황우석 교수, 배아줄기세포 배양 성공

뉴스 보면서 대단하다는 생각이 드네요.

다만 언론이 마치 모든질병이 사라지는양 , 만병통치약이 나온것 마냥 보도하는
부분도 있었는데, 그부분은 보기 안좋았네요.

충분히 가능성 있는 얘기네요.
전년도 대비 증액되더라도 총예산은 어느 정도 정해져 있으니까요.

우리의 의식이 어느정도 깔려 있다고 봐도 큰 무리는 없을 것입니다.
우리나라의 낙태비율을 보면 가히 놀랄정도죠.

또한 언론의 "만병통치약" 식의 여론을 형성하지는 않았으면 좋겠습니다.(쓰레기 언론.)

--;;; 윗글 14주가 아니라 14일인것 같습니다.

이건 과학의 문제가 아니라,
사회 구조의 문제죠.

지금 이땅에서 모든 사람들이 누리는 기본적인 의학적 시술은
불과 30~40년전에는 역시 돈 있는 사람만 받을 수 있는 것이었습니다.

비록 수십년 이내에는 돈있는 사람에게만 혜택이 돌아가겠지만,
서서히 보편화되게 됩니다.

90년도 초반에도 2000년도에는 책상위에
슈퍼컴퓨터를 놓고 사용하게 될 것이라고 예언했죠.

그리고, 2000년도에 팬티엄(정확히 스팩은 기억안납니다.)이
미국의 기술보안을 위한 수출제한에 걸리죠.
결국 우리는 책상위에 슈퍼컴퓨터를 올려 놓고 사용하고 있는 겁니다.

위의 것들은 자본주의가 가지고 있는 한계이긴 하지만,
그렇다고, 과학이 일부 돈있는 사람에게만 돌아간다고
주장하는 것은 너무 근시안적인 발상인 것 같습니다.

당장은 그렇지만, 수십년뒤에도 그럴까요?

가치 판단의 문제는 정답이 없습니다. 님처럼 생각하는 사람도 있고 그렇지 않은 사람도 있지요. 가볍게 보는게 아닙니다. 윤리적인 문제로 인해 우려를 함에도 불구하고 계속 연구는 진행되어야 한다고 생각하는 것입니다. 줄기 세포 관련 연구로 새 삶을 살아갈 많은 사람들을 생각해보면 님의 주장만이 옳은것이라고 생각해서는 곤란합니다.

Sad case histories make for bad laws. Suffering is part and parcel of human existence. No matter what advances science makes it only puts off a little the inevitable outcome: Death! Let us try to relieve human suffering as far as possible respecting the natural law.
Maureen, Abingdon, UK

I think that everyone should be willing to accept that when the time is right we may need clones for anyone who might need help in times of suffering.
Moriah, White Plains,New York, USA

the potential beneficial outcome of this research overrides the conservative views which label this research as unethical

Timothy Brown, Palm Coast, USA
I believe the potential beneficial outcome of this research overrides the conservative views which label this research as unethical. It has been my experience that those who have the belief such research is immoral or otherwise distasteful, do not have the misfortune of watching helplessly while a loved one suffers from a degenerative condition. Consider the following: Is it unethical to steal bread to feed your starving children? On the same token, is it just as unethical to pursue research which might save your suffering child?
Timothy Brown, Palm Coast, USA

Oh please. It seems to me that most of the people who claim that cloning is wrong are under the impression that we're going to be mass-producing Hitlers. We're talking about cells, not people. And all that "but it's potentially a human" stuff is nonsense. So is every menstruation a murder? I don't think so. And you'll notice that people who are against stem cell research aren't the ones with diabetes. They're not the ones who're watching a loved one being destroyed by Alzheimer's. Just ask yourself this: If my child were dying in need of a bone marrow transplant, would I even stop to think about it?
Steve, Oxford, UK

Great news for diabetics like me who hope for a cure!
V S S SARMA, Dubai, UAE

Those who are talking of God in scientific research have lost their minds. Leave God alone. He is so powerful that he will fight for himself. Scientists must push their research about cells as far as they can. This will help to discover how to get rid of HIV.
Justin Hategekimana, Pittsburgh, USA

Considering the outcry about genetically modified plants, it is surprising so many people find GM humans acceptable. I have sympathy with those looking for cures for genetic diseases (I include myself in this group), however I have the feeling this could be a poisoned chalice if not managed correctly. Depending on your point of view this is either playing God or tampering with evolution. Either way this is science that should be considered carefully.
Peter, Ferryhill, England

