• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Therapeutic Cloning


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#1 bioconservative

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 January 2005 - 10:02 PM


Greetings members of the Immortality Institute,

As you can tell from my user name, I am strongly opposed to most of the objectives which this institute hopes to accompish. In my view, the pursuit of immortality is a necessarily dangerous path with many unanticipated consequences, not the least of which is the degradation of human dignity -- and by this I mean, first and foremost, a gradual almost imperceptable erosion of the worth of the "individual" within our society. Science and technology are pushing the limits of our moral and ethical boundaries and we may, if we are not careful, find that we have turned human life into nothing more than a commodity. Where and when do we draw the line? I say the appropriate time is now, before we lose our way.

Yet despite the fact that I view the Transhumanist project as a grave danger to western civilization, I must also say that I have a profound respect for both Immortals and Transhumans alike. You are intellectually honest. You know what you want and you aren't afraid to say it. Truth be told, your views probably represent the latent desires of the majority of the medical establishment - they just don't have the chutzpah to admit to their ultimate objectives.

What else... I am entirely secular in my world view and would prefer if the debate remained within this realm. I also understand that there is a subjective element to polemics, ethics, and world views in general. In the past I have placed myself within the Transhuman framework precisely for the purpose of understanding my opponent better. Of course, nothing helps in intellectual development like real dialog with one's adversary, which is why I am here.

There are strong arguments to be made against the Transhumanist agenda, but for the purposes of this thread I would prefer if we remain within the confines of therapeutic cloning technologies (SCNT). I ask this not because I do not have views on other issues such as reproductive cloning, aging as a disease, and extending the maximum life span, but because I have found that the only way to engage in a productive dialog on such complex ethical issues is to limit the scope of the discussion.

My arguments against therapeutic cloning fall into three broad catagories.

1. Potentiality
2. Intrinsic worth
3. The slippery slope (The Brave New world factor)

Personally, I only support numbers two and three, but in order to properly represent the conservative position I will defend all three catagories.

----Looking forward to some responses,

bioconservative

Edited by bioconservative, 10 January 2005 - 11:04 PM.


#2 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 10 January 2005 - 10:30 PM

I think you'll certainly find a good conversation here. My past discussions on this topic have indicated that you'll have to start with a much more detailed / precise definition of "human dignity" if things are not to get bogged down early on. For example what do you mean by worth? Worth for who? And what or who gets defined as an individual, and under what circumstances?

http://www.fightagin...ives/000085.php

Personally, I think it's a bit late in the day to protest commoditization of human life. Humans are hardwired to commoditize everything - we cannot avoid assigning value; it's in our nature. We like to pretend that we don't, but I think that it's much more honest to take it as written that we do and try to proceed as intelligent people from there. In a libertarian society, this is simply the rational view of the world - everything can be valued, everything can be owned, but everyone has the protections of their own property rights.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

#3 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 10 January 2005 - 10:44 PM

The fear of cloning is like the previous fear of organ transplant and also earlier the fear of invasive surgery and still very much earlier the very fear of knowledge and invention.

But history has shown us how knowledge, science, and technology has added immeasurably to the enhancement of human dignity. Take for example how much we have become more dignified with our knowledge, science, and technology of personal hygiene and mass plumbing?

Of course knowledge, science, technology have also caused and are still causing a host of problems to mankind, side by side with their blessings. The problems are not owing to knowledge, science, and technology as such, but inspite of the advances of man's cognition and invention, due to the ignoble, contrary to all conceptions of human dignity in the abuse of knowledge, science, and technology.

Yes, I am all for cloning and I will volunteer myself for any contributions from my body in the way of giving cells for all cloning endeavors.

Susma

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 January 2005 - 10:52 PM

"I think you'll certainly find a good conversation here. My past discussions on this topic have indicated that you'll have to start with a much more detailed / precise definition of "human dignity" if things are not to get bogged down early on. For example what do you mean by worth? Worth for who? And what or who gets defined as an individual, and under what circumstances?"

What I mean by worth, and also human dignity, is that a certain 'ultimate value' is placed on the individual by society -- a certain value which the Utilitarian/consequentialist position seems to neglect. The inadequacies of the Consequentialist position on agency is well known. I understand that defining exactly what deserves protection by society is a complex ethical issue, but I do believe that the most significant support of modern western democracies is the relative equality of each and every human life. Once we begin to tamper with this base line assumption, we run the risk of destabilizing civilization. I will elaborate on this point further as I continue with my presentation.

"Personally, I think it's a bit late in the day to protest commoditization of human life."

It is never too late. Human life should never be a commodity.

"Humans are hardwired to commoditize everything - we cannot avoid assigning value; it's in our nature. We like to pretend that we don't, but I think that it's much more honest to take it as written that we do and try to proceed as intelligent people from there. In a libertarian society, this is simply the rational view of the world - everything can be valued, everything can be owned, but everyone has the protections of their own property rights."

I agree with you here in a certain sense. Humans do tend to commoditize everything. Slavery was a reality of the western world up until a 150 years ago, and it is still a reality in some places. I'm confident that we can all agree that slavery is morally wrong. Likewise, property rights are an essential aspect of a free and open society, but we can not extend property rights to owning other humans. By doing this we degrade the 'value' of the individual. To me, this seems to be an almost axiomatic statement.

I would contend that one of the goals of western, secular societies should be to limit this tendency (the tendency to own property) when it effects the rights of the individual citizen.

#5 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 10 January 2005 - 11:00 PM

Hi bioconservative. This promises to be an interesting thread and I look forward to a rational and informed debate but aside from what Reason has already suggested I would point out in reference to this statement:

I will start off with the conservative argument for the 'potential' of the zygote, or in this case the clonote. I'll post back in the next few hours with a my opening arguments in favor of 'potentiality'.


