Posted on

Lockhart Corporation is a calendar-year corporation. At the beginning of 2013, its election to be taxed as an S corporation became effective Answer

Lockhart Corporation is a calendar-year corporation. At the beginning of 2013, its election to be taxed as an S corporation became effective. Lockhart Corp.’s balance sheet at the end of 2012 reflected the following assets (it did not have any earnings and profits from its prior years as a C corporation):
Asset Adjusted Basis FMV
Cash $ 35,000 $ 35,000
Accounts receivable    25,000   25,000
Inventory  180,000   210,000
Land   125,000   120,000
Totals $365,000 $390,000
• Lockhart’s business income for the year was $65,000 (this would have been its taxable income if it were a C corporation).
1. During 2013, Lockhart sold all of the inventory it owned at the beginning of the year for $250,000. What is its built-in gains tax in 2013? Be sure to show your work.
2. Assume the same facts as in part (1), except that if Lockhart were a C corporation, its taxable income would have been $17,000. What is its built-in gains tax in 2013? Be sure to show your work.
3. Assume the original facts except the land was valued at $115,000 instead of $120,000. What is Lockhart’s built-in gains tax in 2013? Be sure to show your work.


To get the answer for the above tutorial, please click on the below purchase link –


Posted on

Identify and describe an example of how either black slaves or white abolitionists used the arts as a form of protest against slavery Answer

By creating awareness of oppression and arousing sympathy of supporters, the arts can be a form of protest. Identify and describe an example of how either black slaves or white abolitionists used the arts as a form of protest against slavery.

Explain whether you think an autobiographical or fictional account by a slave (such as Phillis Wheatley and Olaudah Equiano) is more persuasive than a biographical or fictional account by a white author (such as John Gabriel Stedman or Aphra Behn).

Explain whether you think the representations of slavery in the visual arts (such as William Blake’s illustrations, William Hackwood’s cameo, or John Singleton Copley’s painting) were more compelling and convincing of the injustices of slavery than literary representations.


Perhaps the greatest example of using the arts as a form of protest against slavery would be the composition of the book, which by anecdotal evidence, was held by Abraham Lincoln to have been the cause of the American civil war, titled “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, the book details the life and exploits of one very pious and devout Christian slave named Tom. Throughput the book, he endures mistreatment and abuse at the hands of several white slave owners and their various relatives (wives, cousins, etc.). He works throughout the novel to help various other slaves to find their freedom by escaping from their masters and traveling north, where slavery had been abolished already. He also helps those slaves who won’t escape for freedom by consoling them and instilling Christianity in them, as a source of spiritual comfort against the harshness of their lives in slavery. The whole of the novel is an indictment of the evil and immorality of slavery. Using one of the more potent facets of the white, slave-owning lifestyle, namely Christianity, as a driving force behind the concept of the immorality of slavery, Harriet Beecher Stowe struck at the very heart of this highly divisive issue. Her book went on to become the highest selling book of the entire 19th century worldwide. Being a concern in countries around the world, the novel was translated into many other languages and sold well internationally, in a time where the only other popular book that was translated into so many languages was the Bible. Mrs. Stowe used the most popular form of mass media in her day, the novel, to spread her story, and with it her philosophy on slavery, to the world at large. The impact of her work was incendiary. Her book, arguably, laid the groundwork for American society to meet the question of the continued legalization of slavery head-on, ultimately erupting into the civil war that made our country what it is today. On a global scale, her book changed hearts and minds around the globe, leading to a domino effect of abolition worldwide.

I think an autobiographical account by a slave, particularly one who becomes educated enough to write about his experience with eloquence, is far more powerful than a second-hand account or a an outright fiction by someone who was never a slave themselves. In point of fact, there is an autobiographical account which has been made into a feature film which will be premiering in movie theaters in the U.S. soon (“Twelve Years a Slave”). This story, written by Solomon Northrup, tells the tale of a black man, born free in New York in 1808 to parents who had both been born slaves, but had been freed before their marriage. This man, born free and never having known life as a slave, grew into adulthood and was educated as a carpenter and musician (a violinist who played in the lobbies of various hotels in the region). One day, he was approached by members of a travelling circus and was offered a considerable amount of money to play his violin with the circus troupe in a neighboring town. Not wanting to lose out on a profitable job, he agreed, though was unable to notify his wife, who was in an adjacent town working as a cook. Ultimately, Northrup was drugged and bound and sold to a slave trader in Washington D.C., which still allowed slavery at the time. From there, he was sold to a plantation owner in northern Louisiana. He changed hands several times among neighboring plantations in the Bayou Boeuf area. Over time, he was able to befriend an itinerant Canadian carpenter who was working at the same plantation as he was. Through the Canadian, he was able to correspond with an old friend (the son of his father’s former owner) back in New York and ultimately arrange for his rescue. This story, published as a book shortly after the publication of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was a bestseller in its time. However, over the years, it faded into obscurity. Recently, however, the story has received renewed interest, especially in light of its being made into a Hollywood feature film. This story, being told by the man who experienced it, is made all the more powerful by the fact that it is told in the first person, with all of the insights and observations that come from having lived an experience, rather than having imagined one.

