2. 外语
  3. Twenty years ago, when only the lowly tadpole had been cloned, bioethicists raised the possibility that scientists might someday

Twenty years ago, when only the lowly tadpole had been cloned, bioethicists raised the possibility that scientists might someday

admin2009-04-23  59
问题     Twenty years ago, when only the lowly tadpole had been cloned, bioethicists raised the possibility that scientists might someday advance the technology to include human beings as well. They wanted the issue discussed. But scientists assailed the moralists’ concerns as alarmist. Let the research go forward, the scientists argued, because cloning human beings would serve no discernible scientific purpose. Now the cloning of human is within reach, and society as a whole is caught with its ethical pants down.
    Today the sheep—tomorrow the shepherd? Whether the cloning of human beings can be ethically justified is now firmly, perhaps permanently, on the nation’s moral agenda. President Clinton has given an advisory panel of experts just 90 days to come up with proposals for government action. The government could prohibit the cloning of human beings or issue regulations limiting what researchers can do. But the government cannot control the actions of individuals or private groups determined to clone humans for whatever purpose. And science has a way of outdistancing all ethical restraints. "In science, the one rule is that what can be done will be done", warns Robbi Moses Tendler, professor of medical ethics at Yeshiva University in New York.
    Some ethicists regard the cloning of humans as inherently evil, a morally unjustifiable intrusion into human life. Others measure the morality of any act by the intentions behind it, still others are concerned primarily with the consequences- for society as well as for individuals. Father Richard McCormick, a veteran Jesuit ethicist at the University of Notre Dame, represents the hardest line: any cloning of human is morally repugnant. A person who would want a clone of himself, says McCormick, "is overwhelmingly self-centered. One Richard McCormick is enough." But why not clone another Einstein? Once you program for producing superior beings, he says, you are into eugenics, "and eugenics of any kind is inherently discriminatory". What’s wrong with duplicating a sibling whose bone marrow could save a sick child? That, he believes, is using another human being merely "as a source for replaceable organs." But why shouldn’t an infertile couple resort to cloning if that is the only means of having a child? "Infertility is not an absolute evil that justifies doing any and every thing to overcome it," McCormick insists.
选项
答案nothing important
解析 找出文中相关内容。文中对于伦理学家的态度有如下描述：But，scientists assailed the moralists concerns as alarmist，他们认为伦理学家的担忧和警告只是大惊小怪。因此可以得出结论，科学家认为伦理学家的警告无关紧要。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/GdGFFFFM
0

大学英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)