It really upsets me when people dismiss this as unethical or wrong when it will have no direct effect on their lives. Last June, a week after my 19th birthday, I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Over the past year I have been getting used to a different lifestyle; four injections a day, careful planning and loss of spontaneity. While I still have a very fulfilled and enjoyable life I wonder - why me? From the day I was diagnosed I have known that this is a life-long disease, however I never thought that I would suffer from it for more than 10-20 years. The advances being made are fantastic and I can't wait for the day that I could be 'cured'. The worst thing about hearing of these amazing advances is the reaction from people who say it is wrong. If they could only understand firsthand what a difference it could make to somebody like me I'm sure they could put aside their grievances and realise that it can only be a positive thing.
Becca, Bath, UK

As someone who's been both (insulin dependent) diabetic and paralysed from the waist down for the past 13 years, the day when stem cell research bears fruit cannot come soon enough. I adapted long ago to life in a wheelchair, but the constant knowledge of the fact that diabetes will lead to my premature death is most a unpleasant thing to live with. Whilst objectors have a right to air their concerns, they do not have the right to deny me the chance to watch my baby daughter grow to become a woman and to meet my grandchildren, especially when they base their objections on religious beliefs that I do not and can not share.
Howard Watson, York, UK

The possibilities for good are immense, but the possibilities for bad are unimaginable. So far, humanity has not been capable to control the bad uses of scientific discoveries. We do not need one more uncontrolled and uncontrollable avenue.
Sophia Goulimis, London

I am alive because five years ago I received a stem cell transplant. I have friends with diabetes, and cannot wait until the day when the promising research underway using stem cell as the basis of a cure for diabetes, makes a cure for this diseases widely available. Those who for so-called religious and ethical reasons oppose stem cell research, are engaging in mumbo-jumbo. Thank goodness the indications are they will not prevail
C. Alexander Brown, Ottawa, Canada

Every day the Northern countries spend more and more money to find more and more ways to make our lives easier. And yet, millions upon millions of people live in preventable squalor and lack of basic necessities. Can't we try harder to make the lives of all humans a little more comfortable before we try to cure the elite populations of this world of a few more ailments?
J Sagawa, Tokyo

It does not matter if stem cell research is banned or not, there will always be countries and clinics and doctors who will carry on regardless of the law. Why should criminals, the military and the mega rich be the only ones to profit from this important work?
Richard Read, London, UK

A batch of undifferentiated cells cannot be considered a human life. Doctors around the world are hoping that stem cells can save their patients from suffering. There is no moral dilemma because there is no life to destroy, only a life to be saved.
Daniel Lowell, Austin, TX

A definite step in the right direction but should be used only for treatment of diseases. Stem cell research should be encouraged but cloning human beings would be unethical.
Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

We can only welcome it

David Hartley, Romsey, UK
Today one of my sons is in hospital recovering from a necessary bone marrow transplant because of a rare genetic disease. If this moves us forward towards the day when there is a true genetic cure then surely we can only welcome it.
David Hartley, Romsey, UK

Having seen the cruel effects of Alzheimer's on my father, and in the knowledge that it is sometimes hereditary, I must admit a selfish interest in the development of a cure! I don't acknowledge a group of cells as a human being: there is no sentience there, and no sensation is possible, because of the lack of a nervous system. How does such a collection of cells have higher status, and more rights than an adult human being who, at least initially, is aware they are about to lose their faculties, their personality, their senses and ultimately their life?
Chas Knight, Duxford, UK

Scientists play God again. The West goes to extreme lengths to prolong life for the wealthy whilst millions in the Third World die of starvation, malaria and other diseases of poverty that don't require unethical high tech solutions.
David Mullen, UK

As a diabetic I welcome ANY hope for a cure. I am 55 years old and would like to see my grandchildren grow up into adults.
Ronald McKenzie, London, UK

The breakthrough represents yet another 'nail in the coffin' of our current way of life. The implications are that dying organs can be replaced, human life can be extended, who says we can't live to 150 with further scientific breakthroughs? Imagine then the social upheaval of this change to humanity, if everybody has access, or even worse should access be restricted by ability to pay!
Rik Harding, Manchester, England

