问题描述：
cloning human for and aganist
英文版的 大一的辩论赛 关于克隆人的利与弊
英文版的 大一的辩论赛 关于克隆人的利与弊
问题解答：
我来补答
The Ethics of Human Cloning
The successful cloning of an adult sheep,announced in Scotland this past February,is one of the most dramatic recent examples of a scientific discovery becoming a public issue.During the last few months,various commentators -- scientists and theologians,physicians and legal experts,talk-radio hosts and editorial writers -- have been busily responding to the news,some calming fears,other raising alarms about the prospect of cloning a human being.At the request of the President,the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) held hearings and prepared a report on the religious,ethical,and legal issues surrounding human cloning.While declining to call for a permanent ban on the practice,the Commission recommended a moratorium on efforts to clone human beings,and emphasized the importance of further public deliberation on the subject.
An interesting tension is at work in the NBAC report.Commission members were well aware of "the widespread public discomfort,even revulsion,about cloning human beings." Perhaps recalling the images of Dolly the ewe that were featured on the covers of national news magazines,they noted that "the impact of these most recent developments on our national psyche has been quite remarkable." Accordingly,they felt that one of their tasks was to articulate,as fully and sympathetically as possible,the range of concerns that the prospect of human cloning had elicited.
Yet it seems clear that some of these concerns,at least,are based on false beliefs about genetic influence and the nature of the individuals that would be produced through cloning.Consider,for instance,the fear that a clone would not be an "individual" but merely a "carbon copy" of someone else -- an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction.As many scientists have pointed out,a clone would not in fact be an identical copy,but more like a delayed identical twin.And just as identical twins are two separate people -- biologically,psychologically,morally and legally,though not genetically -- so,too,a clone would be a separate person from her non-contemporaneous twin.To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism -- the view that genes determine everything about us,and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are insignificant.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that genetic determinism is false.In coming to understand the ways in which genes operate,biologists have also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment affects their "expression." The genetic contribution to the simplest physical traits,such as height and hair color,is significantly mediated by environmental factors (and possibly by stochastic events as well).And the genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply,from intelligence to compassion,is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect.
It is difficult to gauge the extent to which "repugnance" toward cloning generally rests on a belief in genetic determinism.Hoping to account for the fact that people "instinctively recoil" from the prospect of cloning,James Q.Wilson wrote,"There is a natural sentiment that is offended by the mental picture of identical babies being produced in some biological factory." Which raises the question:once people learn that this picture is mere science fiction,does the offense that cloning presents to "natural sentiment" attenuate,or even disappear?Jean Bethke Elshtain cited the nightmare scenarios of "the man and woman on the street," who imagine a future populated by "a veritable army of Hitlers,ruthless and remorseless bigots who kept reproducing themselves until they had finished what the historic Hitler failed to do:annihilate us." What happens,though,to the "pity and terror" evoked by the topic of cloning when such scenarios are deprived (as they deserve to be) of all credibility?
Richard Lewontin has argued that the critics' fears -- or at least,those fears that merit consideration in formulating public policy -- dissolve once genetic determinism is refuted.He criticizes the NBAC report for excessive deference to opponents of human cloning,and calls for greater public education on the scientific issues.(The Commission in fact makes the same recommendation,but Lewontin seems unimpressed.) Yet even if a public education campaign succeeded in eliminating the most egregious misconceptions about genetic influence,that wouldn=t settle the matter.People might continue to express concerns about the interests and rights of human clones,about the social and moral consequences of the cloning process,and about the possible motivations for creating children in this way.
The successful cloning of an adult sheep,announced in Scotland this past February,is one of the most dramatic recent examples of a scientific discovery becoming a public issue.During the last few months,various commentators -- scientists and theologians,physicians and legal experts,talk-radio hosts and editorial writers -- have been busily responding to the news,some calming fears,other raising alarms about the prospect of cloning a human being.At the request of the President,the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) held hearings and prepared a report on the religious,ethical,and legal issues surrounding human cloning.While declining to call for a permanent ban on the practice,the Commission recommended a moratorium on efforts to clone human beings,and emphasized the importance of further public deliberation on the subject.
An interesting tension is at work in the NBAC report.Commission members were well aware of "the widespread public discomfort,even revulsion,about cloning human beings." Perhaps recalling the images of Dolly the ewe that were featured on the covers of national news magazines,they noted that "the impact of these most recent developments on our national psyche has been quite remarkable." Accordingly,they felt that one of their tasks was to articulate,as fully and sympathetically as possible,the range of concerns that the prospect of human cloning had elicited.
Yet it seems clear that some of these concerns,at least,are based on false beliefs about genetic influence and the nature of the individuals that would be produced through cloning.Consider,for instance,the fear that a clone would not be an "individual" but merely a "carbon copy" of someone else -- an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction.As many scientists have pointed out,a clone would not in fact be an identical copy,but more like a delayed identical twin.And just as identical twins are two separate people -- biologically,psychologically,morally and legally,though not genetically -- so,too,a clone would be a separate person from her non-contemporaneous twin.To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism -- the view that genes determine everything about us,and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are insignificant.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that genetic determinism is false.In coming to understand the ways in which genes operate,biologists have also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment affects their "expression." The genetic contribution to the simplest physical traits,such as height and hair color,is significantly mediated by environmental factors (and possibly by stochastic events as well).And the genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply,from intelligence to compassion,is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect.
It is difficult to gauge the extent to which "repugnance" toward cloning generally rests on a belief in genetic determinism.Hoping to account for the fact that people "instinctively recoil" from the prospect of cloning,James Q.Wilson wrote,"There is a natural sentiment that is offended by the mental picture of identical babies being produced in some biological factory." Which raises the question:once people learn that this picture is mere science fiction,does the offense that cloning presents to "natural sentiment" attenuate,or even disappear?Jean Bethke Elshtain cited the nightmare scenarios of "the man and woman on the street," who imagine a future populated by "a veritable army of Hitlers,ruthless and remorseless bigots who kept reproducing themselves until they had finished what the historic Hitler failed to do:annihilate us." What happens,though,to the "pity and terror" evoked by the topic of cloning when such scenarios are deprived (as they deserve to be) of all credibility?
Richard Lewontin has argued that the critics' fears -- or at least,those fears that merit consideration in formulating public policy -- dissolve once genetic determinism is refuted.He criticizes the NBAC report for excessive deference to opponents of human cloning,and calls for greater public education on the scientific issues.(The Commission in fact makes the same recommendation,but Lewontin seems unimpressed.) Yet even if a public education campaign succeeded in eliminating the most egregious misconceptions about genetic influence,that wouldn=t settle the matter.People might continue to express concerns about the interests and rights of human clones,about the social and moral consequences of the cloning process,and about the possible motivations for creating children in this way.
展开全文阅读