A n i m a l W r i t e s © sm
The
official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue # 02/28/01
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ Park StRanger@aol.com
~
MicheleARivera@aol.com
~ SavingLife@aol.com
THE FIVE ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Clones R' Us: The Age of Human Cloning
Has Arrived
by Professor Steve Best
2 ~ Dangerous Wild Animal Bill Update
3 ~ Important Warning About Kitchen Towels & Pets
4 ~ The Animal's Voice by WantNoMeat@aol.com
5 ~ Quote To Remember
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`
Clones R’ Us:
The Age of Human Cloning Has Arrived
by Professor Steve Best - sbest1@elp.rr.com
“Anyone who thinks that things will move slowly is being very naive."
Lee Silver, Molecular Biologist
“Human cloning could be done
tomorrow.”
Alan Trounson, in vitro fertilization clinician, Monash
University
With the birth of Dolly in March 1997, a new wave of animal exploitation
arrived, and anxiety grew about a world of cloned humans that scientists said
was technically feasible and perhaps inevitable. Ian Wilmut, head of the Roslin
Institute team that cloned Dolly, however, is not an advocate of human cloning.
Rather, he believes human cloning is unethical, dangerous, and unnecessary. With
others, he fears that the drive toward human cloning will thwart the far more
beneficial uses of cloning in animals and stem cell research. He designed his
revolutionary technology with one main idea in mind: manufacturing herds of
animals for human use. For Wilmut, the biotechnology industry exists to
use genetic information to cure disease and improve agriculture. Whatever
Wilmut’s intention, many scientists and entrepreneurs he inspired have
aggressively pursued the goal of human cloning as the true telos of genomic
science. Driven by market demands for clones of infertile people, of those who
have lost loved ones, of gays and lesbians who want their own children, and of
numerous other client
categories, doctors and firms are actively pursuing human cloning.
Pro-cloning forces include the Raelins, a wealthy Quebec-based religious cult
which claims that their “Cloinaid” project will produce a human clone by the
end of 2001; infertility specialist Panayiotis Zanos of the University of
Kentucky who openly announces his desire to clone humans; and the Human Cloning
Foundation (www.humancloning.org), an Internet umbrella group for diverse
clonistas. One bioethicist estimates that there are currently at least a half
dozen laboratories around the world doing human cloning experiments.
While cloning human beings is illegal in the U.S., Britain, and elsewhere, in
many countries (e.g., Asia, India, Russia, and Brazil), it is perfectly legal
and human cloning is being pursued both openly and clandestinely. In fact,
there are at least two cases where human embryos have been cloned, but the
experiment was terminated. According to the February 2001 issue of Wired. “In
1988, a scientist working at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester,
Massachusetts took a human somatic cell, inserted it into an enucleated cow
egg, and started the cell dividing to prove that oocytes from other species
could be used to create human stem cells. He voluntarily stopped the experiment
after several cell divisions. A team at Kyung Hee University in South
Korea said it created an embryonic adult human
clone in 1999 before halting the experiment, though some doubt that any of this
really happened. Had either of these embryos been placed in a surrogate mother,
we might have seen the first human clone.”
Although many scientists think human cloning is possible and inevitable, others
think it is likely human clones already exist, perhaps in hideous forms where
they are studied on a Dr. Moreau-type island. The breeding of monstrosities in
animal cloning, the pain and suffering produced, and the possibility of
assembly-production of animals and humans should give pause to those who want
to plunge ahead with human cloning. Animal cloning experiments produced
scores of abnormalities and it is highly likely that human cloning would do the
same. The possibilities of producing human monstrosities raises serious ethical
dilemmas as well as the question of the social responsibility involved in care
of deformed beings produced by human cloning experiments. What sane person
would want to produce a possibly freakish replication of him or herself? What
are the potential health risks to women who would be called upon to give birth
to human clones, at least before artificial wombs make women, like men,
superfluous to the
reproductive process? Who will be responsible for caring for deformed human
clones that parents and doctors renounce (it took 277 tries and numerous
monstrosities to get Dolly)? Is this really an experiment that the human
species wants to undertake so that, for example, infertile couples can have
their own children, or misinformed narcissists can breed what they think will
be their carbon-copy twins? What happens if human clones themselves breed? What
mutations could follow? What might result from
long-range tampering with the human genome as a consequence from genetic
engineering and cloning?
