the city’s standardized tests." The department argues that words like "divorce" could trigger unpleasant thoughts in children whose parents are divorced or in the process. Reasonable? Maybe, I see why kids could be made uncomfortable by references to issues that are prevalent at home.
However, the department also argues against the use of other words. "Dinosaur" and "Birthday" being two of the most interesting choices. "The New York Post speculated that the "dinosaurs" could "call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists.” Really? I have a hard time believing a reference to the terrible lizards of old would upset anyone that dramatically. And "Birthday" certainly warrants some sort of explanation. The department of Ed. argues that "the use of the word "birthday" or the phrase "birthday celebrations" may offend Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not celebrate birthdays. A spokesperson for the Jehovah's Witnesses declined to comment on the use of the word "birthday." Now we're just getting ridiculous. I have trouble coming up with a scenario in which even the most uptight kid (and these are just kids taking the tests) reading into the word "birthday" enough to throw their test.
While censorship is nothing new to the world of standardized testing, NY's department of Education is taking the measures much too far. Any further restrictions and soon there will be nothing left to test them with! Eliminating references to food, culture, religion, family, holidays, and life events is not the way to educate the nation's youth, nor is it a way to evaluate them. In fact, it is a way to limit their potential. Students who are not exposed to subjects that are foreign or uncomfortable will never learn how to deal with them properly and discuss them in a civilized manner. The NewYork Department of Education is doing their students a disservice, one word at a time.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/new-york-city-schools-ban-loaded-words-from-tests/
However, the department also argues against the use of other words. "Dinosaur" and "Birthday" being two of the most interesting choices. "The New York Post speculated that the "dinosaurs" could "call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists.” Really? I have a hard time believing a reference to the terrible lizards of old would upset anyone that dramatically. And "Birthday" certainly warrants some sort of explanation. The department of Ed. argues that "the use of the word "birthday" or the phrase "birthday celebrations" may offend Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not celebrate birthdays. A spokesperson for the Jehovah's Witnesses declined to comment on the use of the word "birthday." Now we're just getting ridiculous. I have trouble coming up with a scenario in which even the most uptight kid (and these are just kids taking the tests) reading into the word "birthday" enough to throw their test.
While censorship is nothing new to the world of standardized testing, NY's department of Education is taking the measures much too far. Any further restrictions and soon there will be nothing left to test them with! Eliminating references to food, culture, religion, family, holidays, and life events is not the way to educate the nation's youth, nor is it a way to evaluate them. In fact, it is a way to limit their potential. Students who are not exposed to subjects that are foreign or uncomfortable will never learn how to deal with them properly and discuss them in a civilized manner. The NewYork Department of Education is doing their students a disservice, one word at a time.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/new-york-city-schools-ban-loaded-words-from-tests/
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Something to Sing About
What's inexpensive, educational, marvelous and musical all at once? Why it's opera at the movies! If you've been aware of this lovely little phenomenon, good for you, but I've just discovered it so let me have my moment of triumph. I just found out that the Metropolitan Opera will be performing Manon and the live show (plus one encore showing) will be available for the general masses via the movie theater.
Call me a dork, but I love opera. I love the costumes, the magnificent sets, and the glorious orchestral music and of course the singing. I do not, however, love the price. Going to see an opera is a great experience, there's excellent performing and storytelling, and a little exposure to the arts never hurt anyone, but paying for it is a doozy, to be sure. That's why I'm totally enamored of the concept of opera via the movies. The fun of the opera, without the need for plane tickets, train tickets, expensive seats or high heels? I'm game.
Hopefully I'll be lucky enough to catch Manon when it plays in my area and give the experience a review. Until then, I'll continue to look wistfully at the Lyric Opera brochures.
Call me a dork, but I love opera. I love the costumes, the magnificent sets, and the glorious orchestral music and of course the singing. I do not, however, love the price. Going to see an opera is a great experience, there's excellent performing and storytelling, and a little exposure to the arts never hurt anyone, but paying for it is a doozy, to be sure. That's why I'm totally enamored of the concept of opera via the movies. The fun of the opera, without the need for plane tickets, train tickets, expensive seats or high heels? I'm game.
Hopefully I'll be lucky enough to catch Manon when it plays in my area and give the experience a review. Until then, I'll continue to look wistfully at the Lyric Opera brochures.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Should We Be Hungry For More?
All this hype about the new movie The Hunger Games (based on the book trilogy) made me curious. So, last Friday I went to see the movie that promised to be the next big book-to-movie event (much like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings).
SPOILER ALERT!
The movie was excellent. Incredibly entertaining with an original idea (for once!) and characters that you identified with and were attached to throughout the film. The premise of the movie is the hunger games, a yearly televised execution of "tributes" a boy and girl under the age of 18 from each of the districts in the post-modern era nation Panem. The event is run and enforced by the Capitol, the wealthy district, and it draws district "volunteers" from each of the starving, threadbare districts that surround it. The tributes, some real volunteers, others victims of the lottery (your name is added once on each birthday plus more times in exchange for modest amounts of food, precious to the people constantly on the verge of starvation) are brought to a high-tech arena of sorts, and forced to kill each other using whatever methods available until only one remains. In the meantime, it is required that every person in each district be present for mass viewings of the games. They watch until the end, when the winner is announced and the rest of the tributes have been murdered. They suffer as they watch, while the Capitol uses the games as entertainment and festivity. They constantly bid each other "happy hunger games" and "may the odds be ever in your favor" giggling and smiling at the spectacle.
