Backing for baby cloning to beat disease

[Guest Warwick Green]

This will generate controversy.

A proposal to create babies that are both cloned and genetically altered to prevent serious hereditary disease is outlined today by the leader of the team that created Dolly the sheep.

Ever since news that Dolly had been cloned from an adult cell made headlines around the world, Prof Ian Wilmut has repeatedly said he is "implacably opposed" to cloning a human being.

‘The use of genetic and reproductive technologies is not a step backwards into darkness’

But in his forthcoming book After Dolly, serialised today in The Daily Telegraph, he argues that, when the techniques are shown to be safe, society should consider cloning with genetic modification to prevent the birth of babies with serious diseases.

The Edinburgh University professor argues in the book, written with the Telegraph's science editor, Roger Highfield, that cloning an IVF embryo consisting of 100 or so cells is not the same as cloning a person....

"I am extremely concerned about the effects on a child of being a clone of another person and I oppose it. However, an early embryo is not a person and I see the use of nuclear transfer to prevent a child's having a dreadful disease as far less controversial."...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_05062006

[Argus]

This will generate controversy.

A proposal to create babies that are both cloned and genetically altered to prevent serious hereditary disease is outlined today by the leader of the team that created Dolly the sheep.

Ever since news that Dolly had been cloned from an adult cell made headlines around the world, Prof Ian Wilmut has repeatedly said he is "implacably opposed" to cloning a human being.

‘The use of genetic and reproductive technologies is not a step backwards into darkness’

But in his forthcoming book After Dolly, serialised today in The Daily Telegraph, he argues that, when the techniques are shown to be safe, society should consider cloning with genetic modification to prevent the birth of babies with serious diseases.

The Edinburgh University professor argues in the book, written with the Telegraph's science editor, Roger Highfield, that cloning an IVF embryo consisting of 100 or so cells is not the same as cloning a person....

"I am extremely concerned about the effects on a child of being a clone of another person and I oppose it. However, an early embryo is not a person and I see the use of nuclear transfer to prevent a child's having a dreadful disease as far less controversial."...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_05062006

I've always thought cloning was the way to go. It would eliminate genetic diseases and most other birth defects, and make it much easier for many people to have babies. It would probably help address our declining birth rate, and it would improve the species. The only drawback I see is the initial "experimentation" phase, and the ethical questions which go with that.

[Guest Warwick Green]

and the ethical questions which go with that.

We will ceratinly hear all about this. More interference with the natural way of doing things, it will be argued. But the moment we started to tinker with reproduction cloning was always going to come into the picture.

[Argus]

and the ethical questions which go with that.

We will ceratinly hear all about this. More interference with the natural way of doing things, it will be argued. But the moment we started to tinker with reproduction cloning was always going to come into the picture.

I don't think the real ethical question is related to "the natural way of doing things". The ethical question is balancing the future good in eliminating dreadful diseases and improving the race (that phrase has a very bad history to it, I know), against the initial inevitable errors in cloning. How many damaged children are going to be produced before they have the system perfected? And what do they and we owe to those children?

[Charles Anthony]

"And what do they and we owe to those children?"

Maybe "anglosaxon countries" will finally be able to solve their "lack of slaves" problem.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I don't think the real ethical question is related to "the natural way of doing things". The ethical question is balancing the future good in eliminating dreadful diseases and improving the race (that phrase has a very bad history to it, I know), against the initial inevitable errors in cloning. How many damaged children are going to be produced before they have the system perfected? And what do they and we owe to those children?

I guess then we really do move into designer babies. We go into the reproduction clinic and place our order - high intellect, blue eyes, blond hair, good tennis player...