The 'potential' of most zygotes is to end up in the toilet for the noble purpose of bio-degradation and decomposition. You didn't say 'fertilized' zygote and that means that you are lumping oocytes passed monthly in the menstrual cycle together with blastospheres on their way to being embryos.

Obviously however you intended to discuss the fertilized variety so I will grant that while nature does offer many opportunities for fertilization it also wipes out a considerable number in the forms of miscarriage etc. Should we be assuming that we must save every potential zygote regardless of whether the auto rejection was due to the genetic failure of the zygote's viability?

What of auto-rejection of genetic mutation?

Is there an obligation to force a woman to bear a child and intervene to save that zygote?

How about elective abortion and IVF (in vitro fertilization) are we going to ban them?

OK and as for human dignity there is no requirement of technology to address that struggle since humans have sought advantage and acted unjustly toward one another since before they knew how to make clothing. It is not tech that creates that dilemma and it is a fallacy to suggest that the fault lies with technology.

Therapeutic cloning does not require creating "viable embryos" and that is also a fallacy in the argument you initially raise. During IVF thousands of embryos (fertilized zygotes) are created and only the very best and most likely to get to term are chosen for implantation. The rest are invariably destroyed are you suggesting the woman (couple) are under some form of obligation to carry ALL those potential embryos to term?

Rather than simply wasting these fertilized zygotes they could be honored by using their tissues to save more lives or perhaps you are against organ donation too as a degrading aspect of modern life?

I for one do see a qualitative distinction between my signature offering my voluntary donation of my organs upon my death to the kind of draconian system the Chinese employ with respect to involuntary organ extraction from prisoners so please let not treat them as equivalent.

But it is not valid to extend the arguments of involuntary tissue donation to an embryo that has never developed a consciousness.

Therapeutic cloning is not the same thing as reproductive cloning so please be sure to stick to that distinction since you raised the point in this manner. For example are you against the use of ASC (adult stem cells) for tissue regeneration?

Do you see using ASC's in vitro as somehow qualitatively different from ESC's (Embryonic Stem Cells)?

Why?

Do you think all cells have a 'potential' just because all cells carry the same DNA?

#6 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 10 January 2005 - 11:12 PM

I would contend that one of the goals of western, secular societies should be to limit this tendency (the tendency to own property) when it effects the rights of the individual citizen.

I myself aspire to a property-less society, meaning one where property is no longer relevant. For example, to the present there just is so much of air, and for all its crucial and critical indispensability for organic life and for man in our present question, it is still a property-less thing, meaning that no one can own it to exclusivity; because there is still so much of it, that no one can keep it all to the exclusion of others.

I want to see a day when science and technology will produce so much of the essential needs of human life that owning anything like food and water is simply irrelevant.

Then also a kind of shelter and clothing could be invented that is altogether distinct from our present modes of housing and covering our bodies for warmth and modesty, that we don't need anymore to build homes and sew clothes the way we do today.

When we shall have perfected in a way all our material and physical needs, increasintg the quantity and the quality of these need-satisfactions is the methodology policy to pursue, then mankind will have no other purpose in existence but to enjoy ourselves in the quest for knowledge and exploration of the universe, which is then the most absorbing pleasure, better by a nth degree than sex and food and other gross excitations of our animal neurology.

Susma

#7 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 10 January 2005 - 11:30 PM

OK Bio-C here goes on to the real issues for as you stated to begin with:

My arguments against therapeutic cloning fall into three broad categories.

1. Potentiality
2. Intrinsic worth
3. The slippery slope (The Brave New world factor)


You only truly favor number two and three so I won't bust your chops too much on number one.

Let us examine worth first. I do not believe after reading what you have stated about *comoditization* that you are discussing 'value' in dollars (good) but I am curious; does the oocyte have the same value before it is fertilized as after?

Or is it somehow the investment of the male that imparts this additional value.

Does fertilization of a tissue convert it somehow into something more than mindless tissue?

Does one tissue of the body possess some intrinsic value that is much greater than others?

Or are you basing this assessment on issues of survivability (independent viability) and dependence?

Obviously your skin tissue and your brain tissue do not represent the same level of importance to your survival, or your ability procreate.

Does being an element of procreation impart an additional importance to this tissue over say your heart, lungs, eyes, or neural system?

Please, lets stay secular here. I am very willing to address the importance of the mind but I will not debate issues of the soul. You asked to keep this secular and I agree. You aren't suggesting that somehow before there is a brain there exists a mind are you?

I intend to get far deeper into the issue of "worth" and certainly to continue to the most important debate over the slippery slope (a fallacy in itself predicated on perspective) but one that I will credit as representing real concerns over social struggle.

However as you are getting bombarded I will let you catch your breath and respond and then I will get back tomorrow to review your responses.

Thanks for bringing this all up.

#8 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 10 January 2005 - 11:31 PM

bioconservative: I agree with you here in a certain sense.  Humans do tend to commoditize everything.  Slavery was a reality of the western world up until a 150 years ago, and it is still a reality in some places.  I'm confident that we can all agree that slavery is morally wrong.  Likewise, property rights are an essential aspect of a free and open society, but we can not extend property rights to owning other humans.  By doing this we degrade the 'value' of the individual.  To me, this seems to be an almost axiomatic statement.


To be quite clear, I was referring to the axiom of self-ownership in libertarian thinking as a property right - you have the right to do whatever you want with your self and your body, up to and including employing it and your rights to it as trade goods in freely negotiated exchange. Slavery, meaning involuntary slavery through force or coercion, is absolutely wrong in all its forms, overt and otherwise.

But I don't want to turn this into a discussion of libertarian ethics. We've all no doubt had that discussion ad nauseum and are fairly sure of our own positions on the topic. So back to the topic at hand.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

#9 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 January 2005 - 11:34 PM

"Obviously however you intended to discuss the fertilized variety so I will grant that while nature does offer many opportunities for fertilization it also wipes out a considerable number in the forms of miscarriage etc. Should we be assuming that we must save every potential zygote regardless of whether the auto rejection was due to the genetic failure of the zygote's viability?"

