2 of 4

Very cool indeed—the way it's meant to be!

Writer Amy Harmon comments, "The popularity of the Donor Sibling Registry, many of its registrants say, speaks to the sustained power of biological ties at a time when it is becoming almost routine for women to bear children who do not share a partner's DNA, or even their own."

Donor-conceived siblings, who "sometimes describe themselves as 'lopsided' or 'half-adopted,' can provide clues to make each other feel more whole, even if only in the form of physical details. Liz Herzog, 12, and Callie Frasier-Walker, 10, for instance, carry the same dimple near their right eye. 'She looks up to me,' said Liz, of Chicago, who was an only child before learning of Callie and six other half-siblings, but seemed to have had no trouble stepping into her older-sister role. Finding her brothers and sisters, Liz said, 'was the best thing in the world,' even if Callie does copy her sometimes, like when Liz got her hair dyed red and Callie did the same."

California's democracy on trial
It has been evident for a long time that debates about stem cells and cloning are actually about larger issues of principle. That's true on both sides. Many scientists claim they are seeking "freedom" for science, or a "right to research." Those who support restraints on such "freedoms" believe something else is at stake. In a democracy, no one has unfettered freedom to do what he or she may like. Scientists know this better than most, since everything they do in their labs is hedged around with rules and regulations, usually for very good reasons.

California's pro-cloning Proposition 71 set out to drive a coach and horses through the normal process of ethics and accountability by writing a "right to stem-cell research" into the state constitution, and funding it with vast sums from the public purse. So it is heart-warming to see an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle with the title "Science and Democracy." People are starting to think about all this, especially in the near-bankrupt Sunshine State where Prop. 71 perpetrated a vast fraud on the mostly well-meaning electorate, as has become increasingly clear.

According to the Chronicle, which, as it notes, endorsed 71, "Decisions regarding how this unique experiment in democracy is conducted will set precedent for what follows. It is far too important to leave to the scientists only."

The immediate controversy is about whether royalties should be paid to the state on inventions that result from its grants. Robert Klein, who headed the 71 campaign and is now the supreme of the Stem Cell Institute, has changed his tune.

The Chronicle asks the question: "Does it matter that Robert Klein, the author and chief promoter of Proposition 71, knew while he was promising the voters a return on their investment that the state might be forbidden to collect royalties from the biomedical research it invests in because of an arcane federal tax law?"

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

November (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49