Furthermore, as the TV-series “Dark Angel” illustrates, there is also the
possibility of a military appropriation of cloning to develop genetically
engineered herds of Ubermenschen (although no two would be exactly alike).
Indeed, will commodification of the humane genome, eugenics, designer babies,
and genetic discrimination all follow as unavoidable consequences of helping
infertile couples and other groups reproduce, or will human cloning become as
safe and accepted as in vitro fertilization,
once also a risky and a demonized technology? Will developing countries be used
as breeding farms for animals and people, constituting another form of global
exploitation of the have-nots by the haves?
One thing is certain: the project of human cloning is being approached in a
purely instrumental, economic, and mechanistic framework that doesn’t consider
long-term consequences to the human genome, social relations, or ecology. Or,
if social relations and consequences are considered, likely
this is from the perspective of improving the Nordic stock and creating an even
deeper cleavage between rich and poor as, without question, only the rich will
be able to afford genetically designed and/or cloned babies with superior
characteristics. This situation could change if the state sponsors
cloning welfare programs or the prices of designer babies drop like computers,
but the wealthy will already have gained a decisive advantage and “democratic
cloning” agendas beg the question of the soundness of human cloning in the
first place.
Thus, I have worries about cloning not only due to the history of science and
capitalism, the commodification of the life sciences, and how genetic
technologies have already been used by corporations like Monsanto and Du Pont,
but also because of the reductionistic paradigm informing molecular
engineering. Ironically, while biology helped to shape a postmodern physics,
the most sophisticated modes of biological science -- genetic engineering and
cloning research -- have not advanced to the path of holism and complexity, but
rather have regressed to the antiquated errors of atomism, mechanism,
determinism, and reductionism. The new technosciences and the outmoded
paradigms (Cartesian) and domineering mentalities (Baconian) that informs them
generates a volatile mix, and the situation is gravely exacerbated by the
commercial imperatives driving research and development, by the frenzied
"gene rush" toward DNA patenting.
Yet if human cloning technologies follow the path of in vitro fertilization
technologies, they will become widely accepted, even though a vast majority of
U.S. citizens currently oppose it. Alarmingly, scientists and infertility
clinics have embraced human cloning technologies all-too-quickly. After the
announcement of the birth of Dolly, they were tripping all over themselves to
see who could announce most emphatically that they would never pursue human
cloning. Yet, only months later, these same voices began to embrace the
project. The demand from people desperate to have babies or “resurrect” their
loved ones in conjunction with the massive profits waiting to be made is too
great an allure for biotechnology corporations to resist. The opportunistic
attitude of cloning media star Panayiotis Zavos is all-too-typical: “Ethics is
a wonderful word, but we need to look beyond the ethical issues here. It’s not
an ethical issue [!]. It’s a medical issue. We have a duty here. Some
people need this to complete the life cycle, to reproduce.”
There are indeed legitimate grounds for the fear and loathing of human cloning,
but most anxieties are irrationally rooted in an intuitive repulsion toward
something that is seemingly “unnatural.” Many such clonophobic arguments are
weak. The standard psychological objections, in particular, are poorly
grounded. We need not fear Hitler armies assembling because the presumption of
this dystopia – genetic determinism -- is false (although certain desirable
traits could be genetically engineered and cloned which might prove useful for
military powers). Nor need we fear individuals unable to cope with lack of
their own identity since identical twins are able to differentiate themselves
from one another relatively well and they are even more genetically similar
than clones would be. Nor would society always
see cloned humans as freaks, as people no longer consider test-tube babies
alien oddities, and there are over 150,000 such humans existing today. The
physiological dangers are real, but in time cloning techniques could be
perfected so that cloning might be as safe if not safer than babies born
through a genetic throw-of-the-dice. A valid objection against human cloning
and genetic engineering technologies is that they could be combined to design
and mass reproduce desirable traits, bringing about a Gattaca-like society
organized around genetic/economic hierarchies and genetic discrimination.