Yes, you are correct in assuming I meant 'fertilized' zygote. Apologies for the discrepancy, I am sure there will be more to follow. Please do not hesitate to point them out.

Adults die, infants die, fetuses die, and embryos die. This is one of the sad facts of life, but one that does not detract from the intrinsic value of an embryo which has not proven to be inviable. This gets into the 'potential' of the fetus which I will touch on more later.

'What of auto-rejection of genetic mutation?'

A sad fact of life, and one which once again does not detract from the 'potential' of a clonote. I think that one thing which needs to be clarified right away is the difference between 'active' and 'passive' potential. This is something which I find is juxtaposed all the time. A fertilized zygote has the 'active' potential to become a fully functioning adult human being. In other words, if the necessary environmental conditions are met, a fertilized zygote has the internal (genetic) properties to develope into a human being. Active potential implies that future 'kinesis' is probable. By destroying human embryos we are denying them their right to develop into their full potential as human beings.

'Passive' potential on the other hand, would be found in human gametes. A human oocyte does not possess the necessary genetic materials to become a fully functioning sentient human being on its own. It requires fertilization by its male counter part in order to gain 'active' potential. 'Passive' potential implies that an entity and its future developmental trajectory is 'possible' rather than 'probable'. Thus there is a big difference between 'active' and 'passive' potential.

I will answer you other question later Mr. Long, as dinner is calling my name.

Edited by bioconservative, 11 January 2005 - 08:56 PM.


#10 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 01:47 AM

"Should we be assuming that we must save every potential zygote regardless of whether the auto rejection was due to the genetic failure of the zygote's viability?"

Auto rejection is a consequence of natural processes (or lack there of) which would necessarily imply a lack of potentiality. So no, I am not advocating the salvaging of every embryo that is lost along with the menstrual flow. First, because as you have stated, the embryo's rejection would strongly imply that it was inviable, which would negate its potential. Second, such a task would be pragmatically impossible as has been made clear by recent testimony before the President's BioEthics Council (roughly 60% of embryos never attach to the uterine wall).

It is important to realize here that there is a significant and fundamental difference between a loss of embryos by "natural" causes and a loss of embryos by intentional, conscious choice. The knowing destruction of embryos, and its endorsement by society, would imply that a certain ethical stance has been taken in regards to the fundamental nature of the embryo.

"Is there an obligation to force a woman to bear a child and intervene to save that zygote?

How about elective abortion and IVF (in vitro fertilization) are we going to ban them?"

Those on my side of the debate who take a hard line stance regarding potentiality would most definitely favor banning abortion and IVF. And I respect their position though I do not support it.

"OK and as for human dignity there is no requirement of technology to address that struggle since humans have sought advantage and acted unjustly toward one another since before they knew how to make clothing. It is not tech that creates that dilemma and it is a fallacy to suggest that the fault lies with technology."

I am not suggesting that technology is the cause of all social ills. A great deal of the problem lies in human nature itself. I am only suggesting that the increasing maturity of numerous technological fields will add fuel to the fire. Have you ever heard the Bill Joel song 'We Didn't start the fire'? 'We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the worlds been turning.' Or something like that. Some of these technologies, nano for instance, are just plain dangerous, and in need of stringent regulation. There are many Transhumanists who would agree with me in this regard. Other areas, such as the biotechnological issue of cloning which we are debating possess a lesser existential risk factor, but their implications for the future stability of society are no less threatening.

"Therapeutic cloning does not require creating "viable embryos" and that is also a fallacy in the argument you initially raise. During IVF thousands of embryos (fertilized zygotes) are created and only the very best and most likely to get to term are chosen for implantation. The rest are invariably destroyed are you suggesting the woman (couple) are under some form of obligation to carry ALL those potential embryos to term?"

I am not following how the rest of your statement logically follows your first sentence. If embryos could be engineered to 'self destruct' after a certain level of development then I 'might' have 'less' of a problem with the development of therapeutic cloning technologies. Until that point however, I am fully in favor of a moratorium on the technologies in question.

"Rather than simply wasting these fertilized zygotes they could be honored by using their tissues to save more lives or perhaps you are against organ donation too as a degrading aspect of modern life?"

Basically what you are suggesting that, in opposing therapeutic cloning I would necessarily be required to opposing IVF. This is clearly not the case. In research cloning there is not a 100% probability of destruction. In IVF the probability of destruction is also high, but not 100%. IVF is designed to assist in the creation of a child. A cloned embryo is created to be destroyed and used by others. Intent must be taken into account when determining morality. Where therapeutic cloning takes us decisively beyond stem cell and IVF is that it is endorsing the 'manufacturing' of embryos. And such an endorsement will necessarily lead to the further exploitation of embryos and the promotion of the view that embryos are 'things', nothing more nothing less. By taking this path we detract from the intrinsic worth of human life, which in turn leads us to a slippery slope (BNW scenario). I will further elaborate on this as I go forward.

'But it is not valid to extend the arguments of involuntary tissue donation to an embryo that has never developed a consciousness.'

You bring up the issue of conscousness. This is another issue that I wish to address in the course of our interaction.

I see that there are many more questions which have already been added to this thread, and I want to answer all of them when time permits. Hopefully, this thread will take on the characteristics of a marathon, rather than a sprint. Till next time.

bioconservative

#11 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 January 2005 - 02:11 AM

I am not suggesting that technology is the cause of all social ills. A great deal of the problem lies in human nature itself. I am only suggesting that the increasing maturity of numerous technological fields will add fuel to the fire. Have you ever heard the Bill Joel song 'We Didn't start the fire'? 'We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the worlds been turning.' Or something like that.


The vast amount of women who died prematurely in child birth is also *natural* as was a life expectancy of 35 years for most of the last quarter of a million years.

Also human nature is only natural too should we just give in to our basic instincts and indulge in wanton rape, pillage and endless war?

