you have come such a long way.
very impressive,
keep up the good work

bob

Jenifer it is again a pleasure infact! a memorable pleasure to redress my self over an issue that is still a controversial subject among people as populace under the rule and heads of ethics and morality in terms of research.

Miller I think we have subjugated this word ethics irrationally.

This controversy need to be scrutinized again by ethicist.

Discoveries can not be pasted within the conceptual platforms of ethics.

Transformation of thoughts in to ideas can only be consoled by experiments hence with ultimate resultant as right or wrong.

Carrying out and allowing the procedure as invent; is the only way to console agitated mind.

We can not put ethical questioning based on morality over a preconceived idea.

Similarly we can not put aside thinking mechanics of mind by putting assumptive theoretical presumptions as threats or hazards.

Ethics by definition means a code of system based on moral principles which governs certain sets as existence.

Ethics explains rational way towards a goal or target.

It is a means as manner which herald route in strict discipline of desired way.

Ethic is a predefine criteria as observation or reservation which is a presumptive obligation when system needs to be implemented.

Experiment and researches are horizons where no boundary as ethic, criteria and ultimate result may it be a derangement in morality; falls.

Researches and experiments are uncrowned and unbarred premise where desire as invention is the sole concept as crown.

Bomb itself explains its hazard but we still go for it to create messier as been predicted or indicted as intent.

Similarly hazard, as has been the subject within the controversy of this cloning as after effects, have same chemical formula of preoccupied logic as risk.

Whether it is a mutation, exploitation, criminal aftereffects, or morality based conflicts or religion; they are all suspicions as notions and too preliminary to be halted.

Previous experiments must have proved fatalities with undesirable results but every such step routes towards a new formulary with assistance from previous backup as failure; hence endorsing a new concept towards a more effective and safe means of invention.

Though your reservations as comments are alerting and logical too, but in my opinion this suspicion must not abolish results as research.

We must not engage and drag this research under the slogan of ethics since the same is under the era of still to come in effective zone.

Once this research may and shall be the part and parcel of human occupation; rules as laws may be implemented accordingly.

My point is ethics rules its reign when route as rule is once delineated.

I think it’s all the matter of intent.

You got to have an idea in order to procure result as assertive.

This is an idea.

Some may take it in negative while people with belief of positive cause would assemble thought towards their desired destination.

I think this issue as research seems to be more under the head as social cum behavioral issue or politico religious.

My humble opinion is that we must not cordon and curtail this research under the manner of ethical controversy since; advents are adventures and people who like adventures are risky.

It is this risk which creates mess as criminal offence by securely managing way out as invent hence breaching ethical way of practice.

This research should and shall be backed under the ethics committee along with government funding as rational and we must go keeping the beneficial effects as ethical.

Please allow me a little time to attend your elegant platform with detailed take on my stance after studying a little current controversy.

And once again it was too impressive to find you gracing the concept with your modest grace and valuable words.

Regards

Dear Jennifer and Dr. RazaHaider,

The first problem with Human Cloning and actually with all forms of cloning is that it violates the first rule for survival of the species.

the human cloning is a sensitive issu. the first ethical question arises, that who has allowed the Dr. to conduct the experiment of cloning?
second, ethical issue is the informed consent, the Dr has implanted the embryo, who has given the informed consent for doing the cloning. third, the embryos have the potential of becoming humans. in this case, no implantation resulted in the pregnancy. it means that all the embryos are dead. so I think they have not received the proper environment for their survival. who is responsible for their death? it is time that such non human activities be stopped here. other wise our planet might suffer the harm, which can result in bad consequences for the humanbeings.

Regards to Jenifer Miller. Its very intresting and elocuent her paper.

Jennifer Miller is absolutely right in her reasoning, there are other ways to advance science in an ethical manner.

I 100% agree with Jennifer Miller. She is wonderful. She made statements that are so true. There are certain bioethics guidelines that researchers will need to follow in human research.

Congratulations to Jennifer for upholding the bioethics standards in human studies!

Bernard

Thank you Bob, Mary, Ana Teresa and Bernard for your supportive comments. Many humble thanks.

The issue merits intensive discourse as well as consensus among ethicists, just like the human embryonic stem cells research, the Scientists and Ethicists need to deliberate on the issue. The ethical questions that arise out of these technological innovations need to be addressed as keeping pace with these innovations is one of the goals of the field of Bioethics