Tuesday, 11 October 2011

What Lay People Should Know about Evolution – Evidence (video)

Here are two other brilliant videos on evolution and the evidence.



These are not my video.



Related article:
What Lay People Should Know about Evolution – General (non-technical)

Print Friendly and PDF

Saturday, 1 October 2011

What Lay People Should Know about Overpopulation (video; awareness)

7 billion is the number. By the end of this year (2011) you will be 1 of 7 billion people.

Video by National Geographic Magazine.
Print Friendly and PDF

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

What Lay People Should Know about United Kingdom/Great Britain/England (video; informative)

Here is a brilliant video explaining the difference between United Kingdom, Great Britain and England.differentiating.


This is not my video.
Print Friendly and PDF

Monday, 12 September 2011

What Lay People Should Know about Superstition – Open Minded or Gullible? (argumentative)

by Zad Datu


So, the question here is “Is it closed-minded to dismiss superstitious claims or is it gullible to accept them?” Let us for now categorise claims into three groups: (1) undocumented unscientific claims, (2) undocumented scientific claims, and (3) documented scientific claims.

If scientists themselves – those who have made it a career to investigate upon any phenomenon; to build models capable of making testable predictions resembling the phenomenon; to test the models with repeatable experiments fixing it to correctness with falsifiable, measurable and observable evidence; in which the results are submitted to peer review; and then subjected to replication by other scientist; and if proven replicable, to meticulously asses the accuracy of the model for further improvements; and if possible to also provide explanations to the phenomenon – will not impulsively accept documented scientific claims from another scientist without studying the documentation, how could it be reasonable for us non-experts to do so? Especially after fraudulent scientific claims such as the ridiculous 1835 discovery of moon-people civilisation, the Tasaday Tribe, and of course the Piltdown Man, all of which stomped its way into headlines and fooled the world. I must mention the physics hoax called The Sokal Affair by physicist, Alan Sokal, whose intentions were to experiment whether the journal would publish an article as long as it sounded good and flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.

So now, if documented scientific claims should not be impulsively accepted, how could scientists impulsively accept undocumented scientific claims, and furthermore how could us non-experts do so? – Let alone undocumented unscientific claims. Not that undocumented scientific claims are necessarily more credible than the unscientific ones. False claims hoaxed under the disguise of scientific sounding terminologies are as much of lies as unscientific claims. It just sounds more credible, that’s all.

It is flawed thinking to say that one should give 50-50 acceptance to both views, or 50-50 balance to both parties. It is not sexism to say that men are generally smarter than women, it is not racism to say that Malays are lazy whereas Chinese are hardworking (a Malaysian issue), neither is it speciesism to say that dogs are smarter than cats, or humans smarter than dogs (Wait, wha...? Debatable, you say!? Am I sure that men are smarter than women, you ask?... Are dogs really smarter than cat?... Fine, lets put it as “primates are smarter than fishes”. As of men versus women, do I really need to justify this?... Future article perhaps... But anyway, you get the picture). Yes, these statements do not give equal credits to both parties, but they are not prejudiced either. Prejudice judgements are those based on preconceptions and inadequate knowledge. These statements are based on observable facts. Similarly, it is not prejudiced to trust scientific claims whilst dismissing superstitious claims.

I trust, or have faith in the information presented by the scientific community because I understand their method of investigation which I approve of, and I believe that they do so for the sake of knowledge without ulterior motives, as they do not assert absolute certainty but rather presents only what has been uncovered at the moment. “What about the hoaxes?” you may ask. It is exactly these hoaxes which prove the community’s credibility, as they are eventually exposed and scorned upon by mainstream scientists. I have a slight lesser faith in the scientific media as I myself have discovered misleading or inaccurate representation by scientific articles found in respected magazines and newspapers. If it really matters, researching into the readily available scientific papers which the articles are referenced on is an option. For me, this is enough in most cases. But if it isn’t for you, then you could investigate into the paper’s peer reviews, and if this too isn’t enough, you could attempt replicating the results. This process further demonstrates the credibility of the scientific community.


An excellent example of identifying what sources of information are credible and investigating into them.
In contrast, sources of media which I have much lesser faith in are the political media and community as well as governmental versions of recent histories. The reason for this is obvious – ulterior motives. Sources of information which I have zero faith in and which I consider to be the most unreliable are those of the superstitious, because firstly, these claims are not based on science – and when I say science, I mean well assessed, established and proven documented facts. Secondly, these claims are not references to any published research papers or studies which could be investigated upon. With this logic, it is perfectly reasonable and necessary to be sceptical, as scepticism is the default position and the burden of proof lies on the party making the claim.

However, I do recognise that not every claim requires evidence for me to accept. “I just smoked a cigarette” doesn’t trigger me to ask for evidence. But if that same claim came from a non-smoker friend whom I know very well, then I would be triggered. Claims which should be subjected to scepticism and the burden of proof are those which attempt to introduce a radical understanding of the subject. Superstitious claims attempt to introduce radical understandings on physics, biology, and nature.

But what if a trusted someone claims to have a ghostly encounter? Or worst, what if I myself experience such an encounter? Firstly, we should be very aware that our eyes can fool our minds, and so can the mind fool itself; that we are susceptible to hallucinations, illusions and delusions; that our senses cannot be entirely trusted at all times. This is exactly why men have invented all sorts of instruments capable of precisely measuring all sorts of sensations which neither our nor any other animals’ sensory organ can’t detect, which can be calibrated to a standard scale and where improvements are constantly being developed.

Secondly, somebody who says “I know what I saw because I’ve never seen anything like it before,” is completely self contradictory. Nobody can possibly know what they’re looking at if they’ve never seen anything like it before. If I encounter an uncanny experience unlike anything I’ve encountered before, the rational conclusion is not “I know what it is”, but rather “I know it’s not a dog, not a cat, not a human and etc.” The only way someone could know exactly what it is that they’re encountering for the first time, is if he or she is an expert in the field. For example, only a butterfly expert could identify that the insect he or she has never come across is an undiscovered species of butterfly, as it could very well be a butterfly which resembles another type of insect or a non-butterfly insect which resembles a butterfly.

