Re: spare parts and cloning ethics

J. de Lyser (
Sat, 01 Mar 1997 18:34:28 +0100

At 07:38 1-03-97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
>> B) Grow just an arm or body part from specialized tissue cells ?

>Conceivably we could eventually learn to rip a proto-arm off a >cloned
embryo, hook it up to a tiny little blood supply, and grow an >arm, without
growing the rest of the body. It's not clear that this >would work, though.

How about this: taking a cell from the stage where the embryo is just a
ball of cells. Just take that specific cell that has the right anim./veg.
levels to grow into an arm, or a part of the rump attached to an arm, (or
organ). And hook these cells back up to the placenta (this may be the
tricky part)

At one point we might even be able to manufacture cells with those right
levels. They way i see it all we need to do is take one ball, split up all
the cells, clone each cell, save the original and label it. Put each clone
back on the placenta, and see what it grows into.

It may all sound a little too simplistic to be accomplished, but then so
did cloning sheep didn't it ?

>At the other extreme is the view that people have the right and duty
>to prevent mistreatment of helpless creatures even on other people's
>property. A moderate position would provide some kind of partial >rights
in these cases, with enforcement limited to when infractions >become
externally visible. That is basically what we have today, >although the
details will not be to everyone's taste.

I don't know, we use cows and pigs for leather, why not for a heart ?
We've always 'guided' their evolution, the reason they exist in their
current form, is purely because that current form has brought us benefit.
As long as we don't make/let them suffer, i see no limitations for their

>The fear about mixing animal and human cells is the possibility of
>introducing new diseases, encouraging germs to cross species lines.
>This is one of those cases where a pure property-rights view may not
>be adequate to prevent massive epidemics.

Hmmm, As long as we restrict experiments to domesticated species, we're
going to benefit from the knowledge we already have on these species. It's
also a perfect test comparison for the free market system: relatively 5% to
10% of the human population (farmers) have been financing research into
medical research for domesticated animals, which we have come quite a way
in, through a free market system. Compared to the state system that dealt
with human medical research. something to consider ?

You did bring up an interesting point though, which made me wonder about
species-specific mutation rates, what exactly causes it, and the
compatibility and possible influence, animal donor organs would have on

>It is similar to the case of quarantining someone who has an >infectious
disease, one of the classic "hard cases" of >libertarianism.

only if carried to extremes, i hope you mean a lethal infectous disease,
not a common cold that could COST another individual a doctors bill, and
medication ?

Joost de Lyser