FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W47691230> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W47691230 endingPage "456" @default.
• W47691230 startingPage "1371" @default.
• W47691230 abstract "John A. Robertson* Introduction The announcement in February 1997 of the birth of Dolly, the sheep cloned from the mammary cells of an adult ewe, was a turning point in ethical and social debates over the use of assisted reproductive technologies. Prior to Dolly, ethical and legal debate focused on the creation and discard of human embryos and on the kinship effects of gamete donation and surrogacy.' The birth of Dolly has now shifted the focus of debate to issues of selection and engineering of offspring traits. With rapid advances in knowledge of the human genome and the ability to manipulate genes forthcoming, these issues will occupy debate for some time to come. The prospect that human cloning might soon follow Dolly brought forth an immediate political reaction. President Clinton declared a ban on the use of federal funds for human cloning research, called for a private sector moratorium on cloning, and asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to report in ninety days its recommendations for public policy regarding cloning.2 Bills banning human cloning or cloning research were introduced in Congress and in several states.3 In early June, the NBAC recommended enactment of a federal criminal law that banned human cloning for up to five years,4 and President Clinton promptly submitted the request to Congress.5 Several foreign countries and national or international advisory bodies also called for a prohibition on human cloning.6 Opposing human cloning at this early stage of its development is easy. Nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells has not yet been replicated in other species, much less humans, and initial impressions are that human cloning, if not simply bizarre or hubristic, serves few pressing needs. If the safety and efficacy of cloning are established, however, a persuasive case can be made for its use as a technique to assist infertile or genetically at-risk couples to have healthy children or to procure tissue or organs for transplant. As such, utilization of cloning technology would appear to be part of one's fundamental right to have and rear children.' The key ethical, legal, and policy question then posed is whether the use of cloning to achieve these goals presents such special risks or problems that prohibition or close regulation is justified. Answering this question, however, is not easy. Cloning forces us to rethink in the most basic way the meaning of individuality, personal identity, family, and reproductive liberty. These concepts are well-formed at their core, but they blur at the margins. Reasoning by analogy from core cases can carry one only so far in defining these terms. We must define or create the meaning of these concepts as we apply them in the various situations presented by new reproductive technologies. Human cloning illustrates this dilemma perfectly well. When the risks of cloning are considered and cloning's relation to other practices of assisted reproduction is clarified, we are left, not with a clear answer, but with a constitutive decision as to whether we should view procreative liberty as including techniques of positive genetic selection such as cloning. Resolving this question is further complicated by the still uncertain role of genes in forming personal identity. Many scientists are committed to uncovering that role, but clear answers are elusive. The desire to clone arises precisely because genes are viewed as highly important, if not crucial, in making people who they are. Assigning significance to genes, however, risks becoming a crude form of genetic essentialism or determinism. At the same time that one grants genes their due, one also must guard against expecting too much from them. We are thus in a bind: genes count a lot, enough for people to use them in medical and reproductive decisionmaking, yet we simultaneously know that they represent only part of the story. Situations may arise in which replicating an existing genome makes good sense even though we know that genes will not totally replicate the person whose genome is chosen. …" @default.
• W47691230 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W47691230 creator A5077514410 @default.
• W47691230 date "1998-05-01" @default.
• W47691230 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W47691230 title "Liberty, identity, and human cloning." @default.
• W47691230 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11660439" @default.
• W47691230 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W47691230 type Work @default.
• W47691230 sameAs 47691230 @default.
• W47691230 citedByCount "18" @default.
• W47691230 countsByYear W476912302012 @default.
• W47691230 countsByYear W476912302013 @default.
• W47691230 countsByYear W476912302014 @default.
• W47691230 countsByYear W476912302017 @default.
• W47691230 countsByYear W476912302019 @default.
• W47691230 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W47691230 hasAuthorship W47691230A5077514410 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C121050878 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C175000728 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C188084074 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C196843134 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C202438428 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C2778177303 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C2994278967 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C87073359 @default.
• W47691230 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C121050878 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C144024400 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C175000728 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C17744445 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C188084074 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C196843134 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C199360897 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C199539241 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C202438428 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C2778177303 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C2994278967 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C41008148 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C54355233 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C86803240 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C87073359 @default.
• W47691230 hasConceptScore W47691230C94625758 @default.
• W47691230 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W47691230 hasLocation W476912301 @default.
• W47691230 hasOpenAccess W47691230 @default.
• W47691230 hasPrimaryLocation W476912301 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W1479776821 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W1550401605 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W1969981214 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W2005248152 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W2053668346 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W2089890380 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W2158778640 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W2803205239 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W47691230 @default.
• W47691230 hasRelatedWork W177792459 @default.
• W47691230 hasVolume "76" @default.
• W47691230 isParatext "false" @default.
• W47691230 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W47691230 magId "47691230" @default.
• W47691230 workType "article" @default.