What about self-claimed ghost experts? – Witchdoctors, psychics and ghost whisperers. Some may be intentional frauds, some may be honest fools. Those who are honest are simply under the spell of ‘bird-brain syndrome’ [refers to the first 7 paragraphs of Superstition – Types and Origins (brief)], if I may call it. Until now there have not been any demonstrable repeatable experiments or falsifiable observable evidence to justify such existences. If there are, the scientific community are readily open to rewrite science textbooks all over the world to introduce the proven new radical understanding, as they have been doing so ever since Galileo – flat Earth to spherical Earth; Earth as the centre of the solar system to the Sun as the centre; Newtonian physics to Einstein’s General Relativity and to Quantum physics; and countless more.


This video of an alleged Human-Fish went somewhat viral through handphones in Malaysia back in 2005. The background song are Qur’anic verses, perhaps to ease the spirit or something alike – a common practice amongst religious Muslims.

I've encountered this video independently twice, both with its own tale behind the ‘curse’. The first simply that a fisherman just so happen to catch this creature brought it back to his village and everybody agreed that it was a man cursed into a fish. The second story was that a girl was cursed by God into this disgusting form because she was kicking her mother in the mid of her solat.

The alleged Human-Fish is, in fact, a guitarfish, a fish in the same family of rays. What is shown is the underside of the guitarfish.
It is not just gullible but also very closed-minded to impulsively accept radical claims without assessing their credibility but rather accepting it simply because it agrees with one’s taste of truths.
“Yes, Bruce Lee was killed in a duel with an Indonesian Silat master (a Malay martial art). I know this for sure because my uncle said so,” – a myth which many Malaysians believe.
“Some styles of Silat were banned in Malaysia because the powers they possess from Jinn (or genies, an Arabic folklore which predates and found its way into Islamic beliefs) they summoned by reading Qur’anic verses were just too powerful.”
“According to his bomoh (the Malay equivalent of a witchdoctor), he was cursed by someone assisted by another bomoh.”
“This must be true! This human-looking-fish shown in this video has got to be the result of a curse placed upon a girl by God for her sinful acts toward her mother during her prayers, just as I was told a minute ago.”
These are just some of the examples of radical claims which many impulsively and unquestioningly accept with inspiring awe, unknowingly solely to their taste of truths, which I have witnessed firsthand. If accepting every or any claim presented to you, no matter how ridiculous it is, is what you call “open-mindedness”, then you have placed your God given capacity for logical reasoning to redundancy.

Superstitions are myths. Just imagine the MythBusters testing the plausibility whether girls singing in the kitchen would result in higher probability of marrying old men, whether bigfoot really exist, whether Silat masters can summon powers from Genies, or whether Feng shui really works.

For some of these superstitions, their myths are untestable and unfalsifiable due to their vagueness, non-precise and inconsistent nature, making it a perfectly useless claim – as useless as the claim of an invisible intangible inaudible pink unicorn, a Chinese teapot revolving around the sun but too small to be seen even by our most powerful telescopes, and an invisible floating incorporeal heatless-fire-breathing dragon living in my garage.

But for those which are testable and bustable, guess what conclusion Adam and Jamie would come to – MYTH BUSTED!






Related article:
What Lay People Should Know about Superstition – Types and Origins (brief)
Print Friendly and PDF

Monday, 5 September 2011

What Lay People Should Know about Superstition – Types and Origins (brief)

by Zad Datu


In the 40s, American psychologists, B.F. Skinner had his philosophy about human behaviour challenged – a philosophy insisting that all behaviours including that of humans are results of reinforcements. The white haired, round spectacled professor explains that people do not routinely travel to their local gambling club because they enjoy every moment of pulling down on jackpot sticks, but rather a result of the built in schedule of the reinforcement.

The foundations of his philosophy are his experiments on training animals, mainly pigeons, to perform certain behaviours such as pecking on a button or turning around. Each hungry pigeons are placed in a box attached to a feeding machine, dubbed the Skinner box, in which the pigeons would be rewarded with a piece of corn whenever they perform whatever behaviour Skinner wishes to programme into the birds.

Superstition is a uniquely human behaviour, so our behaviours can’t be the results of reinforcement after all – this was the statement that challenged Skinner’s philosophy.

Skinner responded by modifying the experiment so that rather than rewarding the birds upon a specific behaviours, the machine feeds them one piece of corn every fixed interval or randomly. Skinner observed that the pigeons developed repetitive behaviours. Some were jumping up and down, some bobbing their heads, some flapping their wings, and all other sorts of obnoxious behaviours. Skinner observed that whatever movements the pigeons happen to be carrying out when the first corn piece popped out, the pigeons would repeat them hoping to be rewarded again, which coincidently out pops another piece.

That bird brains of theirs fooled themselves into thinking that it is these movements which triggers the reward, repeating them as the machine continues to release more food. This, Skinner concluded, demonstrates superstitious behaviours in animals.

So here’s the thing: superstition isn’t a uniquely human occurrence. Superstition also exists within animals. Animals and humans have to be natural in detecting patterns– to detect the patterns of their potential prey, the pattern in the climate which promotes rich vegetation, or the patterns of predators to keep out of harm’s way – to make predictions for their very survival. Combine this necessity with a complex brain, they beauty and brilliance of mathematics emerges, as counting and measuring is needed for more accurate predictions. But if this brilliant combination is accompanied by horrible reasoning, out emerges a side-effect, best exemplified with people who self-convincingly conclude that the faces they make out from still photos of smokes, and spoken words out of static noise from sound recordings of empty quiet rooms are signs of spirits. Pigeons and humans alike, when one seem to detect patterns which aren’t really there, yet remain convinced, this is superstition.

Natural rock formation which seems to conjure up images due to our innate pattern detecting brain.
Athletes and club supporters are easy example of this bird-brain behaviour. “The last two times I wore this underwear during a match, I performed really well, and I won. I’m going to wear it again for my next match to increase my chances,” some athletes may have in their mind. “I was holding my pee when my team was doing really well. But then when I decided to visit the loo to let it out and came back, they started performing really badly. Next time I will never go to the loo during a match,” some club supporters would say.

Then there is the folk beliefs type of superstition. It is a product of our ancestral elders storifying false consequences of undesired customary bad habits to the young ones, preventing them from developing.
“Do not harm animals, or your child will be born crippled.”
“Do not shake your legs when you are sitting down, or you will always be in debt.”
“Do not sit on the porch and stare outside,” a mother would advice her daughter, and if the daughter questions why, “You will get married at a late age,” would be the given reason.
“Do not sing in the kitchen,” a mother would advice her daughter. “Why?” the daughter asks, and the mother would answer “Or you will marry an old man.”
“Do not cut your nails at night,” a mother would advice her child. “Why?” the child asks. “You ask too many questions!” the mother snaps. Actually, there are quite a number of reasons for this. One of them is that it will shorten one’s life.
These are just some of the pantang larang, or prohibitions, that we have in Malay folk beliefs.

