Student Interest Board equalizes
participation
This letter is in response to Alain Dang’s submission
(“Student
Interest Board silences voices,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
April 16). I would like to offer some truth to counter the
accusations made by Dang in this editorial.
I was one of many students in my graduate Interdepartmental
PhD program approached by Naser Hamdi to sign the Student Interest
Board petition. He explained the measure to me in full detail,
including the fact that graduate student interest groups would lose
representation so that the overall graduate student body would be
better represented. He also made it abundantly clear that by
signing the petition, I would be endorsing the opportunity to vote
on this measure, not endorsing the measure itself. Does this sound
like false pretenses or coercion? I think not.Â
What Alain is failing to recognize is that many graduate
students also feel the same way as Hamdi regarding this issue, and
feel that changes do need to be made regarding graduate student
representation. I, for one, would like to have just as much of a
voice in GSA as everyone else, including special interest
groups.
Jason M. Clevenger Graduate student Biomedical
engineering IDP
Morality of cloning is not universal
I am writing in response to Ben Shapiro’s column on
Bush’s cloning ban (“Bush’s
cloning ban is morally correct,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
April 15). It is his logic more than his position that troubles
me.
First, the issue of cloning, be it therapeutic or reproductive,
is too profound to ensnare in the right-versus-left quagmire of
partisan politics. While Shapiro pats the president’s back
for bolstering his right-wing reputation (by calling for an all-out
cloning ban), he discounts the relevance of cloning to humanity.
The decision to clone or not to clone shouldn’t be made for
the benefit of any party, Republican, Democrat, or Peace and
Freedom. It’s an issue that transcends party lines.
Second, Shapiro cautions the reader that the “end
goal” of research cloning is the destruction of the
“fetus” (it’s an embryo, by the way). That
position twists the facts. I doubt that one researcher will say to
another: “Well, Dr. Evil, we’ve killed another one of
those suckers. Mission accomplished!”
Scientists are not a malicious species of some laboratory
underworld that thrive off of “˜human’ destruction.
Research cloning (aka therapeutic, non-reproductive cloning) seeks
to derive stem cells from the cloned embryo (which is not a baby or
adult) with the intent to cure diseases, improve chronic illnesses,
and save lives. Since the embryo is never implanted in a female
uterus, the possibility of birth or human growth is removed from
the developmental equation.
Last, and certainly not least, I must comment on Shapiro’s
definition of moral correctness. I will admit that opponents of any
form of embryonic cloning are entitled to their views, but not all
Americans share this morality. The million-dollar question, then,
is why some people’s views of the moral status of the embryo
should trump others’ equally cherished morality or
others’ health-related needs?
There are divergent views regarding what is morally correct. For
example, in testimony to the National Bioethics Advisory Committee,
Rabbis Elliot Dorff and Moshe Dovid of the Jewish religion and
Abdulaziz Sachedina of the Muslim faith deny that the type of
embryo in question is protected by a moral status. Thus,
experimentation on it would not violate life.
So, while Shapiro is free to oppose cloning, he must understand
that what is moral to him may not be to his neighbor, and a
complete ban on cloning may not be the universal answer. The key is
to understand all aspects of the science before acting. If we stick
to this logic, we will appreciate our choice, whatever it may be,
in the long run.
Jeffrey Ghassemi Third-year Political
science
Propaganda overwhelms facts in cloning
debate
I would like to point out a few extraordinarily questionable
points in Ben Shapiro’s article about President Bush’s
recent call for a ban on all human cloning (“Bush’s
cloning ban is morally correct,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
April 15).
First off, the term “pro-abortion” is not only
deliberately inflammatory, but it also does not even exist. The
correct term is “pro-choice,” meaning that a woman has
the right to decide whether or not she wants to have an
abortion. Calling this school of thought “pro-abortion”
is an ignorant attempt to characterize pro-choicers as psychotics,
bent on aborting any baby they can get their hands on.
Shapiro then goes on to criticize cloning, which he certainly
has a right to do. However, the majority of his discussion of
cloning deals with the reproductive variety which is not really the
issue at hand. The debate on cloning today centers on embryonic
stem cells, a topic to which Shapiro devotes exactly three
sentences.
His focus on reproductive cloning either implies ignorance of
the issue or a desire to convince people that, if they are not
careful, an army of Al Gore clones might show up at their door
thirsting for blood.
Finally, and most offensively, Shapiro claims that “The
U.S. is a nation founded on religious
principle…” While the pilgrims certainly immigrated to
North America for religious reasons, they also wanted the freedom
to pursue religious beliefs without state oppression. Our
country follows a principle of separation between church and
state. For those that do not believe that God
will offer some magical alternative path to curing diseases,
Bush’s ideas seem rather oppressive.
Our government is not supposed to be responsible for or involved
in its citizens’ religious affiliations. Banning embryonic
stem cell research on religious grounds is like banning people from
studying the bible on biological grounds.
It is not fair to imply that research cloning should be banned
because a particular religion does not agree with it. It seems that
Shapiro is saying that it is not acceptable to have ideological
differences, and that no moral person could possibly disagree
with him. I, for one, would have been a more convinced of his
points had his article contained more specific facts and less
propaganda and rhetoric.
David Pearl Second-year Psychobiology