The movie was brutal. The tribute children bludgeoned, poisoned, stabbed, and shot each other dead. As a member of the audience I was disgusted by the excess of the Capitol and the poverty that wracked the poor districts. I was horrified at the idea of a government, of a people, being entertained by such slaughter.
And then I realized it. I was just as entertained. I was rooting for my favorite tributes, excited when they killed an adversary. At one point nearly the entire audience stood up in the theater and clapped after a particularly ruthless and cruel character had her neck snapped. What does that say about society today? How can we enjoy such gruesomeness? Why do humans love war, violence, and cruelty on the big screen? These questions bring the movie scenario a little too close to reality for comfort. It's true, movies like this are incredibly entertaining. Fast paced, action packed, thrilling, The Hunger Games was a great film, but the implications are unsettling.
SPOILER ALERT!
The movie was excellent. Incredibly entertaining with an original idea (for once!) and characters that you identified with and were attached to throughout the film. The premise of the movie is the hunger games, a yearly televised execution of "tributes" a boy and girl under the age of 18 from each of the districts in the post-modern era nation Panem. The event is run and enforced by the Capitol, the wealthy district, and it draws district "volunteers" from each of the starving, threadbare districts that surround it. The tributes, some real volunteers, others victims of the lottery (your name is added once on each birthday plus more times in exchange for modest amounts of food, precious to the people constantly on the verge of starvation) are brought to a high-tech arena of sorts, and forced to kill each other using whatever methods available until only one remains. In the meantime, it is required that every person in each district be present for mass viewings of the games. They watch until the end, when the winner is announced and the rest of the tributes have been murdered. They suffer as they watch, while the Capitol uses the games as entertainment and festivity. They constantly bid each other "happy hunger games" and "may the odds be ever in your favor" giggling and smiling at the spectacle.
The movie was brutal. The tribute children bludgeoned, poisoned, stabbed, and shot each other dead. As a member of the audience I was disgusted by the excess of the Capitol and the poverty that wracked the poor districts. I was horrified at the idea of a government, of a people, being entertained by such slaughter.
And then I realized it. I was just as entertained. I was rooting for my favorite tributes, excited when they killed an adversary. At one point nearly the entire audience stood up in the theater and clapped after a particularly ruthless and cruel character had her neck snapped. What does that say about society today? How can we enjoy such gruesomeness? Why do humans love war, violence, and cruelty on the big screen? These questions bring the movie scenario a little too close to reality for comfort. It's true, movies like this are incredibly entertaining. Fast paced, action packed, thrilling, The Hunger Games was a great film, but the implications are unsettling.
School Boards vs. Kilts, the Prom Drama Begins
Senior Prom is coming! Of course, while everyone's dashing about to find boutonnieres and dress shoes and get their dresses hemmed, there's a bit of the usual high school drama going about. Of course, there's a fair deal of unusual drama too.
Schools all over America have dress codes. These restrictions aren't just for class, but for dances too, including prom. These appear reasonable restrictions too, rules like "no overly-revealing articles" or "no offensive messaging." Oh, and no kilts. Definitely no kilts. Or, so says one school in Granite City. One young man, by the name of William Carruba decided he would make and wear a traditional kilt with this family's tartan for his high school prom. His goal was to look dashing while paying homage to his family's proud Scottish heritage. His hopes were dashed, however, when the school board declared that the kilt violated their dress code and that it was "non traditional."
Frankly, I do not believe that because an item of clothing is different that it should be banned. If anything, I find Carruba's interest in representing his roots and embracing his culture should be celebrated. Diversity is a wonderful thing, it contributes to a more vibrant community, both locally and nationally. Just because Carruba's choice is uncommon does not mean it is offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate. He is simply choosing to wear the formal wear of his family, something they made just for the occasion.
Sadly, the school board refused to relent their overly-strict policies, and Carruba resignedly agreed to "just wear pants."
What does this say about our school's values? Are conformity, tradition, and uniformity really the most important things to a school? Or should qualities like diversity, ingenuity, and pride be valued more?
I have to agree with Carruba, when it comes to how we express ourselves through clothing, being original is something to encourage.
See the inspiration for this post here: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/slaves-to-fashion/2012/04/illinois-school-bans-kilts-fro.html
Schools all over America have dress codes. These restrictions aren't just for class, but for dances too, including prom. These appear reasonable restrictions too, rules like "no overly-revealing articles" or "no offensive messaging." Oh, and no kilts. Definitely no kilts. Or, so says one school in Granite City. One young man, by the name of William Carruba decided he would make and wear a traditional kilt with this family's tartan for his high school prom. His goal was to look dashing while paying homage to his family's proud Scottish heritage. His hopes were dashed, however, when the school board declared that the kilt violated their dress code and that it was "non traditional."
Frankly, I do not believe that because an item of clothing is different that it should be banned. If anything, I find Carruba's interest in representing his roots and embracing his culture should be celebrated. Diversity is a wonderful thing, it contributes to a more vibrant community, both locally and nationally. Just because Carruba's choice is uncommon does not mean it is offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate. He is simply choosing to wear the formal wear of his family, something they made just for the occasion.
Sadly, the school board refused to relent their overly-strict policies, and Carruba resignedly agreed to "just wear pants."
What does this say about our school's values? Are conformity, tradition, and uniformity really the most important things to a school? Or should qualities like diversity, ingenuity, and pride be valued more?
I have to agree with Carruba, when it comes to how we express ourselves through clothing, being original is something to encourage.
See the inspiration for this post here: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/slaves-to-fashion/2012/04/illinois-school-bans-kilts-fro.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)