Technology simply reflects adaptive *change* and it is how humans express their true *nature*. We define what is healthy and productive (constructive technology) and the unhealthy and unproductive (exploitive and destructive) uses for it.

In lieu of some more reliable source like deities we simply have our history, science and ethics to guide us but the fatalist argument is not only the weakest of all arguments to apply to this discussion it is the most likely to result in the very destruction you claim to most seek to avert.

Human nature can and does change and is not defined by our abuse but by our creativity and empathy. I am not confusing our *nature* with the objects f our creation but i do not grant some unrecognizable creator as taking precedence over Natural Selection when the real issue of Natural versus Human Selection effectively ended with the technologies of fire and literacy. All roads lead to Rome afterward.

How about the fact that technology has already in one century doubled the life expectancy of women; you don't really suggest we turn the clock back now do you?

how about the fact that most of these babies (far more than the 60% figure) would die before reaching term if it weren't for the same interventionist techniques?

Basically what you are suggesting that, in opposing therapeutic cloning I would necessarily be required to opposing IVF. This is clearly not the case. In research cloning there is not a 100% probability of destruction. In IVF the probability of destruction is also high, but not 100%. IVF is designed to assist in the creation of a child.


You are dodging the issue. IVF requires that all unused embryos are subsequently killed as there are simply not resources or women standing in line to carry them.

IVF doesn't create one or two embryos. It is necessary to create hundreds if not thousands to effect one successful pregnancy. You cannot in a sufficient time find mothers or freezers for all those embryos so you are effectively raising them to die in order to serve the human demand for bearing children. Why not use them to far greater purpose, they will be created to die anyway?

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 January 2005 - 02:14 AM

BTW Bio-C if you want to copy/paste and then wrap the text you are citing in a quote box you just use the command (without the disabling asteriks)
[*quote] before and [/*quote] after the text.

#13 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 January 2005 - 02:16 AM

Oh and please stop with the "death is natural" argument, it isn't.

Death can be seen as nothing more than a disease. Should we allow disease to overrun our society just because it is natural?

#14 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 11 January 2005 - 03:10 AM

Thank you for an enlightening discussion without any yelling. ;)

"Therapeutic cloning does not require creating "viable embryos" and that is also a fallacy in the argument you initially raise. During IVF thousands of embryos (fertilized zygotes) are created and only the very best and most likely to get to term are chosen for implantation. The rest are invariably destroyed are you suggesting the woman (couple) are under some form of obligation to carry ALL those potential embryos to term?"

I am not following how the rest of your statement logically follows your first sentence. If embryos could be engineered to 'self destruct' after a certain level of development then I 'might' have 'less' of a problem with the development of therapeutic cloning technologies. Until that point however, I am fully in favor of a moratorium on the technologies in question.

I think Lazarus switched thoughts without telling you. [wis]

As far as I know, therapeutic cloning does not require an actual embryo. An unfertilized egg is tricked into dividing with the use of an electrical spark. (Hardly an example of the 'miracle' of human conception.)

One of the leading companies involved with therapeutic cloning research is Advanced Cell Technologies, founded by Michael West, author of "The Immortal Cell." (His story as a creationist who set out to disprove evolution, and ended up founding a company devoted to stem cell research is interesting.) On their website (http://www.advancedcell.com/faqs.htm) they emphasize that "no embryo is either created or destroyed in the Therapeutic Cloning process."

Embryos discarded in fertilization clinics, however, are viable embryos, all of which have the 'potential' to become an adult human being. Many have suggested using them for research purposes since they will be destroyed anyway. If they are destroyed without the 'potential' to save lives, then that truly is a waste.

Adults die, infants die, fetuses die, and embryos die. This is one of the sad facts of life, but one that does not detract from the intrinsic value of an embryo which has not proven to be inviable. This gets into the 'potential' of the fetus which I will touch on more later.

As you said, this is indeed sad. If we can increase the 'potential' of all life, including adults, then I believe that is a worthy goal. I for one do not necessarily believe we can achieve "immortality" per se. I do believe that we can extend life somewhat, and perhaps improve the quality of that life significantly by eliminating Alzheimer's, diabetes, most forms of cancer, age-related blindness, spinal-cord injuries, and more.

I am also conservative, both socially and politically. I do not support abortion as an indiscriminate method of birth control, unless there is a valid reason such as the health of the mother, etc. I do, however, support therapeutic cloning as do more and more conservatives as this discussion evolves. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that therapeutic cloning is misunderstood by a lot of people, especially conservatives.

#15 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 January 2005 - 03:29 AM

I think Lazarus switched thoughts without telling you. 


True and thanks malchiah for filling in the details as I was in a hurry and planned to argue that aspect later. I had to cook and eat dinner for my children and I first.

#16 kraemahz

  • Guest
  • 157 posts
  • 0
  • Location:University of Washington

Posted 11 January 2005 - 04:10 AM

If embryos could be engineered to 'self destruct' after a certain level of development then I 'might' have 'less' of a problem with the development of therapeutic cloning technologies.

But they do. A blastocyst has absolutely no potential to become a fetus if it is not implanted in the uterus. None. No theraputic cloning experiment could produce a viable human embryo unless specific intention was made for it, even with a fertalized egg (which is not what cloning is). Not even the thousands of frozen blastocysts in fertilization clinics are viable, because they haven't been implanted they have no potential for becoming a human! At that point they are only a clump of cells with no more chance of becoming a life than a drop of blood. We don't spill blood indescrimately, but we do donate it because it saves lives.

The cloning method is called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is a simple-seeming (though I'm sure it's not) proceedure in which the genetic material of the cell is replaced by that of another. It is the only means of obtaining useful stem cells for medical purposes. Let me clairify, currently we're still in research which is just trying to get its hands on whatever it can. If we want an actual medical application, however, the stem cells created are going to have to be specific to each individual to prevent rejection, that means they need to be cloned cells.

