This is a pretty common position, but what it really entails is a lack of sympathy to understand and grapple with the concerns of others. All real bio-ethics involves a commitment to things like the necessity of public policy to give an attentive ear to all voices in the concern. You may have no troubles with people cloning people, but lots of people do, and this being the case it requires a substantial investment merely to demonstrate those making public policy have heard the voices of our democracy.Skipjack wrote:I find the whole cloning scare a non issue as well.
I was never swayed by the arguments against using embryos, but that is very different from saying I can't understand why people would make such arguments. This is democracy in action and though life scientists may find this inconvenient, its certainly necessary when we're talking abut the disposition of public funds. Certainly too, when we're talking about issues that may threaten the public such as genetic manipulation of biological organisms that are then released into the environment we all share, interested parties have a right to be heard.
In Mexico, the people had no say whether Monsanto should use their genetically modified corn out in the open, and the almost immediate result of this was that it over-competed against several natural strains in Mexico to the point these have nearly been wiped out. Do the residents of Mexico have a right to be heard on this issue? Certainly! Should they be able to sue Monsanto if they like? Certainly! Should they win in court? No. Monsanto cannot be held liable for the failure of natural crops to compete with its BT Corn. But note the bio-ethics debate is a process of advised consent inside democracies and is integral to what makes a healthy democracy.