It should be used in accordance with natural law

Anne-Marie Walker, Haddenham, UK
Stem cell research DOES represent an important medical advance BUT it should be used in accordance with natural law. Cloning human beings is wholly unethical. It is always wrong to use any human being as a means to an end. Yet today people appear to have lost sight of this fact.
Anne-Marie Walker, Haddenham, UK

Before people criticise stem cell research, maybe they should put themselves in the position of someone who desperately needs that science to help their medical needs - they'd soon change their tune I'm sure. Stem cell research needs careful management for sure, but the benefits are a giant technological leap forward for the human race. We've got this far, why shouldn't we go further?
Jim, Norwich, UK

I'm not against this for any real moral or ethical reasons, but I do have a problem with those who claim we should stop playing God, when these are the same people who think IVF should be freely available for everyone.
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex-UK

It is clear that there is a lot of misunderstanding around this area, judging by the comments here. Even the use of the word 'embryo' is misleading, since it can create the impression of one of those cute little tadpoley things that turn into babies. What they are actually dealing with is microscopic bundles of cells, numbering far, far less than the number of cells you dislodge every single time you brush your hand against your face.
Katherine, London, UK

So how many embryo's are destroyed every day in the name IVF? Why is OK to destroy a bundle of human cells to satisfy someone's biological clock but not to save or improve the lives of many?
Mark, Ottawa, Canada

This technology will be developed whether or not certain countries embrace it. It seems wiser to support and monitor its uses instead of pretending it doesn't exist. President Bush rejects stem cell research saying it is wrong to destroy life in order to save life, yet his policy in Iraq seems to run counter to this logic.
Patrick Collins, Denver, Colorado

The world population in 1970 was just under 4 billion. Today it is 6.5 billion. In 2037 it will be 10 billion. Another medical breakthrough is good, but will ultimately lead to this planet being consumed and burnt out by humans. Probably before we can move onto another planet.
Scott, Weston-Super-Mare, England

I feel as though we are treading on dangerous ground

Matthew Dolman, Isle of Man
I feel as though we are treading on dangerous ground. It is very sad that people have so many awful illnesses, but our leaders should look very hard into how this step could be damaging in the future. It seems as though this technology will be pushed to the point where cloning people won't be considered such a bad thing.
Matthew Dolman, Isle of Man

Those who object to this research on ethical grounds, or the fear that somebody might turn a profit in saving lives, are entitled to their opinion. Meanwhile, those of us who put the health of our families above cells in a Petri dish will continue to fund and hope for real cures to real problems. It is the failure to prevent harm to conscious people that is unethical.
Matt, Oakland, California, USA

If it alleviates the suffering of some people then that has to be good.
Mark Floden, Dubai

This debate is focusing on the rights and wrongs of cloning, which seems besides the point. We have a mechanism for determining whether the population of a country deems a decision to be appropriate to be brought into law: it's called democracy. Notwithstanding that a president is elected, the right of presidential veto is fundamentally in conflict with the central tenets of democracy, leaving way too much power in the hands of one man.
Bruce, New York, USA

I think it is a great achievement for mankind

Darcy Vieira, Sao Paulo, Brazil
I think it is a great achievement for mankind. As to those who object morally (read religiously) to this issue, I would say a human being is a lot more than a ball of cells.
Darcy Vieira, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Ian Sharp, Bath

Clones are just the same as twins. I don't know what all the controversy is about. every time science takes a new step ignorant people get frightened and say it's unethical - look at people's reaction to IVF when it first became used. Everyone accepts it now.
Veronica Bamfield, Poole

It is wrong to reproduce and experiment on human beings (whatever their stage of life) for the benefit of others. All life is of equal value, and none should ever be sacrificed for others. The prospects of human cloning are truly diabolical.
Marilena Cairns, Rome, Italy

As a parent of a child with Type 1 diabetes I feel this breakthrough is wonderful news. To see your child constantly have to inject himself with insulin and do blood tests to stay alive is a heartbreaking, and we are never free of the condition. So many others would also benefit from this stem cell work who have incurable diseases. This news must give thousands of sick people new hope.
David Parker, Southampton

I am perplexed that many of us seem to find "destroying human beings" in this way so objectionable, yet express no such view on guns, motor vehicles, starvation and disease. All of these kill hundreds of thousands worldwide per day.
Susan, Wokingham

This is a very important medical advance and an inevitable one. Now is the time for calm, rational thought on how best to have a measure of control and regulation over this potentially life - in the sense of all life on the planet - altering technology.
Clive, Milwaukee, USA