#17 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 11 January 2005 - 05:02 AM

In my view, the pursuit of immortality is a necessarily dangerous path with many unanticipated consequences...

One more thing I meant to address earlier. As a conservative, it pains me to see so many people in my own party try to stop the progress that we could be achieving.

Progress in these fields is marching on without us. I think we need to support this research, if at the very least so we can ensure that it is pursued ethically. By banning all research in this field, we open the door to let someone else do it. And that 'someone' might not pursue this in as ethical a fashion as we would hope.

By discussing these issues now, we are ensuring a smooth transition. Open discourse, such as what we're doing right now, is good. If this research is done behind closed doors, without the government's watchful eye, and without the guidance of medical and educational institutions, and without the proper funding by private corporations, then we WILL face unanticipated consequences far worse than we can imagine.

#18 immortalitysystems.com

  • Guest immortalitysystems.com
  • 81 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sausalito, California, USA, Earth

Posted 11 January 2005 - 05:16 AM

How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?

I feel that one day the forgoing debate will be looked at with an attitude most of society would today have to the angels/dance question.

We need to have an amendmend to our constitution.
"The right to the pursuit of physical immortality"

Some time not long ago there was a law against autopsys of human corpses. We are lucky that some criminals brocke that law. I hope same laws will be brocken to give us IMMORTALITY as a choice.

#19 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 03:58 PM

What I mean by worth, and also human dignity, is that a certain 'ultimate value' is placed on the individual by society -- a certain value which the Utilitarian/consequentialist position seems to neglect.  The inadequacies of the Consequentialist position on agency is well known.  I understand that defining exactly what deserves protection by society is a complex ethical issue, but I do believe that the most significant support of modern western democracies is the relative equality of each and every human life.  Once we begin to tamper with this base line assumption, we run the risk of destabilizing civilization.  I will elaborate on this point further as I continue with my presentation.

"Personally, I think it's a bit late in the day to protest commoditization of human life."

It is never too late.  Human life should never be a commodity.

"Humans are hardwired to commoditize everything - we cannot avoid assigning value; it's in our nature. We like to pretend that we don't, but I think that it's much more honest to take it as written that we do and try to proceed as intelligent people from there. In a libertarian society, this is simply the rational view of the world - everything can be valued, everything can be owned, but everyone has the protections of their own property rights."

I agree with you here in a certain sense.  Humans do tend to commoditize everything.  Slavery was a reality of the western world up until a 150 years ago, and it is still a reality in some places.  I'm confident that we can all agree that slavery is morally wrong.  Likewise, property rights are an essential aspect of a free and open society, but we can not extend property rights to owning other humans.  By doing this we degrade the 'value' of the individual.  To me, this seems to be an almost axiomatic statement.

I would contend that one of the goals of western, secular societies should be to limit this tendency (the tendency to own property) when it effects the rights of the individual citizen.


As someone who has spent many an hour in debate about nuclear power, I've heard the phrase, 'Nothing is worth the cost of a human life' quite a few times. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where we have the resources for every person to be completely stand-alone. Everytime we get into a car, we acknowledge a person-to-person acceptance of the very real possibility of destroying someone else's life. This is okay in today's society, and even expected; We'll participate in a extremely dangerous activity because it's neccessary in today's world, where we need to get from A to B so quickly. As much as I appreciate human life, it's important to take a step back and look at what the world would be like if we absolutely refused to ever risk a human life, as if nothing was worth a human life.

In reality, human lives are worth dollars. Cars allow us to produce more money faster than they cost us money by killing people so they're overall beneficial to us... Coal power plants are judged worth the impact they have on your lungs everytime you flip your lightswitch. Being productive is worth a few lives to us. Sure, we'd hate them to be our lives, but we think given the probability and the value of the commodity provided in the exchange, we'll take that risk.

As I understand it, therapuetic cloning doesn't neccessarily have to come from a viable embryo or anything or the sort, so I think it's completely a non-issue about wiether it costs 'human dignity' or not.

But... why not use viable embryos? I would argue that a human life is valuable in terms of information. As a brick of protein that could benefit my personal health, I don't see anything unethical in taking a non-sentient blob of cells with no personality and using it for my own benefit. It would certainly be unethical to take another living, breathing, thinking human being with a personality, history, experiences, and responses and steal something essential to their nature to make them... inviable as a human being. I don't think anybody would think that's the right thing to do. An embryo, though, is totally lacking in the mental structures that makes us human. Sure, with the right conditioning and engineering, it can be made into a baby, which can be raised into sentience and become a valuable living person. With the right engineering, you can even get spermatazo and ova to become a living person. With a longer process and even more conditiong/engineering, you can turn soybeans into a living person. How far back in the 'potential' human debate do you want to go?

Though it sounds ghoulish and hardly would be approved by most members of this organization and society in general, I'd say it'd be perfectly ethical to produce full clones of ourselves to be harvested for medical purposes. The clones would, of course, be brain-damaged or genetically altered to never have anything more than the bare minimum autonomous nervous response neccessary to run their bodies. Maybe make a simple nerve-computer interface for the brain stem that just makes the biomass excersize an hour aerobically a day and eat. They'd be expensive but very useful. They'd be less thinking than a chicken or a cow, which we kill all the time in various stages of development. They'd be magnitudes less human than chimps, which are still used for research in some places. The only similiarities would be in the non-thinking biological structures of the biomass. I don't think anyone would find it apalling to make plants that construct hemoglobin or other biological structures. This is basically the same thing, just a more direct and sensical approach.

As far as your viewpoint of not supporting immortality, but arguing against something like this, I can't help but feel there is some kind of mixup in your priorities. It seems you think potential human life is more or as valuable than established/existing human life. I think human life begins when we learn languages and start to label and model the world around us. We can't get hung up worrying about 'potential' people, when real, established people are dying by the hundred thousand every day.

