Is Human Cloning Ethical?

We went to watch the movie "Never Let Me Go", based on the book by Kazuo Ishiguro, about a group of school kids who were cloned and brought up to be organ donors to "real" humans. I had mixed feelings after the show. No doubt the book is good (the author has his own style of writing that one either gets it or does not get it), and the movie captured the essence of the book, but still, the show left me wondering if it is even ethical to clone?

Just about a decade ago, there was a sheep who was successfully cloned, and she even had lambs with a male sheep. Since then, scientists have been trying to clone other things, most recently, humans. In the show, these "clones" are considered "duplicates", second class to the "originals", hence it is their organs who would be used to save "real" humans. Most of these "clones" could only have three organ donations before they themselves die off.

It is possible to defer the donation, provided one becomes a carer (caregiver to the donors), but even then, that would only be deferred for a couple of years the most. Once the donors are dwindling, the carers would be called upon to become donors.

Upon watching this show, I could not help but express my anger at the society that made these clones, giving them hope when young but actually they have no hope because they would all serve a purpose and die at a young age.

Which led me to the question : Is it even ethical to clone a human to take their organs, because "real" humans would not want to donate their organs? If we are to create a life, then should the life not be treated as a normal life, instead of a low-class duplicate? Afterall, I believe Dolly got all the care and concern from her "owners" before she passed away. No one used her to experiment on other sheep.

As of now, there has not been any human clone, as the DNA for humans are too complicated to make cloning successful. It is a relief though. In the near future, who knows, with society progressing the way it is and science and technology advancing everyday? But for now, I truly hope and pray that there will not be anyone trying to play God and create a "super" human, because that is going against nature and to me, I always feel being natural is the best.

Magic ....

Not The Gathering, but the science of illusion. Today, I was one of ten volunteers from my company to chaperone a group of children to the Science Centre for a free and easy tour as well as a magic show. It had been so long since I last went to the Science Centre, in fact, the last time I went there was about two years back when I went for the Star Wars Exhibition. Thus, I am astounded at the number of changes the Science Centre has.

We reached the Science Centre about ten in the morning, and were given a group of kids. There were three volunteers per group, and my group consisted of five teenage girls about eleven to thirteen years. It is livelier to be with younger kids because on one hand, even though they irritate the hell out of you with their endless questions, on the other hand, their innocence is absolutely charming!

They will stick with you and follow you around and just listen to your instructions obediently, whereas older kids have a mind of their own, so I ended up following the girls around instead! Still, there are all obedient and not kick up too much fuss when we had to gather all of them together.

The magic show was at noon, so there was some wandering around before that. I brought the girls to the display of Human Body, Virus, Sound Waves, Ultrasound systems, etc, before we sat down for a thunderbolt display and the magic show after that. It reminded me of my own school days where there were trips to the Science Centre almost every year! If I remember, my parents used to order the "Young Scientist" magazine for me and signed me up as a member of the Science Centre, but I did not utilise what I learnt from there. :-p

The highlight of the trip was the magic show. It was a young magician and he is really good! The tricks and illusions he displayed captivated even the adults, let alone the kids! I seriously wonder how he did all those tricks? But then again, a magician will never reveal the tricks of the trade, although I daresay once we learn the tricks, we would realise that the illusions were really nothing much to be in such a hype about!

Lunch was McDonald's (what else?), so I had my fill of Filet O Fish and apple pie. Since we were volunteers, transport and lunch was provided by the organisers. After lunch, we distributed gifts to the kids. At least they went back happy, and I went back happy too! A worthwhile day indeed, time off from work, hanging out with kids and making others happy at the same time, not to mention free entry into the Science Centre and a spectacular Magic Show. What can be better than this?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Genetically Modified Kids?

Just came across a piece of disturbing news. Technology is wonderful, but at the same time, certain things go against the work of nature. I am all for making the world a better and more convenient place, so I welcome improvements and changes in things like computers, music players, cars, web browsers. By the way, this post is posted via Flock, the newest and most user-friendly web browser out now, even better than Mozilla Firefox!

