I have a Bioethics discussion paper due tomorrow. I haven't actually started yet because I've been very busy watching season 4 of Battlestar Galactica and eating, and also because I found out that it isn't due until midnight, giving me much longer than I'd anticipated to write it, and accordingly, more time to do things like eating and late-night shopping.

I did however do a bit of trawling through the interwebs yesterday looking for some information and I came across something interesting. My paper is (or at least will be, once it is written) a critical comment about the 2002 Lockhart Review in to the Australian Federal guidelines about human cloning and research. Typing "Lockhart Review" into Google doesn't even get you the original legislation or review recommendations, but it does give a number of hardline religious articles about how all scientists are evil and we're all doomed to hell. They might've said the apocalypse is coming too, but I didn't really read that closely.

Anyway, I found something that really stood out to me as a non sequitur. I know what that means, I looked it up.

The key recommendation of the Lockhart Report is that:

Human somatic cell nuclear transfer should be permitted, under licence, to create and

use human embryo clones for research, training and clinical application, including the

production of human embryonic stem cells, as long as the activity satisfies all the criteria

outlined in the amended Act and these embryos are not implanted into the body of a woman

or allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

This recommendation should not be acted upon because:

1. HALF THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCKHART REVIEW, INCLUDING

THE TWO APPOINTED FOR THEIR EXPERTISE IN ETHICS, WERE

ALREADY ON THE RECORD AS SUPPORTING HUMAN CLONING FOR

RESEARCH. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MERELY REFLECT THEIR

PERSONAL VIEWS.

Firstly, I love how it's all in capitals. It makes me want to agree with them. I mean, if it's in capitals it must be true and morally correct.

But I love their argument more: half the panel were in support of cloning! It wasn't a fair review! ...but ah...what about the other half? Who presumably were not in support of cloning...?

I protest! It wasn't a fair review!! Half the panel were against human cloning from the beginning!