Search

A letter to the editor in response to the article "Standards for Papers on Cloning" published in the 2006 issue of "Nature" is presented.

This paper offers some comments on bioethical debates about resource allocation in healthcare. It is stimulated by Rosalind McDougall's argument that it is an affront to the human dignity of people with below "liberties-level health to fund human reproductive cloning. McDougall is right to underline the relevance of resource prioritisation to the ethics of research and provision of new biomedical technologies. This paper argues that bioethicists should be careful when offering comments about such issues. In particular, it emphasises the need to represent accurately the reality of the situation-especially when we are passing judgement on technologies that are in their infancy and whose practical application is yet to be confirmed. The paper also emphasises the importance of the actual context to bioethical debate, and note that it would be better to talk about resource expenditure rather than resource allocation when it comes to discussing the rights and wrongs of how money is spent. It also reiterates the claims made by other writers that social and political philosophy need to have a transparent and considered role in debates about resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor in response to the article "Standards for Papers on Cloning" published in the 2006 issue is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Standards for papers on cloning" in the 2006 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Standard for Papers on Cloning," in the 2006 issue.

A response by Yang to a letter to the editor about their article "Differentiated cells are more efficient than adult stem cells for cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer," is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article on the generation of PPAR mono-allelic knockout pigs via nuclear transfer cloning that was published in a previous issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article about human reproductive cloning in the January 1999 issue.

Several letters to the editor are presented in response to articles in previous issues including one about experiments with radiowave propagative at two-gigaHertz, "Cloning cures" in Volume 3, issue 11, and another about the Catholic interpretation of embryo research.

A letter to the editor is presented regarding the article "Differentiated cells are more efficient than adult stem cells for cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer," by L.Y. Sung.

Presents a letter from a reader of the magazine 'BioScience' who is upset by the title of the article 'The Biology of Cloning.' His argument that the article was not about the history of cloning because it did not mention plant cloning; Discussion of the method of asexual plant cloning; Response from the writers of the article that 'animal' should have been included in the title.