We cannot sacrifice those that are alive and in pain for those that are not even yet born

James Reynolds, Dublin, Ireland
The point of this research is not to create perfect replica humans, but to aid in the protection and recovery of the human condition. Those that object to these developments on the grounds of ethics may be forced to ask themselves the question that when there are diseases such as cancer and HIV spreading throughout the world, perhaps it is unethical not to do all we can to help those that are suffering. Genetic research is here, its advancement is inevitable, we cannot sacrifice those that are alive and in pain for those that are not even yet born.
James Reynolds, Dublin, Ireland

Oh good. Millions of pounds will now be poured into developing cures to keep people alive even longer in the west, which should help us with that pesky 'how are we going to tackle this surplus of earths resources' problem we have. Meanwhile, in Africa....
David, Nottingham

I'm a first year medical student and know that this research has the potential to save many lives and stop suffering from debilitating diseases. I hope that when I graduate we will be starting to use this awesome therapy. I don't see how people with any sense of humanity can argue against it.
Faye, Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. No legislation will prevent this being exploited. From this point there is no going back! I'm no Luddite but, nevertheless, a sad day for humanity in my opinion
Terence Summers, Andover England

Its about time, this is one aspect of scientific progression that we cannot afford to ignore or prevent because of a small minority of people.
Emma, Forres, Scotland

I have a friend with Parkinson's disease whose quality of life is almost non-existent. He sits in the same chair day in a day out hardly able to move and in constant pain with this crippling disease. He has suffered like many other sufferers with this disease for over ten years. Stem cell research is his, and may other sufferers, only hope of ever having a normal life and anyone who opposes it should spend a couple of days with a sufferer, it will change their opinion. It is a terrible disease. How can you be pro life and deny a Parkinson's disease sufferer a dignified life?
P Polain, London

I have a young son with diabetes. Complications of diabetes include blindness, heart disease, kidney disease, nerve damage leading to infections and amputations. There are many other complications. I welcome any developments into stem cell research and hope that a treatment, for this condition and many others, will soon be available to prevent so much suffering.
Eva, UK

I am grateful for this breakthrough - it will help so many heart-breaking situations which can now be corrected in babies and others with this move forward in medical science. Blessings to those determined scientists.
Mavis Fielding, Middlesbrough, England

Already we hear the cries of "unethical." Unethical by what standard? Either they get their ethics from a religious leader or their feelings, anything other than using their minds. This explains their utter hostility to any scientific progress. It's a slap in their faces when they see man conquering nature and, so that they won't ever be reminded of what brilliance man's mind can achieve, they claim success is "unethical" and clamour to regulate it out of existence. This is moral inversion at its height.
Nic Garvey, London, UK

Human cloning is essentially inevitable, and we would do well to embrace its great prospects

Robert Yang, California, USA
While some legislatures may outlaw human cloning, there will always be others that won't. These nations will become the new leaders of modern medical science, forging ahead with new advanced technologies. The "ethics debate" is almost rendered irrelevant in this respect; rather, it is a question of world power in the sciences. Thus, human cloning is essentially inevitable, and we would do well to embrace its great prospects.
Robert Yang, California, USA

Cloning embryos to produce stem cells is a smoke screen. Scientists are well aware that stem cells can be just as effectively reproduced by other methods without the need to produce embryos. This is blind arrogance and ultimately man playing God. We have seen recently that politicians are prepared to lie to achieve their ultimate goal. To what ends will these techniques be used for in the future? Can we really trust the state? This has the 'Brave New World' finger prints all over it.
Mark Malik, Warsaw, Poland

The science isn't what worries me. It's that we don't have the social mechanisms to determine how this and other cutting-edge technologies can best be regulated. The field is wide open for profiteers, ego-trippers, fraudsters and general basket cases. This will end in tears.
Richard Bradshaw, Stokesley, N Yorkshire, England

David Appleton is wrong. A ball of cells can not become a human being without a host - the mother.
Paul Weaver, Twyford, Berks

It's disgusting, just creating and destroying human beings in an early stage of life. We should have more respect.
Nicky, London, UK

It just needs the public to be better educated about these techniques before they will accept them

