Obama Reverses Bush Policy on Stem Cell Research

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030901194.html

This video is really interesting, regarding President Obama lifting the 8 year ban on embryonic stem cell research federal funding.

YouTube Video: "Curtis's Stem Cell Treatment CNN. flv"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGPCubtD2D8

This is an interesting news piece from CNN, about a young boy named "Curtis" who is receiving stem cell injections in China because it is not available in the U.S. for treatment for his medical condition.  Although the Chinese hospital says it has connections with Harvard University, the educational institution did not comment.  The Chinese hospital offers no cure yet, but does offer hope for better quality of life, especially for young "Curtis."

"Cloning: Why People hate it so Much"

Associated Content: Information from the source

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/827101/cloning_why_people_hate_it_so_much.html?cat=9

Although this article does bring up a good point that by replicating through human cloning may not necessarily mean that the clone will have the same personality as well, we don't know for sure because we have never produced a human clone to term.  It is true that this is a very controversial topic, and that it is an issue that should be looked at much more in depth.  In hopes to pinpoint those who will benefit from human cloning, it states that couples who are infertile will benefit the most from this potential procedure being more researched.  However, not just those who are infertile would benefit from this.  There are many people who are perfectly capable of producing again, but would rather replicate a previous entity.  

I believe this is much more of an issue to consider, of whether it's ethical to allow those who are fertile already (and very able to produce another child if possible).  Is it ethical to clone in the first place when there are so many people already on our earth?  Whether the clone will have the same personality or not, what your opinions are on whether you think the clone is inferior to the original person or not, it is a valuable ethical question if it's right to go ahead with research on this matter in general.  With so many people on this earth it may prove to be more beneficial to seek to help those who are already in need (through adoption of those children who don't have homes) and focus more on genetic enhancement therapies for those who suffer, instead of worrying as much of whether cloning will rid the original person of their individuality.  In no doubt, there are much more important issues to deal with concerning this matter, in my opinion.

"Breakthrough in Embryo Research Brings Human Cloning Closer"

BNET: The g0-t0 place for management 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20071112/ai_n21103416?tag=content;col1

Scientists now believe they are becoming closer and closer to producing a procedure that will assist in producing cloned human embryos.  The new breakthrough has the potential to turn "human eggs into cloned embryos."  This would be the first time that scientists have been able to create viewable cloned embryos from a primate that's an adult, for which in this comes from a male rhesus macaque monkey that's ten years old already.  With this new technique it has the potential to produce cloned human embryos that could be used for research.

However, with 277 attempts in itself to produce "Dolly" the sheep, the "first clone of an adult mammal," there is no evidence yet that this new technique will for sure produce at all, or will come to term.  

Although the article did not discuss the ethical implications of what this could mean for science, I believe it's important to mention that our earth is already over-populated.  Is it ethical to produce a human embryo in the first place when there are millions of people around the world going hungry and suffering?  Even though many people could argue that cloning isn't that different in comparison to naturally producing (in regards to adding more people in the world), and that people should have the right to produce if they want, I cannot help but wonder if this will always be like this.  Will we forever think that it's everyone's right to produce, when our resources are significantly depleting, and we already cannot manage to feed everyone on our earth as it is?  The world is beyond it's capacity already.  It's true that everyone is entitled to their own rights, including producing, but the real question is whether this is ethical to continue.  Maybe China's one child rule should be considered in other places throughout the world.  If we cannot afford to take care of the people populated on our earth now, is it ethical to be trying to produce human clones?  I think not.

"In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo"

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/21crop.html

Human cloning and stem cell research are often topics that come to many people's minds when talking about genetic enhancement, but genetic engineered food also plays a role in this.  Due to lack of genetically engineered food being produced prices on wheat have gone up, which has effected people all over, creating pressure on "governments, food companies and consumers" to relieve their resistant views against genetically engineered crops.  

"Religion a Prominent Cloned-Food Issue"

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801713.html

Religion, in doubt, plays a huge factor in many people's views on cloning in general.  But, with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) becoming closer to approving using cloned animals for human consumption, the questions surrounding whether this is a wise and ethical choice becomes even more important.  With the approval and legalization from the FDA, cloning farm animals has the potential to feed many more people than possible now with limited resources. Although cloning farm animals could benefit many hungry and needy people, there are some ethical implications that religions are having a hard time with.

Some argue that it violates their religious doctrines, however, I would argue that one of the most common backbones to many religions is to "help thy neighbor," and reduce suffering if possible.  Wouldn't it be going against religious doctrine to not help these people?  Of course, there is no guarantee that the production of producing cloned animals would for sure provide food to everyone, but with so many people around the world (especially in impoverished countries) in need I think it's worse a chance.  

"Will gene-altered athletes kill sport?"

The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0823/p12s01-stgn.html

With a large amount of media coverage being covered on New York Yankee's Alex Rodriguez's use of genetic enhancements, there is a lot to think about considering athletes using gene modification.  With this gene enhancements athletes could be injected with an animal's DNA and receive benefits to their performance, allowing muscles to grow at a much faster speed and stronger.  Although the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has classified this procedure as illegal doping, it has the potential to be of great use in genetic therapies.  

As noted in the article as well, it's important to remember athletes are using tactics we do not know about, and that by legalizing it we could have a much stronger form of regulation.  With legalization we could keep track of who is taking what, the amounts they're being injected with and how often.  But, the question comes in, is it really fair for an athlete who is using genetic enhancements to play against an athlete who is not?  I would argue no.  While gene enhancement could create a large benefit to many athletes if they are injured, it should continue to not be allowed due to the fact that it would create an uneven playing field.