Pontianak, a Malay equivalent of a female banshee-like-vampire; toyol, a goblin-like-spirit invoked from a human foetus; orang minyak or “oil man”, an oily women-raping hominid capable of disappearing into thin air; mawas, the Johorean (Malaysia) equivalent of Bigfoot; and orang pendek or “short man”, an Sumatran (Indonesia) miniature Bigfoot are Malay cultural examples of another category of superstition – folklore, be it just a creature, or creatures with a well developed tale behind its origins.

The existence of an upright-walking, furry, 10 feet tall ape and gigantic flying birds of prey sounds very plausible since they do not contradict with biological knowledge and that there already are similar known existing creatures. In fact, there was an ape species called Gigantopithecus which lived in Asia about 1 million years ago measuring up to 10 feet tall and 540 kg – closely resembling the North American Bigfoot or Sasquatch and its other varieties (including Himalayan Yeti, Australian Yowie, Brazilian Mapinquary, South American Maricoxi, Chinese Yeren, Caucasus Mountain’s Almas, Kenyan Chimiset, Siberian Chuchunaa, Japanese Higabon and Vietnamese Nguoi Rung), and a Family of birds-of-prey called Teratorns which lived in North and South America roughly throughout 20 to 2 million years ago with wingspans measuring up to 12 feet and weighing 15 kg – closely resembling the Native American’s mythical creature, Thunderbird. As of the Scottish Loch Ness Monster, they perfectly resemble the Pleisiosaurs – again, plausible. One version of the Chupacraba is simply a hairless goat-blood-sucking dog-like animal – very plausible indeed.


So, unlike the physically and biologically implausible existence of garlic-allergic sunlight-allergic cross-shaped-allergic non-shadow-casting non-reflection-casting bat-morphing human-blood-sucking murderous caped crusaders, or green-coated cocked-hat-wearing wish-granting elderly bearded Irish dwarves with pots of gold hidden at ends of rainbows, “Bigfoot, Thunderbirds and Loch Ness monster, aren’t superstitions after all” you may ask. Wrong! Not only did their mythical existences develop long before the discovery and long after the extinction of their prehistoric counterpart, but more importantly, unlike ghost and daemons of the Middle Ages, modern day Bigfoot, Thunderbirds and Loch Ness monsters have not been discovered, studied upon, well documented, peer reviewed, published, and presented with specimen as evidence and listed in a biological taxonomy of life. The seemingly implausible mysterious life forms capable of crawling its way into people, possessing them, distorting their physical appearances, perceptions, behaviours and well being, and are always around us yet invisible to the naked eye, capable of moving through walls were scientifically uncovered to be smaller than the size of a pin head which we now call microorganisms or germs. “To be possessed by daemons” in the medieval times now translates to “to be infected by germs”, or simply “to fall sick”. Psychiatric illnesses, the bizarre alien hand syndrome and sleep paralysis, on the other hand, are reminiscence of the more extreme cases of daemonic possessions.

A video report on Alien Hand Syndrome from BBC News.
The following link is a clip from Discovery Science which explains the syndrome very well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Glq9SVSxQ
Sleep paralysis is a rather particularly interesting one. It is where the natural paralysing mechanism that takes place during sleep, necessary to prevent us from physically acting out our dreams, continues to function upon waking up or starts functioning upon falling asleep, resulting in losing total physical control including speech while our mind remains awake and aware. If that doesn’t terrify you, then hallucinations of two shadowy hominid figures pressing down onto your chest just after a few seconds of tremor accompanying the paralysis surely would. At least, that’s what I experienced before breaking free. Most do not break free and fall back asleep to later wake up being certain it was all real, traumatised by the mysterious murderous attack. This is where folklores of daemons sitting or pressing on a sleeper’s chest such as the Scandinavian mare dating back to the Norsemen Middle Ages are bred into cultures. Cultures around the world put the blame of these eerie experiences onto their own invented daemons – the English and Anglo North American Old Hag, the Chinese guǐ yā shēn, Japanese kanashibari, Korean gawi nulim, Mongol khar darakh, Vietnamese ma đè, Tamil Amuku Be, Turkish karabasan, Icelander lidércnyomás, New Guinean Suk Ninmyo, Nepalese Khyaak, Ethiopian dudak, Zimbabwean Madzikirira, Swahilian jinamizi, Persians bakhtak, Greek Mora, Vrachnas or Varypnas, and majority of Muslims including here in Malaysia blames the Shiatan and evil Jinns. The most modern folklore, yet science fiction, manifested from sleep paralysis, primarily in the US, puts the blame on a human-skeleton-resembling extraterrestrials – the folklore of alien abduction.

Aside from that, the sightings of Bigfoot, Thunderbirds, Loch Ness monsters and Chupacrabas, or any other creatures for that matter, are separate matters from the plausibility of their existence. The sightings are separate superstitions on their own, not any less superstitious then the sighting of Einstein and Beethoven having a delightful conversation at a coffee shop in this current day, taking note that Einstein and Beethoven were real existing people.

The next topic in question is whether it is closed-minded to dismiss superstitious claims or is it simply gullible to accept them. This, I leave it for the next article on superstition to tackle.



Succeeding linked article:
What Lay People Should Know about Superstition – Open Minded or Gullible? (argumentative)
Print Friendly and PDF

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

What Lay People Should Know about the Internet – History of the Invention (technical)

by Zad Datu



At the brink of the Space Race, on October 4th 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik 1 defeating the United States’ Project Vanguard to launch the first manmade satellite into orbit. Soon after in the following December 6th, Vanguard TV3 was launched. But just after four feet of ascend about two seconds after liftoff, the rocket fall back to the launch pad exploding and destroying itself damaging the launch pad along with it.

In response to the Sputnik Crisis and the spectacular televised failure of Vanguard TV3, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the US Department of Defense was formed, now known as DARPA. The agency’s emphasis was initially centred to space, ballistic missile defence, and nuclear test detection. But it too had its focus on computers.