But when science and technology meddles with Mother Nature, that is when things will backfire. After all, there is a reason why the younger generation has been conceived in the natural way since ancient times until now. Parents all want their children to be good and well, so sent them to sports, music, enrichment classes, to nurture their children to be the best.

But there is a difference between letting the kids develop naturally and genetically modifying their natural makeup in order to create a genius. In this case, it is not natural, the kids will not be kids but some robots or the final product of some science experiment. They will no longer be real, but artificial.

The news article reminds me of the show "Gattaca", set in the near future where parents could choose the gender, the qualities and artificially create a baby into the kind of kid they like, rather than natural conception. And those that were conceived naturally like the main character, he was always being looked down upon by his genetically conceived brother, so he resolved to take on a whole new identity and get over his short-sightedness. Like what the article mentioned, it would become a society where the strong will look down upon the weak (like it is not happening now).

Come to think of it, this kind of experiment is rather scary, just like the Nazi Project, where Hitler's armies tried to breed the strongest, best-looking and smartest soldiers with the prettiest, smartest, best-figured school girls in order to create a stronger Aryan race. To me, whatever that is supposed to be natural, just leave it be.

How one's children turn out is the will of God, or fate. As it is, there has been no success rate of genetically modifying babies. But if we try too many experiments on genetically modifying the stem cells of babies in order to churn out the best, who knows it may just backfire, and one may create a Frankenstein monster instead.

Science Versus Religion

I have been reading the Bible more often lately. Those Christians who are more staunch always tell others to go read the Bible, to go pray, whenever there is any problem, but sometimes I feel prayer does not really help, especially when I need concrete answers.

Perhaps that is where science comes in. Whatever that is religious is known to be gospel truths, but whatever theories proven by scientists of old are fundamental truths (of sorts). To most people who have no religion whatsoever, they will believe in science since that is where the answers to a lot of things are.

For instance, it is stated that God created man and woman. Children are God's gift to the couple, and whatever we are were moulded by God in His image. However, book learning teaches otherwise.

We were evolved from apes (in that case, why are the apes not evolving now? Can we then technically be considered a planet of the apes?). Under Darwin's Theory of Evolution, living things evolve in order to suit their environment and prevent extinction. Thus, most living things can be traced to common ancestors.

Humans and monkeys probably come from the same ancestors, just like dogs, foxes and wolves. Cats, tigers and leopards. Come to think of it, lizards are probably the new evolution from the ancient dinosaurs.

In that case, does it relate to science or religion? Were we conceived due to God's Will or were we conceived due to the simple process of fertilisation? So for women who have difficulty in conceiving, does it mean to say it is God that make it so?

I am not trying to blaspheme, but science and religion are very contradictory. Of course I do not go around preaching the Bible at anyone, but for those Christians who do, they often get doors slammed in their faces for trying to impose "nonsense" on non-believers.

But since days of old, science and religion had always been at war. That was why Galileo was put under house arrest for a large part of his life, simply because he was trying to explain Corpernicus' theory that the Sun is the centre of the Universe, and the Moon and Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. Church elders in his time considered that a sacrilege and going against religious teachings, hence got him grounded.

Dan Brown's Angels And Demons also states the war between science and religion, and people who constantly fought against the Catholic churches were those very established people of science, like (supposedly) Galileo and Newton.

But comes the crux. Where did Science originate from anyway? How did science exist in the first place? Religion is when there is a God, or rather, people believe that there is a God. Religious wise, everything we see are God's creations. But what about Science? Who came out with the first scientific theory? Scientifically speaking, everything we see around us is matter.

For all anyone knows, believers would attribute knowledge and the origin of science to God as well. Thus, religion could well be the root of everything. I am not preaching anything here, but there have been many things which even science has never been able to explain, yet prayers have been known to achieve miracles.

Maybe just by being faithful and believing that all things are possible is already a hybrid of scientific and religious thinking. Perhaps faith is the bottom of everything. And this story I came across sums it up very well.

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
Student does not answer.

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
Student has no answer.

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.