While full-fledged human (“reproductive”) cloning may be problematic for numerous
reasons, scientists are also developing a more benign and promising technology
of stem-cell research, or “therapeutic cloning.” Using similar technological
breakthroughs such as led to Dolly, stem cell research exploits the newly-found
ability to isolate human embryo stem cells, the master cells of the body that
later differentiate into functions like bone, nerve, and brain cells. The goal
is to direct the development of stem cells, to manufacture or clone specific
cells in order to make any kind of cell, tissue, or organ the human body might
need. While the U.S. still holds back funding for stem cell research, Britain
became the first country to legalize human embryo cloning in January 2001 (with
the proviso – perhaps impossible to enforce -- that all clones would have to be
destroyed after 14 days of development and the creation of babies is
prohibited).
Therapeutic cloning has tremendous medical potential. Early in life, for
example, each individual could freeze their stem cells to create their own
“body repair kit” if they developed heart disease, Alzheimer’s, or lost a
limb. There would be no organ
shortages, no rejection problem, and no need for animal exploitation. There is
an ethical issue of using aborted or live fetal tissue, and many religious
groups and hard-core technology critics vituperate against stem cell research
as “violating the inherent sanctity of life.”
But therapeutic cloning involves competing values, a conflict between
putting to good use the discarded by-products of in vitro fertilization
research, and a potentially utilitarian view of human life, between potential
life and full-fledged human beings in dire medical need. The moral
quandary may already be moot, however, as scientists are not discovering ways
to use stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, and to directly transform
– in an amazing genetic alchemy – cells of one kind into another.
One problem with embracing therapeutic cloning and renouncing reproductive
cloning, however, is that the lines between the two blur easily. Stem cell
research that advances experimental knowledge with embryos also logically would
hasten the development of reproductive cloning. There is, arguably, a real
slippery slope from one to the other, making stem cell research itself problematic.
The development of new genetic sciences and technologies therefore is
ambiguous, open-ended, and unpredictable. For now, the only certainty is that
the juggernaut of the genetic revolution is rapidly advancing and that in the
name of medical progress animals are being victimized and exploited in new ways
as, like it or not, the replication of human beings looms on the horizon.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Dangerous Wild Animal Bill
Update
from Robert L. Trimble - catlynco@swbell.net
Great news! The Dangerous Wild Animal Bill
(H.B. 1363) passed the House County Affairs Committee [of Texas] on February
21, 2001 by a vote of 6 to 1 with 2 members being absent. This was a big
win - due in large part to your calls and letters. Thanks.
WHAT'S NEXT:
We must now focus our attention on S.B. 235, the Senate version of
the Dangerous Wild Animal Bill. This bill will be heard before the
Senate Committee on State Affairs very soon (perhaps as early as Thursday,
March 1, 2001). This will be our first battle in the Senate and it is
critical that we get our bill approved by the Senate Committee on State
Affairs. Just as they did with the House Committee, special interests
groups, particularly commercial breeders, exhibitors and trainers of these
animals will oppose this bill and make every effort to exempt themselves from
its application claiming that they are already regulated by the United States
Department of Agriculture ("USDA") under the Animal Welfare Act
("AWA"). If they get exempted from our bill it will
"gut" the bill since most of the problems are with USDA license
holders.
WHAT THE BILL DOES:
S.B.235 will regulate the private ownership of these animals. This bill
will require an owner to: (i) register his animal with the local animal control
authority; (ii) house the animal in a secure enclosure of adequate size; (iii)
care for the animal in accordance with animal husbandry standards already
established in the federal Animal Welfare Act; and (iv) maintain a minimum of
$100,000 of liability insurance to cover any damage, injury or death caused by
the animal. You can read the full text of the bill at www.house.state.tx.us
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. Attend the Committee hearing and sign up as supporting the Bill.
2. Call and write every member on the State Affairs Committee and ask that they
support S.B. 235. It is best to call and then follow with a letter.
The next best thing is to write. Unfortunately, emails and faxes for the
most part won't reach the senator or will be ignored.
3. When calling and/or writing a Committee Member you may wish to point out the
following:
• You are alarmed and concerned about the number of attacks on
humans by these animals, especially children.
• You want these animals registered so you will know where they
are so you can take the necessary precautions to protect yourself and your
family from an attack by one of these animals.
• You want the people who own these animals to be held
responsible for the damage they do and you want them to be financially
responsible through liability insurance like people who drive cars.
• You also want to make sure that these animals are caged in a
proper manner so that they don't escape and that they are properly cared for.
• Texas is one of only a few states which don't regulate these
animals and as a result Texas has more incidences of animal attacks on humans
than the rest of the United States combined.
• USDA license holders should not be exempt from this bill.
The USDA's regulations do not require insurance, do not require
notification if the animal escapes, do not specify structural or sizing
standards for cages and there are not enough USDA inspectors to regularly
inspect all of these license holders.
PLEASE ACT TODAY; WE HAVE THE MOMENTUM BUT WE CAN'T LET DOWN.
The mailing addresses of all State Affairs Committee Members is
State Capitol
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068
and their names and phone numbers are as follows:
Chair: Florence Shapiro - 512-463-0108
Vice Chair: Carlos Truan - 512-463-0120
Members:
Ken Armbrister - 512-463-0118
John Carona - 512-463-0116
Troy Fraser - 512-463-0124
Mario Gallegos - 512-463-0106
Chris Harris - 512-463-0110
Frank L. Madla - 512-463-0119
Eliot Shapleigh - 512-463-0129
When writing, address your correspondence as follows:
Address: Honorable [Full Name]
Salutation: Dear Senator [Last Name]
If you have any questions call or need further information on how you can help
call or fax the Texas Humane Legislation Network at 214/357-2250.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Important Warning
About Kitchen Towels and Pets
INFORMATION FROM "DEAR ABBY"
submitted by molly mgh@bestweb.net
Keep kitchen towels out of sight, for pets sake
Dear Abby: I am grief-stricken. Yesterday my husband & I faced the awful
experience of putting our 3 y.o. chocolate Lab to sleep. For two or three days,
he would not eat or drink & was lethargic & vomiting. We took him to
the emergency vet hospital. The vet examined him & found
"something" in his abdomen, which would require surgery to remove.
What they found in his intestines was part of a kitchen towel.
Unfortunately, the tissue around the towel was infected & dead from the
lack of blood supply to his intestines. The damage was worse than anticipated
& he began bleeding internally. He was too weak to make it & we had to
put him to sleep. To say that we're devastated is an understatement.
I always hang a kitchen towel on the handle of the oven. The towel probably
smelled like food, which prompted him to chew it. To top it off, when we came
home from the surgery, our 1 y.o. puppy threw up the other portion of the
towel!
Abby, please make other pet owners aware of this potential hazard. If sharing
my story can spare someone else the devastation of losing a pet, I'll gain some
comfort
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
The Animal's Voice
by WantNoMeat@aol.com
The lasting sting of reality
more then you wanted to see
But you finally opened your sealed eyes
and saw through all the bloody lies
On your mind, it leaves its mark
with broken silences in the dark
The awful thoughts in your head
of the suffering and the dead
The wordless cries you can hear
and you feel their helpless fear
Not even one day can go by
without the shatter of a cry
You change your ways and your path
then cleaned your soul in compassion's bath
No longer part of humanities shame
and your new ways free of blame
Using your actions and your voice
mercy leads your every choice
You know there is much to be done
until the death count becomes none
Consciousness sent you down this trail
to defend the weak and the frail
Down this path you plant mercy's seed
and speak for those who are in need
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Quote To Remember
"To
my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human
being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of
the human body.
~
Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
&
Advisory Board Member, Animal Rights Network Inc.,
not-for-profit publisher of The Animals' Agenda Magazine
http://www.animalsagenda.org/
The Animals' Agenda Magazine: WebEdition
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This
Newsletter In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward this to a friend who you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO gratefully accepts and
considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com