We were having a pretty interesting debate today over the Explainer lunch table (as I’m sure happened all over the country today) about the FDA’s decision to approve cloned meat for eating. People are obviously very passionate about the issue, and it encompasses many scientific, ethical, and moral questions.
I’m wondering if the objections to the meat has more basis on stigma and misconceptions then an actual understanding of the cloning process. I know that I have a very limited knowledge of what goes on in the cloning of animals and how that differs from the natural processes. My first instinct is to say sure, cloning is a good idea, pass me a tasty burger and if scientists say it’s okay then I’m okay with it. But for others there are a whole host of issues about the morality of humans interfering with natural processes or possible side effects that we don’t have knowledge of know. I think a larger issue is that people have such a disconnect between the food they eat and the methods of farming, killing, and preparation.
Here’s a nice article from the NY times about some chefs who want to get people familiar with the animals they eat…
To me the whole issue of cloned meat remains pretty confusing although it seems like a genuine case of people needing that scientific knowledge to make informed decisions about their lives (whatever decisions they come to). What do you think?