In short, I don't think human biology has any intrinstic value because it could possibly result in an intelligent creature anymore than rocks do. Other than the value we should assign on the material for medical benefit for those that are already alive. The difference between your 'light cone' of probable formation into a human being is puzzling. Basically, you are saying the value of life is intrinsically tied to the probability of it becoming a living, intelligent creature?

Why set the margin in the past? No embryo can turn into a baby without help from it's mother, so the probability of survival for an embryo is never 100%. I don't think inalienable human rights work opposite the arrow of time. There is a possible future where every 'passive' gamete becomes an 'active' zygote. Every time a child is created, millions of potentially 'active' gametes' future is denied. In the spectrum of quantum possibility, trying to take responsibility to ensure everything that can be has a chance at life is utter madness.

I should hope immortals destablize all culture. Delusions of grandeur about our own mythical 'transcendence' aside, almost all of mainstream culture is built up around death, dualism, religious beliefs about law and punishment, the illusion of free will. I dream of a world where every person is an unsinkable ship, except from within. I imagine a world where it killing someone might be possible, but would probably take as much resources as destroying the universe. In a world like that, governments can't hold any power at all: If there are no human weaknesses to cater to servicing, how would they exist? If you can't take anything from anyone else, how can you fight a war? If you can't force pain or suffering onto anyone, how can you commit a violent crime?

--armrha, strange mood today...

#20 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 07:24 PM

You only truly favor number two and three so I won't bust your chops too much on number one.


I do not know how you could 'bust my chops' on potentiality. I have brought up the issue of 'potentiality' for a very specific reason. I believe, after having reviewed a number of threads in this forums, that a significant percentage of your membership has a rather undeveloped understanding of what exactly the conservative position espouses. I will therefore take it upon myself to better explain the conservative position and the concept of potentiality. Dr. Kass and Dr. Hurlbut are not 'fundamentalists' and I believe this will become apparent after my presentation.

I am curious; does the oocyte have the same value before it is fertilized as after?


Okay, what I am going to do first is present the concept of potentiality, and then from that point on I will disengage from that position, and instead only present my argument on the slippery slope and BNW scenarios.

Or is it somehow the investment of the male that imparts this additional value.


From the position of potentiality, the fertilization of the oocyte (or the process of nuclear transfer in cases of cloning) represents a 'bright line' between the biological materials of individuals on the one hand, and the creation of a new, vital, potentially independent human being on the other.

Does fertilization of a tissue convert it somehow into something more than mindless tissue?


Again, from a position of potentiality, yes. If fertilization results in a biological organism which possesses the internal 'potential' to develop into a future sentient human being, then the tissue is effectively converted.

Does one tissue of the body possess some intrinsic value that is much greater than others?


Are embryos truly 'tissues of the body', or are they distinct organisms with their very own life line trajectory?

Does being an element of procreation impart an additional importance to this tissue over say your heart, lungs, eyes, or neural system?


This is the wrong question to ask. The question which should be asked is: Where does one human life end and another human life begin?

Please, lets stay secular here. I am very willing to address the importance of the mind but I will not debate issues of the soul.  You asked to keep this secular and I agree.  You aren't suggesting that somehow before there is a brain there exists a mind are you?


What I am suggesting is that, from a position of potentiality, an organism does not need to presently have cognitive function in order to have the potential to have it in the future. Example from Dr. Hurlbut: If I take a prepubescent girl and I have her sterlized, is this ethically unacceptable? Afterall, I did not rob her of any of her present capabilities; I only denied her the 'potential' reproductive capacities she would have developed in the future. I think we both know the correct answer to this question.

I am not asking you to debate the issue of the soul Lazarus Long. In fact, I have never once heard that term mentioned by the President's council, so I am wondering why you and you cohorts insist on creating straw men?

#21 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 07:58 PM

The vast amount of women who died prematurely in child birth is also *natural* as was a life expectancy of 35 years for most of the last quarter of a million years. 

Also human nature is only natural too should we just give in to our basic instincts and indulge in wanton rape, pillage and endless war?

Technology simply reflects adaptive *change* and it is how humans express their true *nature*.  We define what is healthy and productive (constructive technology) and the unhealthy and unproductive (exploitive and destructive) uses for it.


Lazarus Long. You will not hear me make the 'its not natural argument' since I happen to agree that 'natural' is a rather ambigious term. What I am arguing, as a conserative, is that drastic change is not always desirable and that often it will result in unforeseen, catastrophic consequences. I am not against medical progess, or the alleviation of human suffering. What I am against is the corruption and degradation of human life. Again, I understand that I will need to further clarify what I mean when I say 'human life'.

In lieu of some more reliable source like deities we simply have our history, science and ethics to guide us but the fatalist argument is not only the weakest of all arguments to apply to this discussion it is the most likely to result in the very destruction you claim to most seek to avert.


You will need to back up this statement.

Human nature can and does change and is not defined by our abuse but by our creativity and empathy. I am not confusing our *nature* with the objects f our creation but i do not grant some unrecognizable creator as taking precedence over Natural Selection when the real issue of Natural versus Human Selection effectively ended with the technologies of fire and literacy.  All roads lead to Rome afterward.


That human nature 'can and does change', does not mean that it 'should and shall change'. Big difference. We are straying from the thread topic, but I guess that was inevitable after all. Quickly, I would contend that we are looking out over an abyss. The technologies which are being developed are unlike technologies of the past. These new technologies, I would contend, have the potential to alter us in unforeseen ways. There is grave danger down this path. But let's stick to thera cloning, shall we?

How about the fact that technology has already in one century doubled the life expectancy of women; you don't really suggest we turn the clock back now do you?


Does this have anything to do with SCNT?

You are dodging the issue. IVF requires that all unused embryos are subsequently killed as there are simply not resources or women standing in line to carry them.


I am not dodging the issue. What I am suggesting is that your line of reasoning is pure sophistry. You are ignoring intent. In IVF, embryos are created to serve reproduction. In cloning, embryos are created for research.