Rob, York, England
Hopefully this heralds a new era in medical science. It just needs the public to be better educated about these techniques before they will accept them. I for one have no qualms about any ethical issues, scientists have been responsible in the past, and I am sure cloned 'organ banks' will never be utilised. As for the eggs being potential lives, they weren't fertilised before they were taken from the women, so clearly they were just going to released during her period, and never become a life.
Rob, York, England

When a sperm cell breaks through and fuses to an egg cell life has begun. This ball of cells can, if left alone, become a fully fledged human being. Scientists are blinded by ambition to cure the next disease, they've betrayed life itself and God in whose image it was created.
David Appleton, Staines, UK

Excellent research, a natural progression, the objections are the same as always when scientific progress takes another step forward. If the objectors had their way we would still not have organ transplants, science has to experiment to advance and I am positive that even the objectors will grab the eventual medical benefits without question.
Arthur, Derby, UK

Scientifically there is no prospect of curing Parkinson's, simply slowing it down. Many of us who have had loved ones with Parkinson's would not thank science for creating more years of suffering by manipulating human life at the other end. This is ghoulishness driven by potential medical business profits.
Jon, Totteridge, England

We have always striven to conquer nature, and each time life has become better

Joseph, Lincoln, England
This is a very important step forward for medicine, and has the potential to cure many illnesses that are today incurable. I only hope that no church or UN resolution tries to impose its views on us and stop our research. I personally am quite relaxed at this development, and do not think it is 'playing god'. We have always striven to conquer nature, and each time life has become better.
Joseph, Lincoln, England

We need to be careful. While this can be used to help others, the potential for abuse also exists.
Chris, Glasgow, Scotland

Knowledge is good and it has helped us improve our lives and society. However, everything that can be done should not just be done simply because the knowledge of it exists. While cloning could help cure sicknesses which were thought incurable, it could also raise moral and social issues. If a human being can be duplicated (cloned) it could increase the world's problem of security and terrorism.
Anthony Esenwa, Lagos, Nigeria

This technology can save lives. There should be no debate. The more research done, the more we can understand and the better the techniques become. The ethical debate is that you would be taking a life. Life is defined partially as sentience. A few cells are not sentient.
Brian Simpson, Aberdeen

I am proud that the UK is one of the countries that are leading the way in this area of science and I'd love to see the fruition of such research being made to cure health problems. I'd much rather see research being done open and clearly for understanding and improving life. With open scientific experiments and the scientific debates that goes with this in this country means I can follow the progress with hope that people close to me, and I, would benefit and improve life quality for them and me.
Kyle Sterry, Newcastle, UK

How dare we carve up life at its earliest stages in the name of saving life at its later stages

Michael Williams, Liverpool
Mary Shelley's prophetic novel Frankenstein has finally become a reality. Mankind's misguided attempts at creating a better world are going to end in disaster. How dare we carve up life at its earliest stages in the name of saving life at its later stages. The powerful are manipulating the weakest. Its scary.
Michael Williams, Liverpool

There's no way of stopping fundamental research. So we might as well come to terms with it - and legislate, if necessary, as to ethical use.
David Ball, Wokingham, UK

Whilst cloning is still legal, there will always be scientists who will investigate its therapeutic potential. In this case however, an unfertilised ovum was used - this ovum was never destined to become an embryo, nor could it have become one after being injected with genetic material. I wish these pro-life activists would at least try and understand the science before damaging their credibility with flawed claims of immorality.
Adam, Philadelphia, USA

The beginning of the end. What with insurance companies eager to get their hands on the ID card data, which will show you medical history, anybody benefiting from this treatment and "non perfect" health history will find themselves un-insurable.
Robert Bahrani, London, UK

A fantastic development. Quite why people seem to think of cloning as such a taboo subject is entirely beyond me - nobody denies that care is required to ensure that there are no unpleasant complications, but if it can save lives then I welcome it whole-heartedly. Let the religious objectors refrain from ever taking advantage of these new developments, if they're so stridently opposed, but leave rational people alone.
Paul Christopher, Exeter, UK

Man should stop interfering with things that he pretends to understand

Chris, Telford, UK
If the stem cells derived from this cloning have the same problems as dolly the sheep's cells, then they will be subject to premature aging and all kinds of other malfunctions. Won't this make them useless anyway. Man should stop interfering with things that he pretends to understand, but doesn't really have a clue about. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Chris, Telford, UK

The benefits of stem cell research far outweigh the disadvantages. Opponents of this technology would soon have different thoughts when new treatments are available that may save their, or someone close, life.
Stewart, Toronto, Canada

Utterly abhorrent. I think it is absurd that we are fiddling with humanity in this way when we have not yet exhausted (or even begun to use in some cases) existing ethical alternatives.
Patrick Leahy, Cambridge, UK

I have a hard time with campaigners against human embryo cloning who argue that no potential human life should be destroyed. Do they have any qualms about the hundreds of eggs that will be released and lost naturally during a woman's lifetime? If stem cell research can be developed and used to save people's lives I am all in favour of it. Shouldn't we be thinking about the real lives rather than the potential ones?
Julia, Oxford

Well done an excellent example of British science. Congratulations to Professor Murdock and his team.
Chris, Bristol, UK

If history is anything to go by then this will go much further than just the cloning of embryos and should worry every one of us.
Graham Smith, London, UK

This really seems so unethical to me. Isn't it amazing that when a woman is pregnant she calls it a baby but scientists can call it an embryo and do what they like. Where does it stop? Do we continue until we have a fully cloned human and is it then bred just for spare parts? Perhaps we should stop here.
Lyn, Worthing, Sussex

네 저도 악필(?)님 의견과 거의 일치합니다. 저도 황교수님 욕먹이려는 건 아니구요. 말씀하신 것 처럼 ~모 대학 ~모 교수들이 널려있고 그들도 애들 족치면서 절치부심해서 좋은 연구들 많이 내고 있으니 칭찬 좀 해달라는 거죠.

사실 황교수께서 이렇게 뜨는 이유라는게 뭘까요. 좋은 연구로 좋은 저널에 실린 건 사실이지만 윤리적 문제가 걸려있기 때문에 일반인들에게도 영향을 줄 수 있는 토론거리가 되는거고 외국언론에서 관심이 많고 그러니 국내 언론도 덩달아 더 열을 내는 거고 그런거 아닐까요. 위에 적은 것처럼 요즘은 다른 교수들도 같은 저널에 논문 많이 내고 있습니다. 또 같은 논문은 아니지만 수준높은 저널에 논문 무지하게 많이 내고 있습니다.

같은 저널에 실렸다고 논문 수준이 똑같은 건 아니지만(그렇다고 황교수 논문이 다른 교수들 논문보다 더 낫다고 하는 건 아닙니다. 관련분야에서의 파급력으로 볼때 오히려 황교수님 논문보다 더 획기적인 것도 있을 수 있습니다.) 그 정도의 논문에 실린다는 얘기는 역시 뛰어난 성과를 냈다는 건데 국내에서 그렇게 주목받은 적이 있었나요.(신문에는 그래도 실리죠)

작년인가. 저의 쪽에서 참여하고 있는 연구단 중간 발표때 이런 말이 있었습니다. (비공식적인 내용이라 거짓말일지도 모르지만) 발표하면서 연구결과도 있으니 연구비를 좀 증액해서 신청해야 겠다고 갔었는데 오히려 연구비 축소하는 분위기였다고. 그리고 우리는 깍이지 않은 것만도 다행이라고.... 깎은 이유가 음~ 잘기억이 안납니다만 동남아 쓰나미 성금보내는 거 때문에 줄였다나 이라크 파병하는데 드는 돈 때문에 줄였다고 했나 뭐 그랬습니다. (국가적으로 그런일들이 더 현실적이고 중요할 수 있죠. 인정합니다. 그래도 팔이 안으로 굽는다고 연구하는 입장에서는....)

황교수님은 뭐한다면 다 해주겠다. 개인 경호해준다. 부지도 구해준다 등등 좀 우습다는 겁니다. 동급 학자들은 연구비 깍는 마당에... 물론 그렇다고 위에 있는 교수님들이 돈없어서 쩔쩔 매는 건 아닙니다. 연구 잘 하기 때문에 어느정도 쓸만큼은 꾸려가고 있죠. 그래도 지원을 좀 해주고 관심을 가지면 더 좋은 것 아닐까요. 사실 연구라는 것도 돈만 많이 주면 좋은 저널에 많이 냅니다. 요즘 네이쳐 싸이언스 많이들 내고 있는데 다 연구비가 최근 많이 늘어난 결과라고 생각됩니다. 불과 얼마전 까지만 해도 전부 유리기구 쓰고 일회용 물에 씻어서 다시쓰고 심지어 알루미늄 호일, 이쑤시게 다 다시 씻어서 몇번씩 재활용 했죠. 요즘 일회용 팍팍 버리는데 참 세상 금방 변합니다.

