Reproductive Cloning: Can Cloning Harm the Clone?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the creation of Dolly the sheep was reported in February 1997, the possibility of a cloned child has elicited powerful declarations of condemnation. A widely held view is that cloning a human being would be immoral and ought to be prohibited by legislation. This paper outlines the regulatory approaches taken in the EU countries (with particular reference to the UK), Canada and the US, before examining the claim that creating a clone would be a wrong to the resultant clone. It is argued that advocates of right-based moral theories must reject this claim, even if the clone is likely to have a terrible life. \n\tFor the purposes of this paper, I use ‘cloning’ and related terms to refer to the deliberate creation of a human being that is genetically identical to another human being or has the same nuclear gene set. This paper is only concerned with cloning aimed at producing a child, often called ‘reproductive’ cloning. It is not, therefore, concerned with the creation of a human embryo by use of a cloning technique for other purposes, such as obtaining embryonic stem cells for the treatment of an existing person—often referred to as ‘therapeutic cloning’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it