This also leads me to one of the points I want to make concerning the slippery slope. During previous debates on stem cell, a rather broad consensus was reached that stem cells derived from IVF could be used (since they were going to be destroyed anyway), but that attempts to advance to cloning technologies would not be permited. Now all of a sudden stem cell is not enough, we need cloning as well. And so we begin down that ever so slippery slope. As the saying goes, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

IVF doesn't create one or two embryos. It is necessary to create hundreds if not thousands to effect one successful pregnancy.  You cannot in a sufficient time find mothers or freezers for all those embryos so you are effectively raising them to die in order to serve the human demand for bearing children. Why not use them to far greater purpose, they will be created to die anyway?


Honestly, if I felt that we could resist the temptation to go past the 14 day (primative streak) marker I would coalesce. But can we? That's the real crux of the problem now, isn't it? Scientists begin to grow an embryo to the 14 days stage so they can suck out its inner cell mass. But why stop at 14 days? Why not allow the beautiful embryonic machine nature has created (which is far more sophisticated than our primitive technologies) do our work for us? Why not allow the embryo to develop just a little bit longer, a little bit longer, a little bit longer.. When and where do we stop? There is no fine defining moment like the initial creation of an embryo. All other stages in embryonic development, like all biological processes, are necessarily blurry, unclear. We would be heading toward a situation where human life was nothing more than a commodity. As we fall into an 'instrumental' view of human life we are destroying the very humanity we are trying to heal.

Edited by bioconservative, 12 January 2005 - 05:26 PM.


#22 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:13 PM

Also, to an administrator:

Where is the ignore option?

#23 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:21 PM

Oh and please stop with the "death is natural" argument, it isn't. 

Death can be seen as nothing more than a disease. Should we allow disease to overrun our society just because it is natural?


You are assuming arguments I have not yet made.

#24 olaf.larsson

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 21
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:27 PM

"I am strongly opposed to most of the objectives which this institute hopes to accompish."

Sorry for you but this will be accomplished sooner or later anyway. It doesn´t really matter who does it.
Only with a world wide ban on lifeextension research would delay the progress, and thats not for ever eigher.

#25 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:29 PM

Also, to an administrator:

Where is the ignore option?


I don't believe this system has that feature - apologies. It has never been high on the requirements list for this community. You'll have to rely on your native wetware implementation of the protocol ;)

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
htttp://www.longevitymeme.org

#26 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:35 PM

As far as I know, therapeutic cloning does not require an actual embryo.  An unfertilized egg is tricked into dividing with the use of an electrical spark.  (Hardly an example of the 'miracle' of human conception.)


Malchaih, you are omitting some very important details in your post. Technically, the oocyte is unfertilized in therapeutic cloning, but you are not mentioning that its internal genetic composition is altered through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Through this process the cell is effectively changed from a haploid to a diploid cell. To claim that, because the clonote (embryo created through SCNT) is an unfertilized egg cell it is of lesser value than a zygote fertilized in a traditional manner, would be to advocate that clones produced in the future through reproductive cloning technologies would be less than human.

One of the leading companies involved with therapeutic cloning research is Advanced Cell Technologies, founded by Michael West, author of "The Immortal Cell." (His story as a creationist who set out to disprove evolution, and ended up founding a company devoted to stem cell research is interesting.)  On their website (http://www.advancedcell.com/faqs.htm) they emphasize that "no embryo is either created or destroyed in the Therapeutic Cloning process."


I am well aware of Michael West. He should stay out of the ethics debate, and stick with purely science endeavors which he is far better at.

I am also conservative, both socially and politically.  I do not support abortion as an indiscriminate method of birth control, unless there is a valid reason such as the health of the mother, etc.  I do, however, support therapeutic cloning as do more and more conservatives as this discussion evolves.  It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that therapeutic cloning is misunderstood by a lot of people, especially conservatives.


Hopefully I will be able to change your mind Mal. And let me assure: I am very well informed.

#27 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 09:11 PM

If embryos could be engineered to 'self destruct' after a certain level of development then I 'might' have 'less' of a problem with the development of therapeutic cloning technologies.

But they do. A blastocyst has absolutely no potential to become a fetus if it is not implanted in the uterus. None. No theraputic cloning experiment could produce a viable human embryo unless specific intention was made for it, even with a fertalized egg (which is not what cloning is). Not even the thousands of frozen blastocysts in fertilization clinics are viable, because they haven't been implanted they have no potential for becoming a human! At that point they are only a clump of cells with no more chance of becoming a life than a drop of blood. We don't spill blood indescrimately, but we do donate it because it saves lives.


There are a number of areas within this post which represent a lack of understanding of the issues at play (no offense). First, no, embryos can not currently be engineered to self destruct. Second, look at my previous post where I go into the difference between 'passive' and 'active' potential. Just because an embryo has not been implanted in a uterus does not mean that it does not have all of the internal components necessary to become a fully functioning human being. An embryo, regardless of its environmental setting, is human life which has an active potential to become a human being.

#28 bioconservative

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 January 2005 - 09:11 PM

Ah, there we go. I think I have gotten the hang of these forums now. ;)

#29 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 January 2005 - 09:50 PM

Just as you may suspect, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing [lol]

When you use the *quote=person* function it will invoke a software glitch we have been unable to correct yet when you try and edit. If that happens do not despair when you see the lead part of your text wiped out with gibberish in the correction window just scan down to hopefully find your post and recover what was lost.

It is one of the reasons I personally rarely use that quote function but prefer to type in the names of those I am quoting if I think it is important to clarity. For example:

bioconservative says:

QUOTE (Lazarus Long)

Oh and please stop with the "death is natural" argument, it isn't. 

Death can be seen as nothing more than a disease. Should we allow disease to overrun our society just because it is natural?



You are assuming arguments I have not yet made.


Actually you most certainly did make such arguments, at least implicitly.

bioconservative says:
Adults die, infants die, fetuses die, and embryos die. This is one of the sad facts of life, but one that does not detract from the intrinsic value of an embryo which has not proven to be inviable. This gets into the 'potential' of the fetus which I will touch on more later.


As you have already suggested elsewhere the definition of *natural* is highly charged and subjective enough to deserve a lengthy debate on its own. In fact you are slipping in and out of the different uses of the word *nature* when you say a *sad fact of life* as you are either appealing to fatalism or you are stating this as analogous to a *natural fact*.

I will be back later to address more of your comments but this promises to be fun. I sincerely want to thank you for bringing an informed and rational tone to the discussion. It is difficult to sustain a calm and rational discourse with most of the religious right that have visited us.

I understand that you are not presenting their points directly as you have chosen a secular perspective to defend but you are by your own admission in accord with many of their premises and taking their most informed and reasoned positions to debate. Toward that end I am confident we will all be benefited so thank you again.

#30 ag24

  • Honorary Member, Advisor
  • 320 posts
  • 29
  • Location:Cambridge, UK

Posted 11 January 2005 - 10:14 PM

From Dr. Aubrey de Grey

I am delighted that a clearly well-informed bioconservative has identified ImmInst as a good place to learn more about the pro-longevist position and also to educate pro-longevists about the bioconservative position. Bioconservative: I very much hope you will stay the course (as you have already indicated you intend to).

The only thing you have said so far which I think was ill-judged is to label Mike West as a far worse ethicist than scientist. One of the most telling arguments that there is indeed a "bright line" at a point later than fertilisation, and indeed later than the 7-day blastocyst stage at which embryos are destroyed in the current method for isolating ES cells, is (I believe) due to West: it is that at 14 days an embryo ceases to be able to split and give rise to identical twins. A separate sperm and egg, before they fuse, have collectively the potential to give rise to a human life, just as the zygote that they form upon fusion does. [Note to Lazarus: bioconservative was actually correct in his terminology earlier -- the unfertilised egg is called an oocyte, not a zygote.] Thus, active potentiality as you are defining it must have a structural as well as purely chronological component. I would say it is intuitively intrinsic to the concept of an "individual", human or otherwise, that even though evidently individuals can spring into existence from non-individuals (the only question is when they do), an individual cannot turn into two individuals, hence the pre-14-day embryo is not an indvidual. Thus, the changes which occur at 14 days and prevent a successful split of the embryo are structural changes profoundly affecting the embryo's moral potentiality, such that a 7-day embryo's potential to become a human is sufficiently passive to permit its ethical use (and, in particular, destruction) for ES cell derivation. I would like to hear bioconservative's position on this argument.

Another aspect of bioconservative's position that I haven't yet understood is that he supports an "intrinsic worth" argument against SCNT but not a "potentiality" one. How are these two arguments different? Clearly no one disputes that it is wrong to end the life of an individual: the question is at what stage an embryo becomes an individual. Is that question not precisely the question of potentiality? -- i.e., an entity that either is an adult human or has the "active" potential to become one is an individual, whereas something with only the "passive" potential to become an adult human is not an individual. What am I missing here? (I think your "possible/probable" distinction is very shaky, by the way, as "probable" quite definitely means "having a greater than 50% probability of occurring".)

However, my main interest is in the bottom line -- getting treatments that work developed as soon as possible by means that I find ethical. It's OK by me if that means going further at the research stage than my own ethics demand, if that extra work pays off in faster implementation later on becasue of less strident resistance from others who are ethically opposed to what I would deem the easiest ethical option. Quite a few of my colleagues were slow to get involved in the ES cell debate early on because they were bullish about the rate of progress with adult stem cells: they felt it was going to be simplest to keep one's head down and get the ethical argument out of the way by developing a technology which did what ES cells did and which didn't upset anyone. That has so far proven overoptimistic, but we should not consequently forget the very useful principle that technology may solve ethical problems. I was delighted to see that Bill Hurlbut's presentation to the President's Council on "Altered Nuclear Transfer" received not only a lot of interest from council members but also lots of attention in the media (three pages in Science, for a start). I have been in correspondence with him in recent weeks, concerning a variant on ANT that may be a fair bit better at convincing people that at no time does an embryo exist: namely, interspecies SCNT using a human donor cell and a non-human oocyte, followed by replacement of the mitochondria with human donor-derived ones once development has proceeded to the ES cell stage. I published this concept as a short commentary on some interspecies cloning work in my journal, Rejuvenation Research, a few months ago; a preprint is at my site, about half way down this page:

http://www.gen.cam.a...ens/AdGpubs.htm

with the title "de Grey ADNJ. Inter-species therapeutic cloning: the looming problem of mitochondrial DNA and two possible solutions".

This has the advantage over ANT sensu Hurlbut that the ES cells after mitochondrial "re-humanisation" are genetically 100% identical to the donor cell, and it also means that the zygote formed by the SCNT is definitely a lot less potentially human, since it is lacking in genes necessary for the correct functioning of every single human organ, whereas in the Hurlbut scheme all that would be lacking is a gene that happens to be required at a specific (early) stage. A variant on this is to eliminate the oocyte's (non-human) mitochondrial DNA before SCNT, using compounds such as rhodamine 6G, but I think that is probably not necessary ethically (it certainly isn't necessary biologically): I think any "yuck factor" problems can be resolved either way.

Some people say that exploring this sort of avenue is caving in to bioconservative tyranny. I don't think so -- I'm a pragmatist, and I know that if a lot of people don't like something, however invalid their reason for disliking it may be, they can probably slow it down, so time spent finding a solution that satisfies most people is time well spent.

Bioconservative, thank you for complimenting people here on the fact that we know what we want and say it. I am unusual for a mainstream academic in that my ability to carry on doing my work is not appreciably at risk if I say things publicly that influential people don't like. I wish there were more in academia who had that privilege.

Aubrey de Grey




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users