John, as usual, made the correct call.
Indeed, many of us are with or work with natural history, science musuems,
aquaria and zoos.  As is clear from most news reports (as well as postings)
people simply do npot understand the differences between (amongst) stem cell
work/research and human cloning. Part of the mission of many science musuems
is to try to clearly explain very complex scientific issues.  Moral
implications and ethical/political implications are another issue.

A few years ago I was with Lynn Margulis when she was speaking at the
Smithsonian re: evolution of early Earth life and origins of the nucleated
cell.  During the question answer section she was asked when she life begins
in the womb. She said that was a political not a scientific question. That
all life is a continuity.

I once put up an exhibit on Evolution as a natural history museum. A rather
irate group of adults came to me complaining that the exhibit was biased and
unfair as I did not give equal time (actually, any time) to Creationism.
After what I thought was an almost thoughtful exchange, sensitive to their
issues/beliefs--that evolution and spiritual bekiefs are not mutually
exclusive--I simply had to say that I would never go to a Church service and
complain afterward that no mention was made of evolution.

I do consult now; but if I were still charge of a science museum, I would
put up an exhibit on cloing AND on stem cell research and disease. I would
aslo set up an evening lecture series where moral/ethical/political issues
could be discussed.

Cheers,
    Lois Brynes
    Deep-Time Asociates
    PO Box 58
    Rockport, MA 01966
    [log in to unmask]

> From: John Chadwick <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:09:41 -0700
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CLONING FOR STEM CELLS
>
> This list is a self-moderated list. This means that those with an
> e-mail address that is an exact match to their original subscription
> address must approve their own postings.  All others come to me.
> This allows me to filter out SPAM and urban legends (including, but
> not limited to, virus hoaxes).
>
> As for the posting from [log in to unmask], I almost did not approve
> the message.  The only reason I approved the message is because we
> have subscribers from science museums -- and this is an issue that
> may someday be treated in such an environment. My personal opinion in
> this current social issue is irrelevant in light of open and honest
> that can and should be conducted in appropriate informal learning
> venues.
>
> If I had it to do over again, I may not have approved this particular
> message. However, in my judgement, the topic is relevant to museums,
> just as much as discussions we have had over censorship vs freedom of
> expression in art museums.  Even history museums are not immune from
> debate over display and interpretation issues. As a
> cross-disciplinary discussion list, all  sorts and sizes of museums
> from around the world are represented on this list.
>
> John Chadwick
>
> At 12:49 PM -0600 11/27/01, Bryan P. T. Lean wrote:
>> I take it that this is an "unmoderated" list, otherwise the moderator needs
>> to set some standards.  where is the relevancy to "museums" here?
>>
>>
>> Bryan P. T. Lean
>> Manager, Museum Operations
>> St. Louis County Historical Society
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.thehistorypeople.org
>> www.vets-hall.org
>>
>> Vox:  218.733.7582     Fax:  218.733.7585
>> 506 West Michigan Street     Duluth, Minnesota  55802-1505
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Greenwich" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:50 PM
>> Subject: CLONING FOR STEM CELLS
>>
>>
>>> .       The science community, those interested in the right to choice,
>>> those wanting to see humane scientific progress, must restore to the
>>> science community the right to make scientific definitions , and not
>>> give it to religious fundamentalists. Religions defining scientific
>>> organisms or defining anything in the sciences, through law, violates
>>> Separation of Church and State.
>>> It's based on a religious definition, adopted by the "dead or
>>> alive" pro-death penalty President, that "human life (e.g., a baby)
>>> begins at conception.
>>> A six-cell embryo is hardly a "baby" or a "human being." It's
>>> argued that an embryo is "potentially" a human being, therefore "human
>>> life."
>>> The same "potential" could be claimed for an egg or sperm or a
>>> "gleam in the eye." It's literature, or poetry, and all fine, but it's
>>> not science. It makes no more sense to claim this for a new embryo, than
>>> to say a woman's egg is a "baby;" or that a sperm is a "human life." The
>>> only difference is that intercourse (or another method) fertilized the
>>> egg, making it an "embryo." This is the scientific definition of that
>>> level of life.
>>> That's why science called it an embryo, not a baby: Because it
>>> is still scientifically *different* from a sentient, independent human
>>> being. That is, until the religious right browbeat the defining of
>>> scientific terms into law along its own biases.
>>> Hypocrisy enters the fray when we hear Bush and others say,
>>> "it's wrong to kill one innocent human being even if to save others from
>>> an evil disease." This, from the people who tell us we must accept
>>> "collateral killing" of innocent people in the greater good of stopping
>>> evil.
>>> The issue to re-fight now is again for Separation of Church and
>>> State, of Church and public, of Church and Science.
>>> It's one thing to resist cloning human beings (or placing a
>>> cloned embryo into a womb). This is not proposed.
>>> The whole procedure takes place using one's own genetic
>>> material, altered and returned, to heal a sick organ, spine, etc., and
>>> should be a right of "choice" in the control of one's own body.
>>> The only "ethic" here lies in the power struggle of zealots
>>> further dictating to the state and to science.
>>> Bob Fink
>>
>> =========================================================
>> Important Subscriber Information:
>>
>> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
>> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
>> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
>> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message
>> should read "help" (without the quotes).
>>
>> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail
>> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message
>> should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>
>
> --
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> John Chadwick, Ed.D.
> Sr. Web Developer/educational technology specialist
> Arizona K-12 Center
> Northern Arizona University -- Central Phoenix Office
> 2715 N. Third Street, Suite 210
> Phoenix, Arizona 85004
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> http://azk12.nau.edu
> 602-728-9522 or direct line: 602-776-4608
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/
> . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a
> one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the
> message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
> [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
> Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).