Ramaswamy wrote this ‘opinion piece’ published by NYT in 2007.
In it he said:
“If the creation of these new organisms bothers us as a society, we must ask ourselves why. We cannot merely dismiss human-animal chimeras as "unnatural," or else we would have just as easily dismissed recombinant DNA technology or any other scientific improvement upon nature.
Nor can we merely accept that creating chimeras is ethical because of the potential medical advances; to do so begs the larger question of when ethical considerations should trump scientific inquiry.
Instead, policymakers should use the following simple principle as a guide: One should treat a recipient of transferred humanity with the same level of respect as an organism with inborn humanity - in other words, a human being.
Even if an organism does not appear to be human in biological terms, it nonetheless deserves the moral value of a human being as long as it possesses the qualities that our society has deemed worthy of human respect”
Am I the only one finding the above a ‘bit’ concerning?
Also, how does a “recent Harvard graduate” get an opinion piece published in NYT (especially given it wasn’t even an exclusive. The original publication was in the Boston Globe)?