황교수님 줄 돈 조금 나눠서 다른 연구단도 주면 좋은 결과 더 많이 들 낼 겁니다. (물론 그냥 주라는 건 아니고 경쟁을 통한 선택과 집중이 필요하죠) 과학에 몸담고 있는 제 입장에서 과학분야가 관심의 대상이 되는데 마다할 이유가 없죠. 소수의 천재가 전체를 먹여살린다고 하는 사람들도 있고 맞는 말 일수도 있습니다만 글쎄요. 그 엘리트도 좀 더 많이 키워야 할 것 같은데...

윤리적인 문제들도 관심들을 가지시는 것 같은데 사실 윤리적문제 뭐가 문제인지 잘 모르겠습니다. 개인적으로는 세포덩어리를 가지고 왜들 난리인지 모르겠습니다. 그리고 그런 문제가 왜 정치인이나 종교인들의 개인적인 견해로 영향을 받는지도 모르겠습니다. 물론 어떤 것에 대한 정의라는게 논리적인 바탕이 없이 그냥 서로 간의 약속에 의해 결정되고, 논리적인 근거를 찾아서 결정한다고 해도 깊게 들어가면 그 논리적인 기준조차 모호하기 때문에 어느 선 이후는 어쩔수 없이 전공자도 임의적인 선을 그어야 하는 것이 사실이기 때문에 비전공자의 입장도 결정과정에 개입될 수 있기는 합니다.

어디서 부터 인간이라고 해야 될까요. 일단 동물과 식물을 생각해보면 개인적으로 여러 차이 중 가장 큰 차이는 신경계의 유무입니다. 식물은 세포벽이 있어 움직임이 자유롭지 못하기 때문에 빠른 반응을 못합니다. 주변환경변화에 물리적 반응을 하기 어렵다는 거죠.(일부 팽압변화를 이용한 반응이 있기는 합니다만) 손상을 입어도 아주 심하지만 않으면 옆에 비슷한 걸 다시 만들어 냅니다.

반면 동물은 분화가 아주 많이 진행되어있어서 손상을 받으면 복구가 힘듭니다. 팔이 없어지면 다시 못만들죠. (줄기 세포 연구 같은 게 어려운 것 도 이런 것들과 관련이 있죠. 식물은 정도의 차이는 있지만 아무 세포로나 (물론 아무거나 다 되지는 않고 모든 식물에서 아직 다 성공한 건 아닙니다 :->) 완전한 복제 식물 만들 수 있습니다. 분화정도의 차이 때문이죠.

음 ~ 그래서 동물은 환경변화에 즉각적인 반응이 필요하고 신경을 이용해 빠른 반응을 보입니다. 그래서 고통이라는 것도 있고 (물론 아픔을 느끼는 감정이나 감각도 화학반응에 불과하다고 하면 또 저는 할 말이 없습니다. 그럼 동물과 식물의 차이가 없는 걸 수 도 있습니다. 제가 무식해서 그 이상은....)

다시 배아 세포가 인간이냐는 문제를 생각할 때 아직 아무런 분화도 일어나지 않은 single cell을 사람이라고 하긴 좀....(물론 앞에서 언급한 정의의 임의성 문제는 고려해야 합니다만...)

배아 세포를 그냥 둔다고 사람이 되는 건 아니고 적절한 환경이 필요합니다. 언젠가 체세포로 완전한 사람을 만드는게 완벽히 실현 '가능'(그렇게 하겠다는 건 아닙니다. 지금은 그런게 필요하다고 생각지도 않습니다.) 하다면 체세포도 사람으로 정의해야 하나요? 매일 때밀면서 수십 수백명의 사람을 죽이고 있으니 죄책감을 느껴야 할까요. 물론 갓난아기도 그냥 둔다고 크는 것 아니고 잘 키워줘야죠. 갓난아기는 사람입니다. (으~ 글쓰기가 복잡하네요.)

글이 지저분해서 죄송한데 결론은 종교계, 정치계, 일반인 모두 함께 참여해서 이런 문제들은 해결해야 하지만 깊은 성찰이 없이 단지 어떤 신념에 의해서 문제를 해결하려고 하는 건 옳지 않다는 겁니다. 물론 과학계도 다른 분야의 입장을 수용하고 고려해야 합니다.