> That's seems reasonable. It just gives those scientists who don't really work, but merely play around in a lab getting paid rather handsomely by grant money, something fun to do on a rainy fall afternoon. Besides, they're clammoring to get their pictures on the cover of The Enquirer.
>
> Je "obviously not a scientist" ff

I see. So apparently cloning research -- inherently useful to HUMANS -- is worthless? What would you have genetic scientists do then? Build nuclear weapons (and despite all the negative effects I would argue that nuclear technology has been and will be beneficial to humanity). Cloning and genetic research is an issue I feel strongly in favor of, and quite frankly I don't understand why people are against it.

The thoughts so far in this thread seem to boil down to "what's the point?" Well, we do a lot of stuff to simply know more. Paleontology altogether seemingly offers little practical applications. Same for archaelogy. Who cares about the ancient world? Yet I believe that learning about and understanding our world and universe are important goals for humans to have. We should strive towards greater understanding for it's own sake. If you would defend art as a good thing in and of itself, I fail to see how anyone could attack science on the same grounds.

Stephen