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.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS