James C.K. Shen (
First, let's talk about "human clones." Ever since the first "cloned sheep" appeared in 1997, many other mammals of all sizes have been successfully cloned with human beings the main exception. Though the issue has been widely discussed, most people still don't know that "human clones" and "test-tube babies" are basically the same except that one reproduces asexually, while the other breeds sexually, both having the eggs reach external fertilization, or activation. Therefore, "cloning" should be formally called "asexual reproduction."
In asexual reproduction, the filial generation is identical genetically to the parental generation -- equivalent to a producing replica. Creatures benefit from evolution through reproduction, asexual and sexual. Whether people are willing to breed generations identical to themselves, giving up the opportunities to breed "products of love" with their loved ones doesn't need to be discussed here. The point is that "human clones," like test-tube babies, don't grow up in "test-tubes," and that they must be implanted into the wombs of the mothers for 280 days of pregnancy. Even after the "human clone" is born, it will not necessarily be your duplicated self. The gap between your generations -- your age, physical strength, experience and thought -- will always be there, just like parents and children.
As far as "cloning" technology is concerned, I don't believe it would be easy to use it to produce transplantable organs. It is one thing to make animals grow an extra ear or arm. However, a living organism is required to grow an organ which has a complete structure and functions. It is still impossible at the current stage to cultivate a mouse embryo, which normally needs 21 days of pregnancy into a fully developed mouse -- and this isn't even close the the requirements for developing a human being. If women were to go through 10 months' pregnancy only to provide an "instrument" for a transplantable organ, it would never be accepted by the public. However, is it possible to solve the problem by making it "headless?"
Since I was not present at Shen's lecture, I don't want to garble any statements from his speech. However, making "headless human clones" appear in the public media seems to mislead more than educate. First of all, I have no idea where the "headless human clone" speculated by Shen is to grow. It definitely would not be possible to grow inside the mother's body. Even though it might be successfully cultivated outside the body, when will it be suitable for transplant? Additionally, let's drop the issue whether being "headless" would avoid ethical criticism. From the viewpoint of physiology, systems cannot function without a nervous system -- of which the brain is the most vital organ.
Research in basic sciences usually does not take applications into account, and at the same time, scientists always hold a "confidently uncertain" stance, in the hope that any problems can be resolved in the future. However, scientists should maintain their duty and not make unreal "predictions." Facing layer after layer of complex structure and functions in the human body -- from molecules, cells, organs and systems to the individual human body -- modern molecular biology is destined to be disappointed if it holds the belief that by simply understanding how to control genes it will come to know the complexity of all creatures.
Pan Jenn-Tser is professor in the Institute of Physiology at National Yang-Ming University.
In 1955, US general Benjamin Davis Jr, then-commander of the US’ 13th Air Force, drew a maritime demarcation line in the middle of the Taiwan Strait, known as the median line. Under pressure from the US, Taiwan and China entered into a tacit agreement not to cross the line. On July 9, 1999, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) described cross-strait relations as a “special state-to-state” relationship. In response, Beijing dispatched People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft into the Taiwan Strait, crossing the median line for the first time since 1955. The PLA has begun to regularly traverse the line. On Sept. 18 and 19, it
Midday in Manhattan on Wednesday, September 16, was sunny and mild. Even with the pandemic’s “social distancing” it was a perfect day for “al fresco” dining with linen tablecloths and sidewalk potted palms outside one of New York City’s elegant restaurants. Two members of the press, outfitted with digital SLR cameras and voice recorders, were dispatched by The Associated Press to cover a rare outdoor diplomatic meeting on one of these New York streets. American diplomat Kelly Craft, Chief of the United States Mission to the United Nations, lunched in the open air with Taiwan’s ambassador-ranked representative in New York, James
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) recently declared that aggression and expansionism have never been in the Chinese nation’s “genes.” It is almost astonishing that he managed to say it with a straight face. Aggression and expansionism obviously are not genetic traits, but they have defined Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) tenure. Xi, who in some ways has taken up the expansionist mantle of Mao Zedong (毛澤東), is attempting to implement a modern version of the tributary system that Chinese emperors used to establish authority over vassal states: submit to the emperor, and reap the benefits of peace and
Unlike its previous practice of disclosing the latest activities of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in a press release, the Ministry of National Defense has in the past few weeks followed the model of the Japanese Ministry of Defense. When carrying out surveillance and reconnaissance of the nation’s waters and airspace, it has posted real-time military activity updates on its Chinese-language Web site, explaining with text and graphs the responses and measures taken by the nation’s armed forces. The disclosed information on PLA activities show that the military is capable of maintaining regional security and safeguarding a free and open