Many researchers and traditional bioethicists who are arguing for this "good clone"/"bad clone" dichotomy have begun to make claims almost as contentious as those of the Raelians. Perhaps worse : they have clothed their claims in ways that, inadvertently or not, distract attention from why we need to be critical of ALL cloning. Making general promises - and this is all they are : promises - that it represents "life-saving research" that will give "sick people hope," and that protecting the right of scientists to do work with "honorable ends" is essential, those pushing for "therapeutic cloning" turn critics into uncaring luddites. When proponents further argue that their work is necessary to ensure that Canada does not lose its competitive edge by forcing this research elsewhere where restrictions do not exist, they frame critics as potentially responsible for a weakening economy and a further "brain drain." Heavy charges, all. But do they have any merit ?

Full story here :  http://sisyphe.levillage.org/article.php3?id_article=283