Many revolutionary technological inventions like the radar, the jet engine, and scientific innovations like the discovery of atomic fusion, were inventions fuelled by the features and capabilities which war necessitates. In the case, the Cold War necessitated to the Internet.

How it All Began
J.C.R. Licklider of MIT was the man with the vision. In 1962, he was chosen by the director of ARPA, Jack Ruina to join the agency to create and manage a programme for funding research to improve the military’s use of computer technology. He became the first director of the Command and Control Research Department at the agency, now known as the Information Processing Technologies Offices (IPTO). This was when he first wrote his memos on the Intergalactic Network or Galactic Network – the first ever concept of what is now known as the internet. He is especially famous for writing two papers, which were Man-Computer Symbiosis published in 1965 which speaks of the aims “let computers facilitate formulative thinking as they now facilitate the solution of formulated problems, and to enable men and computers to cooperate in making decisions and controlling complex situations without inflexible dependence on predetermined programs”, and The Computer as the Communication Device published in 1968 co-written by the successor of his successor, Ivan Sutherland, Robert W. Taylor.

Joseph Carl Robnett J.C.R Licklider Lick had the first vision of an Intergalactic Network now known as the Internet.

One of the first and most crucial inventions which lead to the development of the internet is packet switching, the process which breaks information or various numbers of data into ‘packets’ of data, which are then sent through the network or communication line individually. The term ‘switching’ refers to the discontinuity of the transferring of these packets through the network. A connected network of computers have many pathways to move information from one station to the next, and if a computer somewhere in the network disconnects, these independently travelling packets would individually find other routes to get to its target location, and this is what is meant by discontinuity. As all these packets reach their target, they are assembled back together as how they were before they left its source.


Lenoard Keinrock (left) in published a paper on digital message switching in 1961. Paul Barand (centre) and Donald Watts Davies (right) and independent invented packet switching in the early 60s.

The packet switching concept was a parallel invention in the early 60s first developed by Paul Baran of RAND (Research And Development) in the U.S. within the timeframe of ARPA in which he called ‘message-blocks’, and independently by Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, in which he called ‘packet-switching’.

As an electrical engineer at RAND, Barand was asked to research into the survivability of the communications network for the U.S. Air Force. It was his 1964 paper titled On Distributed Communications which documents the breakthrough concept of packet switching. The paper describes the robustness of the communication system, whereby no matter how much damage was done to individual components of the network, without a central control and as long as the end-to-end communication is not lost, the information will still pass through. This was upmost important to military use as the Cold War was still ongoing. Although, there was an earlier research and a published a paper of relating field mostly on digital message switching in July of 1961 by Leonard Kleinrock titled Information Flow in Large Communications Net whom later played a major role in ARPA.

Lawrence G. Roberts (right) was persuaded by Robert William Bob Taylor (left) to join ARPA to become the ARPA IPTO Chief Scientist in December 1966.

In October 1966, Lawrence G. Roberts of MIT and head of Lincoln Laboratory published a paper titled Toward A Cooperative Network Of Time-Shared Computers. Roberts was persuaded by the third director of ARPA, Robert Taylor to leave MIT and join ARPA. Initially resisting, in December that year, he finally gave in as the ARPA IPTO Chief Scientist in December 1966. In 1967 Roberts, Baran and Davies became aware of each other’s work at an Association of Computing Machinery conference where they met and the term packet-switching was adopted. This is where ARPANET programme (ARPA Network programme) was first conceptualised based on Roberts’ paper and the packet switching technology.

It is August 30th, 1969 that marks the birth of ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet, hence also the birth of the internet as well. An IMP (Interface Message Processor) was successfully delivered from BBN (originally Bolt, Beranek and Newma), a high-technology company which provides research and development services, to Klienrock’s Network Measurement Centre at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) becoming the first node of the ARPANET. The next nodes to emerge was SRI (Stanford Research Institute) and UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara). Then more and more nodes emerged adding on to the network at a rate of around one per month. This was virtually unknown until the International Conference on Computer Communication in Washington DC in October 1972. By then, the ARPANET is no longer just about military use, and BBN from then until now remains a defence contractor for ARPA.

Competition between the Networks
The next field of the application of computing network after military use is education. Many institutions and universities started to develop their own network. Many other networks beside the ARPANET were developed for the purpose of quick data sharing, some of which are still extensively used until today and some no longer. ALOHAnet, for example, went into operation in 1970 at the University of Hawaii under the leadership of Norman Abramson which later connected to ARPANET in 1972, but it is no longer in use today. But Ethernet, which refers to the widely and still used today Local Area Network (LAN), is based on ALOHAnet’s protocol. BITNET, developed in 1981 by Ira H. Fuchs of City University of New York and Greydon Freeman of Yale University too faded away but did have a fare share of success around 1991 to 1992. But in the following years, it was later outnumbered by the number of connections to the successor of ARPANET, the Internet. By year 2000, BITNET’s remaining heritage mailing lists in regular use was a Blues music discussion group. Although, in 1988, BITNET did merge with another network the, CSNET (Computer and Science Research Network) to form CREN (Corporation for Research and Educational Networking) which is still somewhat in use today.

CSNET started its development in 1979, lead by L. H. Landweber and sponsored by the National Science Foundation, which helped introduce and popularised what was fast becoming the internet outside ARPANET to universities around the world. These universities naturally chose ARPANET’s network protocol, TCP/IP, which played a crucial role in ARPANET’s success. CSNET led directly to the development of the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET). NSFNET was later officially dissolved on April 30th, 1995. Although, it did retained a core research network for research only use called the Very High Speed Backbone Network Service (vBNS).

Other networks which remain active until today are FidoNet and USENET. FidoNet is an amateur electronic mail network with over 15,000 mail nodes world wide, most publicly accessible Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) incorporated as a company in 1986. By 1998, FidoNet had about 30,000 nodes world wide, and it remains active into the 21'st century. USENET was developed in a similar manner to the other networks after ARPANET, where Jim Ellis and Tom Truscott, graduates from Duke University wanted similar capabilities of the mailing list on ARPANET for universities which weren’t doing research with the by-then-called DARPA, where in 1973, ‘D’ was added to stand for Defense and Research Project Agency. USENET was originally developed to share files between computers, but evolved into a net-wide hierarchy of the eight major categories plus a catch-call.


The advantage which ARPANET had over other networks is it being affiliated to BBN. What made ARPANET a stronger competitor among the networks were the invention of the E-mail and the development of the TCP/IP protocols, both advancements were from BBN developed in the 70s for ARPANET. This lead to other networks developing similar mailing and protocol systems of and for their own. Both E-mail and TCP/IP later became the standards of their type in the 80s. This one decade long duration of development to standardisation shows the resistance of other networks to make a switch from their own convention to the ARPANET’s convention.

ARPANET to Internet
The email was invented by Ray Tomlinson under BBN for ARPANET as part of a small group of programmers who were developing a time-sharing system called TENEX and was making improvements on a single-computer electronic mail programme called SNDMSG. The world’s first messages between two computers connected only by a computer network, the ARPANET, were sent in late 1971. The next release, TENEX, went out in early 1972 and included the version of SNDMSG with network mail capabilities. He develops the ‘user@host’ convention, choosing the ‘@’ sign arbitrarily from the non-alphabetic symbols on the keyboard. Other later networks with emailing capabilities chose other characters, and it was not until the late 1980s when ‘@’ finally become a worldwide standard.

 
Raymond Samuel Ray Tomilson invented the E-mail and implemented the famous '@' standard where the first email was sent in 1971.Vinton Gray Vint Cerf (left) and Robert Elliot Bob Kahn worked together under Lawrence G. Roberts to invent the TCP/IP protocol in 1973.

In 1973, Robert Kahn from BBN and Vint Cerf from Stanford joins the DARPA, to work for Lawrence Roberts in connecting ARPANET with other networks. By September 1973, the two gave their first paper on the new Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) at an International Network Working Group meeting (INWG meeting) at the University of Sussex, England. The term “internet” was adopted in the first RFC (Request for Comments) published on the TCP protocol, RFC 657. In technical terms, internet referrers to any network using the TCP/IP protocol.

Sooner, many other networks develop their own protocols, and it was only in 1984 onwards was when TCP/IP started its way to become world the standard. The US Department of Defence made the TCP/IP the standard for all military computer networking, which provided the protocol a higher profile and stable funding, and Dan Lynch and the Internet Architecture Board held a three day workshop on TCP/IP for the computer industry attended by about 50 researchers and 250 vendor representatives in 1985 which lead to several development of TCP/IP networking products by various companies. This is what lead to the development of the modern internet.

Before and Beyond
The previous services which the internet advanced from were of course those in the field of communications such as the electric telegraph, telephone, wireless telegraphy more commonly known as radio, and television. But as it did so from telegraph to telephone, telephone to radio and radio to television, the newer technologies simply outclassed the previous but not replace it, except for telegraphy-to-telephones. Although telephones completely made telegraphy obsolete, the submarine communications cables linking continents which used to carry telegraphy traffic now carries telephone traffic. Subsequently, the internet utilises and integrated with these telephone lines. In fact and clearly, the whole existence of the internet relied on the existence of telephones.

How the internet allowed the sharing and access of information with speed changed how the world operates.

Map of the internet (from Wikipedia)
Transforming mailing from the traditional use of using ink-and-paper for the content, and on-foot, vehicles, ships and aeroplanes for the sending, to electronic data for contents and mouse-clicks for the sending; from physical-travelling-to-purchase-products, to online shopping; from the tangible newspapers, to online news; from brick-walled three-to-four-stories libraries and archives, to search engines – Google especially; from personal paper-and-ink logbooks or diaries, to public electronic logs – web-logs, shortened to a more easily and quickly pronounced ‘blog’; from  text blogging, to online video blogging (vlog) with the video sharing website – YouTube; from board games, to massive multiplayer online and to virtual worlds – World of Warcraft and Second Life respectively; from paper printed encyclopaedias, to free easily accessible online encyclopaedias opened to be edited by anyone – Wikipedia; from conventional socialising, to online and virtual social networking – especially Facebook, becoming the world’s identity registry; and from online social networking, to frequent instant personal, company, media, news and celebrity updates via the phone – Twitter; the internet has truly transformed human civilisation into a Global Village.

If there is a technology in the line of communications which can surpass the internet, one could only speculate of a technology which provides network coverage across the solar system and beyond.
Print Friendly and PDF

Friday, 26 August 2011

World Education Ranking on Reading, Math and Science

An interesting data comparing the education of various countries:


From Gurdian's article World education rankings: which country does best at reading, maths and science?
Print Friendly and PDF

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Ethical and Legal Issues (technical) [Part 3]

by Zad Datu


Preceeding linked article (Read first!):
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Animal Reproductive Cloning
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Other Types of Cloning
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Fear Fuelled Objections (opinion) [Part 1] [Part 2]



Return to [Part 1 (of 3)]
Return to [Part 2 (of 3)]


Human Cloning Attempts
Panayiotis Michael “Panos” Zavos from Kentucky Center of Reproductive Medicine & IVF, a Greek Cypriot from Cyprus and American citizen currently living in Lexington, Kentucky is an infertility expert who has devoted well over a quarter of a decade to academia and research and has had a long career performing IVF, whom later founded Zavos Organization in Lexington, has been saying since 2001 that the time to clone a human is already.

On 9th March 2001, Zavos alongside Severino Antinori, a controversial Italian gynaecologist and fertility doctor from Rome who have already made headlines when he enabled a 62-year-old woman, Rosanna Dell Corte from Canino, Italy to give birth on July 18, 1994, who became the oldest mother to give birth at that time, announced that they are fully prepared to perform therapeutic human cloning, seven months before the first human cloned embryo was successful, which did not even survive to the blasocyst stage. They even claimed to have rounded up a team of scientists and doctors who are ready to clone a baby by the end of 2002. Regardless of the risks known in the animal cloning experiments, Zavos and Antinori insist that it is safe to proceed with human cloning.


Zavos announced before the US Congressional committee Hearing on 15th of May, 2002 of his intention to clone a human being and that “There is every indication that 2002 will be the year of the clones,” but admitted that he may not be the first to succeed. He also suggested that the best way to deal with the risks of human cloning is to legalise and regulate it instead of banning it all together, as regardless of bans someone, somewhere will attempt human cloning.

Since then, there have been many controversial human cloning claims most of which were unconvincing as they lacked evidence, causing international uproars, scorned and condemned upon by mainstream scientists, described as irresponsible and misusing genetic science:
  • April 2002: Early in the month, Severino Antinori announced his claim at a genetic engineering conference at Abu Dhabi that a woman is 8 weeks pregnant with the world’s first human clone. No evidence was presented. Even his own former partner, Panos Zavos claims that there have been “no clones, no laboratory, no patients and no doctors to help him,” and this severed their affiliation. But Antinori later he claimed that he had no involvement in the pregnancies – plural, not singular – and that there were three women in their 9th, 7th and 6th week of pregnancy, which he got to know of from other doctors.
  • 27 December 2002: Brigitte Boisselier, a Raelean bishop (a religious cult with the belief that Earth life was created by an extraterrestrial species) and CEO of Clonaid (a human cloning company run by the cult) announced that a 31-year-old American woman gave birth to her own clone named Eve – another world’s first cloned human baby. With no surprise that no evidence was presented.
  • 17 January 2004: Zavos announced at a news conference in a central London hotel claimed to have implanted cloned embryos into a woman’s womb. Zavos said that it was too early to determine if the implantation is successful. Zavos published a paper on this procedure and claimed that the procedure was filmed by independent filmmaker, Peter Williams, and that DNA testing can be performed to confirm his claim. It was later revealed on 4th February that the attempt failed – that pregnancy did not take place.
In response to the numerous non credible claims, on January 21st 2004, the British scientific community and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) made a request to news editors in the UK not to give press coverage to Zavos’s cloning efforts and to “reconsider the prominence given to repeated claims by certain scientists that they have cloned a human being, including those made by Dr. Panos Zavos last weekend”.  The letter was signed by qualified scientists from many reputable institutions. Zavos took the effort to defend himself during the 31st August press conference later that year, which is meticulously presented in his webpage http://www.zavos.org/library/library_hfea.htm.
  • May 2004: Antinori restates his April 2002 claim of the three pregnancies at a press conference on reproductive technology in Rome still denying his involvement but that he only gave a ‘cultural and scientific contribution’ and confirming the births and that he knows they went well and confirming the fact exists whilst refusing to provide further details or evidence.
  • August 2004: Zavos claimed to have cloned human embryos once again, but from the DNA of two corpses belonging to victims of road accidents – Cady, an 11-year old girl and a 33-year old man – then implanting them into a woman’s womb, and once again it was filmed by Peter Williams and has published his work in an online medical journal run by one of the pioneers of IVF. Zavos later revealed that the surrogate mother failed be impregnated. Regardless of condemnations, Zavos sees himself to be helping families to create a genetic replica of loved ones who have passed away.
  • 2004 – 2006: Zavos have been publishing experimented on interspecies cloned embryos of human DNA from a man but an oocyte of a bovine (subfamily Bovinae, which includes cattle, bison, buffalo, yaks and antelopes) for research and practicing purposes as has been conducted by other scientists. He insists that he never intends to implant an interspecies clone for reproduction nor does he think it should ever be done.
  • Early March 2009: Antinori once again restates his 2002 claim, this time to Italy’s Oggi magazine, boastfully saying “I helped give birth to three children with the human cloning technique,” and “It involved two boys and a girl who are nine years old today,” adding and “they were born healthy and they are in excellent health now,” and that they are now living in Eastern Europe without providing evidence once again.
  • April 2009: Zavos attempted to clone Cady once again this time produce 14 embryos and implanted 11 of them into the wombs of 4 women who were paid up to £50,000, three of which were couples, one British, and the fourth was a single woman. As usual, no proof was provided nor did he submit any scientific publication. This again was filmed by Peter Williams (many of his films on Zavos procedure were presented on Discovery Channel) who testified the legitimacy of the procedure for reproductive purposes to The Independent adding that the women were genuinely hoping to become pregnant. But once again, all failed to achieve pregnancy. The location of the procedure is secret but is speculated to be in the Middle East.


Human Cloning Debates
Instead of allowing a sperm to fertilise with an egg, cloning uses a nucleus of a completely different kind of cell. Instead of having a sperm to fertilise the egg, electrocution is used. In cloning the chromosome of the ovum is removed and what else is removed along with that isn’t something we are entirely sure of.  Performing all these unnatural processes to produce and offspring is very likely to be of higher risk than that of natural processes. To assume safety is to be irresponsible, most scientists would say.

With the uncertainties of cloning we are yet to solve, cloning humans is just like using humans as guinea pigs for the cloning procedure. Even if the clones appear completely normal at the early stage of life, it is still very likely that abnormality and deformities as a result of cloning would appear in the later years of life, just as they do currently in animals. Zavos argues that since there already is a 3% - 4% of genetic abnormality for natural sexual reproduction, the imperfection from human cloning is just another form to live with.

Many dismiss Zavos’s TV documentary effort as simply attention seeking. Zavos argues that there is a demand for media coverage by the public in the field of human cloning and that advances in the technology should be presented to better inform the public to educate the public to decide for themselves whether they are against or for reproductive cloning. He states that many oppose human cloning out of the fear of what they do not know. Zavos, who claims to have inquiries from around 100 potential patients, truly believes that human cloning can brighten up the life of many infertile couples. He has receive inquiries to participate at international forums to present his data and have attended numerous press conference and interviews and intend to do so more in the future to educate the public on the technology.

Both sides agree that all the cloning experiments performed thus far are on animals and that they resulted in a high percentage of birth defects. It is the interpretation of this is what both sides don’t agree with. The human cloning proponents interprets this as that these birth defects may occur to human cloning as well if attempted, and that since that there are no cloning technique on animals which has a high success rate in developing normal babies, no one can guarantee a human cloning technique of high success rate especially that there hasn’t been any experiments on human cloning – that the implications of attempting to clone a human at this stage of cloning technology is unimaginable and it would be completely irresponsible to do so.

But Zavos interprets it otherwise. There are many instances in countless numbers of interviews where he states that just because all these birth defects occurs in animals, it doesn’t mean that it will occur in humans. He says that with over 25 years of experience working with human embryos in IVF procedures in his expertise, he can use the advance fertilization techniques which animal cloning procedures do not utilise, hence the chances of successfully producing a normal human clone is higher than that of animals. He obviously seems to think that he, who has never performed cloning – not even on animals – claims to know better about human cloning than the scientists who have been performing cloning on animals since Dolly in 1997 does. Whether his confidence and optimism is a result of flawed assumption or not is up to anyone to decide, but majority of the scientific community, even cloning experts, condemn his human cloning attempts.


Dr. Zavos has also said that he is against the idea of creating human embryos to experiment on them, then killing it. This is partially the reason why he wishes to go for the ‘instant success’ path and produce a normal human clone. But the first attempt of ‘instant success’ cloned baby would be a human guinea pig. This is why nobody, except for Zavos, dares to clone a human. Most scientists would prefer to have the perfect low risk animal cloning technique in their hands before attempting to try it on humans which sounds perfectly reasonable, but Zavos obviously seems to think that this is unnecessary.

Zavos remains firm that he does not intend to create deformed babies or break any laws. He will perform cloning in countries where cloning is not banned, but refuses to reveal where, and that the embryos will be thoroughly tested for chromosomal and other defects before implanting them and will abandon the procedure if any form of defects is discovered.
Print Friendly and PDF

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Ethical and Legal Issues (technical) [Part 2]

by Zad Datu


Preceeding linked article (Read first!):
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Animal Reproductive Cloning
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Other Types of Cloning
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Fear Fuelled Objections (opinion) [Part 1] [Part 2]



Return to [Part 1 ( of 3)]


World Cloning Laws
In reaction to Dolly, the UN General Assembly proposed to adopt “all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life” on 8th March, 2005. US, Germany and Italy amongst 84 countries in total voted in favour of the declaration, UK and South Korea amongst 34 countries in total voted against, 37 countries abstained and, 35 were absent resulting in majority of the members not passing the declaration hence not adopted.

This international ban of human reproductive cloning was, in fact, also supported and called for by the Royal Society, UK’s most respected and national academy of science expressed by the Lord May of Oxford, president of the society, in a press conference on 22nd September, 2003 endorsed by more than 60 science academies around the world. The statement also urges that a ban should not extend to therapeutic cloning.

The protocol on cloning of The Council of Europe states that “any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead is prohibited” as part of The Council’s 1997 Convention on Human Rights. This does ban human cloning but not necessarily therapeutic cloning, hence it is left to the interpretation of the individual national Parliaments of what is meant by a ‘human being’ to permit or prohibit therapeutic cloning in European countries.

There is no legal ban on therapeutic cloning specifically by the EU, but they will not fund research which uses SCNT. They ban the funding human of cloning but support that of embryonic stem cell research where it is permitted.  The EU allows the decision for the countries themselves to choose which embryonic stem cell research to fund with the requirement that it is carefully regulated, peer reviewed, scientifically and ethically sound.

The following table lists out the overview policies of embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning and human reproductive cloning among counties which has passed legislation on the technologies:


Countries
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Therapeutic Cloning
Human Reproductive Cloning
North America
Canada
permitted
banned
banned
Costa Rica
banned
banned
banned
El Salvador?
banned
banned
banned
Panama
-
banned
banned
Trinidad and Tobago
banned
banned
banned
United States
ban lifted in 2009
13 state bans
5 state bans
South America
Argentina
permitted
banned
banned
Brazil
permitted
banned
banned
Chile
-
banned
banned
Columbia
-
banned
banned
Ecuador?
banned
banned
banned
Peru
-
banned
banned
Uruguay
-
-
banned
Europe
Austria
banned
banned
banned
Belgium
permitted
permitted
banned
Czech Republic?
permitted
from unused IVF
banned
banned
Denmark
-
banned
banned
Estonia?
permitted
banned
banned
Finland
permitted
permitted
banned
France
permitted
banned
banned
Georgia
-
banned
banned
Germany
banned
banned
banned
Greece
permitted
-
banned
Hungary?
-
banned
banned
Iceland
permitted
from unused IVF
banned
banned
Ireland
banned
banned
banned
Italy
banned
banned
banned
Latvia
permitted
banned
banned
Lithuania?
banned
banned
banned
Netherlands
banned
banned
banned
Norway
banned
banned
banned
Poland?
banned
banned
banned
Portugal
permitted
banned
banned
Russian Federation
-
banned
banned
Slovakia
-
banned
banned
Slovenia?
-
banned
banned
Spain
permitted
banned
banned
Sweden
permitted
permitted
banned
Switzerland
permitted
from excess AI
banned
banned
Turkey?
-
permitted
banned
Ukraine?
-
-
banned
United Kingdom
permitted
permitted
banned
Asia
China
permitted
permitted
banned
India
permitted
permitted
banned
Japan?
permitted
permitted
banned
Singapore
permitted
permitted
banned
South Korea?
permitted
permitted
banned
Taiwan?
permitted
from excess AI
banned
banned
Thailand
permitted
permitted
banned
Vietnam
-
banned
banned
Oceania
Australia
permitted
permitted
banned
New Zealand
permitted
permitted
banned
Middle East
Egypt
-
-
banned
Iran?
permitted
-
-
Israel
permitted
permitted
banned
Africa
South Africa
permitted
banned
banned
Tunisia
-
banned
banned

Note: (-) indicatesmeans that there are no particular law permitting or prohibiting the technology.


Well over 30 countries have banned human reproductive cloning all together, and there are no countries which permit reproductive cloning of human beings by legislation or guidelines, but for the other countries which have not passed legislation on human reproductive cloning, essentially it is legal. In the United States, 13 states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia) ban reproductive cloning, which means that it is legal in the other 37 states.

Among the 13 states, Arizona, Maryland and Missouri prohibit the use of public funds for such activities therapeutic cloning. In total, 14 countries permit therapeutic cloning but have banned human reproductive cloning. UK laws permits therapeutic cloning required that the embryo must be destroyed at age 14 days. In North America, South America and Europe majority of the countries which have passed legislation on therapeutic cloning bans them, whereas in Asia and Oceania the opposite is true.

Among the countries which have passed legislation on embryonic stem cell research, there is a well mix in permitting and prohibiting the technology. Some of the countries which ban human reproductive cloning do not explicitly prohibit or permit embryonic stem cell research partially because their legislation was drafted before embryonic stem cells were first produced (1998).

Resources for this section:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001342/134277e.pdf
http://cnx.org/content/m14836/1.1/?format=pdf
http://cnx.org/content/m14834/1.1/?format=pdf


Reactions on Animal Reproductive Cloning
The debate of the whether to clone is to play god, and whether to kill an embryo is to disrespect the value of human life  should be left aside because the true centre of debate on human cloning is not of such issues. It is of more near to earth practical issues. It is about whether the current technology of human cloning has sufficient success rate, as this may produce unhealthy or deformed human babies.

277 mammary gland cells were used to produce Dolly, out of which only 29 grew into developing embryos which were placed into 13 surrogate mothers, and out of which only one embryo survived to produce Dolly, and Dolly herself suffered from arthritis developed at a relatively early age of five and a half years, and is said to have signs of premature ageing when scientists noticed that the cells in Dolly’s body showed signs of wear more typical of an older animal. She later died at the age of six on 14th February 2003, half the life expectancy of her breed. In fact, since Dolly, scientists at the Roslin institute find difficulties to repeat their success.

This 1-out-of-277 figure is intriguing, making it sounds as if only 1 out of 277 experiments succeeded. The fact is not that it took 277 attempts to produce one cloned sheep – it is that all these 277 mammary glands were from a single experiment which resulted in a success.

Dolly’s death often seems to be publicised as a result of arthritis or premature ageing as a result of being a clone. Many speculate that this premature ageing may be due to the older adult cell from a six-year-old sheep of which she was made from. The truth is that no matter how many times men have been producing new sperm over and over again (and ova for women), the DNA in the sperm as well as every part of their body have been dividing since their father’s sperm fertilised their mother’s ovum – in affect no matter how new or old the cells are, the DNA is the same age. Dolly did not die from premature ageing; neither did she die from arthritis as it was successfully treated with anti-inflammatory drugs. Dolly was even bred with a Welsh Mountain ram producing six young.

Dolly developed a form of lung cancer called Jaagsekte. Scientists at Roslin doubt the illness had any connection with the fact that she is a clone because this disease and deaths due to this disease are common among sheep. Sheep at risk of this disease are those that are kept indoors for long periods – exactly the case with Dolly. She was kept indoors for the majority of her life for security reasons.  She did not die as a direct result of disease as well. She was subjected to euthanasia.

Most nuclear transfers fail to start growing into embryos or fail to be successfully implanted into the womb, and for those of which succeeds into a foetus, many die before birth due to abnormality which couldn’t be detected through ultrasound. Many also tend to die weeks, days and sometimes just hours after birth. Reports of abnormality of clones the various species around the world varies from abnormalities, and appearing healthy at a young age is not a good indicator of long-term survival as clones have been known to die mysteriously. Not many clones have lived long enough to generate sufficient data about the ageing of clones.

EndAnimalCloning.org presents the facts of the problems of animal cloning as shown below:

Consumer’s reaction to animal cloning
  • 67% of Americans disapprove of cloning animals for food.
  • Disapproval increases to 88% upon learning that animal suffering is involved.
  • The majority of Americans think it is morally wrong to clone animals, and 63% would not buy cloned food even if it were labelled as ‘safe.’
  • Numerous dairies, food producers, and retailers have declared that they do not want to use products from cloned animals or their offspring.
  • The dairy industry has said that there is no consumer benefit in animal cloning.
Success rate
  • Roslin Institute (2002) – Typically only 0% - 3% of SCNT will produce live births, usually by caesarean section.
  • Ian Wilmut (2002, 2003) – Those which survive births, a small percentage are healthy enough to live for more than a few days or weeks.
  • Texas A&M bovine study (2000) – Out of 322 SCNT, 17% (about 54) developed into embryos, in which 26 were implanted; and 6 foetuses survived after 40 days, but only 1 survived after 290 days; this calf had metabolic and cardiopulmonary abnormalities, diabetes mellitus, susceptible to severe immune-system deficiencies.
  • 2007 study – 18% cloned calves died at birth; 32% of those survived died within the first month. 
Surrogate mothers and their foetuses
  • FDA (2006) – Hydrops (a typically fatal condition in which the animal swells with fluid) occurs in 28% of cow calf clones, whereas are very rare for that of from artificial insemination (non clones).
  • Cyagra, a biotech company leading the push for cloned foods (2007) – 50% of cow calf clones suffered hydrops.
  • Research farm in France (2002) – 45% of pregnancies are lost in second or third trimester, which is uncommon in conventional pregnancies.
  • Cyagra (2007) – 54% of surrogate mother requires caesarean section; 30% requires non-surgical intervention, whereas less than 1% for that of from artificial insemination.
  • Newborn clones FDA (2006) – Newborn calf clones suffers respiratory distress; hypoglycaemia; weakened immune systems; developmental problems; deformities including squashed faces, contracted tendons, limbs bended wrong way; malformed livers, kidney or hearts; a variety of ailments – causing 1/3 of deaths of newborns.
  • Cyagra (2007) – 37% of cloned calves who survive birth had enlarge umbilical cords; 19% had respiratory problems; 20% exhibited signs of depression; 17% hyper- or hypothermic; 75% required antibiotics; ≈50% of all surviving birth died within the first 5 months
  • FDA (2006) – Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS) occurs over 50% of calf clones, whereas only 5% for that of from conventional breeding.
  • Ian Wilmut’s and colleagues (1998) – LOS commonly observed one reaching up to 5 times the size. 2002 study – 3 of 12 surrogate mothers died during pregnancy.
  • FDA (2006) – Calves living longer than 6 months appearing healthy is known to suffer unexpected health consequences later in life.
  • FDA (2006) – Reproductive performance of cloned animals may be impaired (measure by sperm characteristic, ejaculate volume, pregnancy rate, and abortion rate).

Other reports presented on the site include “Offspring of cloned animals”, “Industrial farm animal production” and “FDA Risk Assessment”. EndAnimalCloning.org also makes a point that animal cloning threatens genetic diversity, leaving farm animals vulnerable to diseases.

These reports are by scientists who perform animal cloning themselves, where for that reason are mostly very much against human cloning due to this, and condemn those who attempts human at this stage. But some are open to human cloning once the technology is reliable as they believe that it will not disrupt our humanity, but some believe that it may and hence are against human cloning all together.

Continue to [Part 3 (of 3)]
Sections in the part 3:
  • Human Cloning Attempts
  • Human Cloning Debates
Print Friendly and PDF

Sunday, 14 August 2011

Killing Embryos vs Killing Grasses (comic)

The following directly relates to What Lay People Should Know about – Fear Fuelled Objections (opinion) [Part 2].





Related articles:
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Animal Reproductive Cloning
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Other Types of Cloning
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Fear Fuelled Objections (opinion) [Part 1] [Part 2]
What Lay People Should Know about Cloning – Ethical and Legal Issues (technical) [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]
WLPSK Extended Article on Cloning – History of Animal Cloning (technical)
Print Friendly and PDF