SUGGESTED QUIZ ANSWERS

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2033
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

SUGGESTED QUIZ ANSWERS

Post by johnkarls »

.
Question A.

Is it illegal to -

1. Create an organism using human stem cells that were created from skin cells rather than an embryo - as MacNeil-Lehrer reported last fall is now possible???

2. Create an organism whose DNA is 25% of the way from chimp to human – as MacNeil-Lehrer reported a year ago had been done by the Yale U biology dept???

3. Create an organism whose DNA is 50% of the way from chimp to human – as MacNeil-Lehrer reported a year ago was being done by the Yale U biology dept???

4. Create an organism whose DNA is 75% of the way from chimp to human – as MacNeil-Lehrer reported a year ago the Yale U biology dept was about to attempt???


Suggested Answer A.

As summarized in the Wikipedia article posted on this Bulletin Board –-

(1) The United Nations has only a non-binding resolution, in the wake of a failure to agree on a binding resolution.

(2) A European Union protocol prohibits human cloning, but it has been ratified by only Greece, Spain and Portugal.

(3) The U.K. (which is part of the E.U.) prohibits reproductive cloning, but permits therapeutic cloning under license. It is not clear whether cloning for other purpose (e.g., producing involuntary soldiers, sex slaves, human “lab rats,” etc.) is permitted.

(4) Australia permits therapeutic cloning but prohibits all other types of human cloning.

(5) The U.S. – no national ban on human cloning, though some states ban reproductive cloning and/or therapeutic cloning.

(6) The rest of the world – no ban on human cloning.

***** HOWEVER, THIS SUMMARY ASSUMES THAT ORGANISMS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA BUT CREATED FROM STEM CELLS THAT WERE CREATED FROM SKIN CELLS ARE HUMAN – DESPITE THE VIEW OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT THEY ARE NOT HUMAN (the view of the Catholic Church is contained in the MacNeil-Lehrer Report transcript posted on our Bulletin Board as part of the original proposal which is the first item under the description of the topic for April 9th).

If anyone were ever prosecuted in the only jurisdictions that ban/restrict human cloning (Greece, Spain, Portugal, the U.K., Australia and a handful of individual states in the U.S.), a defense should be successful that the defendant believed the Catholic Church that such organisms are not human!!!

***** IN ADDITION, THE SUMMARY OF THE 5 NATIONAL BANS (OUT OF MORE THAN 200 NATIONS IN THE WORLD) ALSO IGNORES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ORGANISMS WHOSE DNA IS 25%, 50%, 75% OR 99% OF THE WAY FROM CHIMP TO HUMAN – ARE TO BE TREATED AS HUMAN SO THAT THESE LAWS APPLY.

If anyone were ever prosecuted in the only jurisdictions that ban/restrict human cloning (Greece, Spain, Portugal, the U.K., Australia and a handful of individual states in the U.S.), two successful defenses should be available –

(1) the defendant believed the Catholic Church that only organisms created from human embryos are human, and/or

(2) the defendant believed that an organism is not human if its DNA is 99% or less of the way from chimp to human!!!


Question B.

Should any of the organisms in A(1) through (4) have any constitutional rights, or can they be used as involuntary soldiers, sex slaves, human “lab rats,” etc???


Suggested Answer B.

This will be a major focus of our discussion on April 9th.


Question C.

Since there appears to be nothing illegal or unethical about creating an organism whose DNA is 99% of the way from chimp to human (otherwise, why would the Yale U biology dept be creating combo chimp/humans) -

1. How are we, as a society, in denying any rights to organisms whose DNA is 99% of the way from chimp to human, different from the Old South whose legal classifications were based on the percentage of African-American blood???

2. How are we, as a society, in denying any rights to organisms whose DNA is 99% of the way from chimp to human, different from Hitler's Third Reich whose legal classifications were based on the percentage of Jewish blood???


Suggested Answer C.

Morally, we would be no different than Southern Segregationists and Hitler.

That is the reason why we must address the failure of the Catholic Church and MacNeil-Lehrer to even consider these ethical problems.

Incidentally, one of our members replied earlier this week in reaction to the quiz that inhuman treatment of clones would be similar to our treatment of both American citizens and citizens of the world in a variety of contexts. It is respectfully suggested that –

(1) many such contexts do not involve a lifetime of suffering as would be experienced by organisms that we refuse to recognize as human and, therefore, we condemned to being human “lab rats,” involuntary soldiers, sex slaves, etc.), and

(2) an inability to cure all of the world’s problems should NOT be used as an excuse for never even trying to cure any of them!!!


Question D.

If we believe that an organism created from human stem cells created in turn from skin cells (or that an organism whose DNA is a certain percentage of the way from chimp to human - say 99% to start the discussion going) should have constitutional rights and legal protection, then what should we do about the possibility that other countries in the world may not accord any legal rights to similar organisms that they create???


Suggested Answer D.

If we recognize such organisms as human, then we should do everything in our power to insure that all “human rights” policies apply to them as well.


Question E.

Presuming that all of us believe in evolution, what rights (if any) should be given to an organism that evolves from chimps and whose DNA is a certain percentage (say 99% to start the discussion going) from chimp to human???


Suggested Answer E.

If we really believe in evolution, we should be ready to welcome new members to the human race!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments/Ref Mats - Clone Rights for Apr 9”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest