Reactions to Silver p.6-12

Summary

III. Cloning Enters Public Culture - Where do our perceptions of clones come from? Where do your perceptions come from?: First, Silver introduces some of the main "public culture" books and movies in the 1970s and 80s that gave people various images of clones. Then he explains the Hall-Stillman experiment in 1993, which was the first scientific report related to the concept of "cloning humans." However, in Silver's view, the negative reactions (like those of the Vatican and the EU) to the Hall-Stillman experiment were irrational because they were only separating "early human embryo cells" and letting them develop independently, which is basically how twins are made. Silver thinks the negative reaction occurred mainly because the word "clone" and "human" were used in the same media story.

IV. From Sheep to People - Is it possible? Will scientists do it?: Silver argues that nuclear transfer cloning technology for humans will probably work because it has worked for many types of animals. However, more experiments on many animals will be needed before scientists can say human cloning is safe, with no birth defects and no health problems after birth. Theoretically, Silver thinks the number of birth defects in cloned children might be less than natural reproduction. Finally, Silver suggests that finding doctors who are willing to make human clones will probably be no problem.

V. What are the two main Cloning Misperceptions that lead to fear?: Silver thinks people are afraid of cloning for two main reasons. First, people don't have a clear sense of what a "clone" is. Many people mistakenly think that cloning copies not only the DNA, but also the person's experiences, memories and personality. This is obviously impossible. Cloning can only copy biological DNA ("life in the general sense") not a person's life experiences and soul. Second, people have the misperception that a clone will be "imperfect" compared to the original and have no soul or empathy. However, as long as the technology is safe, the clone will be a unique individual with their own life, just like a twin has a unique life.

Critical Reactions / Discussion Questions (with My Opinions)

1. On p.6, Silver introduces movies that talk about cloning "leaders" such as Hitler. If you could clone a famous person from the past, who would you clone? Personally, I cannot see the point of cloning a leader because the clone would never be the same as the leader, right? But is it possible that some groups will try this? That would be tragic.
   
   
2. p.7 "The embryos were discarded" after the Hall-Stillman experiment in 1993 and that led to outrage from various sources such as the Vatican. What do you think about the word "discarded"? Do you think it should say "embryos were murdered"? Should we see embryos as human or not? That is a key point in bioethics.
   
   
3. Also on p.7, Silver calls the separation of embryos into twins, "a mimicry of nature". Is that true? Is it just copying nature? I think that is an oversimplification.
   
   
4. p.8, "Humans are nothing more than glorified monkeys" Agree? Personally, I think we have to think we are special and not just monkeys in some way to maintain our self-respect. However, I also feel that accepting we are just one part of nature may be a good stance.
   
   
5. Should scientists stay away from cloning research, or should they do it? Should scientific curiosity have limitations? If so, what kind?
   
   
6. Is a clone really just a "later born identical twin - nothing more, nothing less"? Is this description accurate?
   
   
   Brave New World movie link