Could this happen to human cloning experiments?
Dolly creators begin mass slaughter
SHARON WARD
"THE Scottish company involved in the creation of Dolly the sheep will today begin a mass slaughter of its flock in an effort to cut costs in the face of mounting financial problems."
Google: Is all the news fit to post?
By Declan McCullagh
“Nestled among the headlines from the thousands of newspapers, magazines and wire services that appear on Google News are press releases and government statements that are not clearly distinguished from actual news articles.”
I’m a Beta and I’m happy. I wouldn’t want to be an Alpha or a Gamma.
Nobel Laureate Warns of Genetic Discrimination
“LONDON (Reuters) – One of Britain’s leading scientists spoke on Tuesday of his fears of genetic discrimination if people are not prepared for the medical advances expected in the next two decades.”
I find it rather odd that scientists would cremate an experimental animal, regardless of state of decomposition.
Mystery shrouds cloned sheep death
"Australia's first cloned sheep, Matilda, has died unexpectedly of unknown causes, scientists said. An autopsy failed to find any reason for the merino ewe's abrupt death last Saturday, Rob Lewis, director of the South Australian Research and Development institute, said. The cremation of the carcass triggered criticism among opponents of cloning, who said that there would be no further opportunity to determine what killed Matilda."
There’s an ongoing controversy at the University of Pittsburgh regarding same-sex benefits. I’m going to send in the following as a letter to the editor of the Pitt News.
Same-sex benefits do not make sense financially. Such benefits will not make sense until homosexual civil unions are recognized by the state as legally binding contracts like their heterosexual counterparts.
Before offering health benefits to partners, insurance companies want assurance of a binding marriage contract. This ensures permanence in the relationship. Without that permanence, fraud and abuses abound (eg Benefits could be offered to partners who are little more than roommates.). One might be tempted to call marriage impermanent these days, given the ~50% divorce rate. However, when the marriage contract is willfully terminated, benefits need no longer be offered to the divorced partner. Marriage is permanent in the sense that it does not cease with a simple “good-bye” as unbound partnerships can.
If I were making decisions for an insurance company, I would make it prohibitively expensive for a company to offer benefits to partners of its employees. This would serve to offset the inherent liabilities. I suspect that this is already current practice. Thus it does not make sense for Pitt, or any other company or institution in PA, to offer benefits to any unbound partners, same-sex or otherwise. Instead of crying to the ACLU or picketing the university, advocates for same-sex benefits should focus on getting homosexual civil unions recognized by the state as marriage contracts.