I think, ultimately, the visual representations of slavery were less convincing than the literary representations. While a picture may be worth a thousand words, the pictures that were being published about slavery at the time were confusing, at best. While some were trying to depict the cruelty and inhumanity of slavery, the popular opinions of the time (i.e. general belief that whites were inherently superior to blacks) made it so that many people looked at the pictures of scenes depicting slavery as pleasant, pastoral illustrations of American country life. Where one person would see a picture of a slave carrying a bale of cotton while standing next to his overseer and interpret it as showing the desperation of a person deprived of liberty, another person of the time would look at the same picture and see an idyllic scene of life on the plantation, where the landowner oversees his workers as they gather the fruits of his investment. The interpretations possible with pictures are just too variable to ensure that a specific message is communicated correctly. Literary illustrations of slavery were much more effective because there was far less chance for miscommunication of intent. When Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about the savage beating of an innocent and well-meaning Uncle Tom, there was no chance that someone would misinterpret her intent to see the overseer as the hero and the slave as the villain. So often, when trying to communicate a specific idea, images can fail where words do not. Allowing the observer to draw their own conclusion from a representation can sometimes backfire, as it is not under total control of the creator of the representation. This is why a written representation is always more likely to produce an intended response than a visual one.


Collins-Sibley, G. M. (2004, 12 01). Who Can Speak? Authority and Authenticity in Olaudah Equiano and Phillis Wheatley. Retrieved 10 21, 2013, from


By creating awareness of oppression and arousing sympathy of supporters, the arts can be a form of protest. Identify and describe an example of how either black slaves or white abolitionists used the arts as a form of protest against slavery.

  • Explain whether you think an autobiographical or fictional account by a slave (such as Phillis Wheatley and Olaudah Equiano) is more persuasive than a biographical or fictional account by a white author (such as John Gabriel Stedman or Aphra Behn).
  • Explain whether you think the representations of slavery in the visual arts (such as William Blake’s illustrations, William Hackwood’s cameo, or John Singleton Copley’s painting) were more compelling and convincing of the injustices of slavery than literary representations.


Phillis Wheatley is considered the first African American Poet. She was brought to Boston at a very young age and sold to a wealthy tailor. The tailor educated her along with his own children and she wrote her first works at the age of 13. Her first writings were based on both morals and religion. I find it very interesting that she was freed based on the idea of doing on to others as you would have done to you as written in the scriptures.

I believe that an autobiography of a slave would be far more compelling than a biography or fiction account by a third party. I say this because I do not see how anyone can relate to what slaves were forced through in order to survive. Many were put into danger, tortured, and died because of slavery and the conditions they were put through. I believe reading what actually happened would cast much more light than the opinions and hearsay of others.

Although I do feel that a picture does say a thousand words I feel as though vivid biographies and novels would convey more in regards to the injustice treatment of slaves. A picture only really shows a limited scope of one particular scene, whereas a biography can list many events in much more detail when compared to a painting. With that said though a painting may reach out to more people as it would grab the attention of the audience quicker than a novel. In other words a painting can grab the attention of someone just by walking by whereas someone would have to pick up a novel in order to receive the same message.

Sayre, H. M. (2011). The Humanities: Culture, Continuity and Change (Vol. 2). New York: Pearson Education. Retrieved October 7, 2013




  • By creating awareness of oppression and arousing sympathy of supporters, the arts can be a form of protest. Identify and describe an example of how either black slaves or white abolitionists used the arts as a form of protest against slavery.


Ans: By creating awareness of oppression and arousing sympathy of supporters, the arts can be a form of protest. The history of American abolitionism grew from this understanding of the political realities of the United States and black abolitionists were at the forefront of radical abolitionism. They used every tool in the arsenal of modern social movements for change: newspapers, pamphlets, poetry, fiction, scientific argument, violence, photography, and commemoration. Most abolitionists wrote poetry and poetry enabled both poets and readers to use their powers of imagination in a manner that revealed the barbarity of slavery and racism and actually change the public mind on the question of slavery. Abolitionist poets took their art seriously, occasionally playing with classical and popular poetic forms that opened poetic conversation within the abolitionist community, as well as introducing abolitionism to readers who may have read primarily out of a love of poetry.



  • Explain whether you think an autobiographical or fictional account by a slave (such as Phillis Wheatley and Olaudah Equiano) is more persuasive than a biographical or fictional account by a white author (such as John Gabriel Stedman or Aphra Behn).

Ans: African American slaves and their literature have shared a common burden over time, that of representing not only themselves but the African American race as well. Phillis Wheatley and Olaudah Equiano were two slaves who were kidnapped from Africa at a young age. They both shared their views and experiences of slavery into literary pieces. Phillis Wheatley’s “To the Right Honourable William, Earl of Dartmouth” is the literary piece that talks about their views, experiences, and ideas in relation to slavery. Like Phillis Wheatley, Olaudah Equiano was born in an African village. So, when they wrote about their autobiographical or fictional account, it came from their stark reality and so struck a very persuasive and real note with the reader.

  • Explain whether you think the representations of slavery in the visual arts (such as William Blake’s illustrations, William Hackwood’s cameo, or John Singleton Copley’s painting) were more compelling and convincing of the injustices of slavery than literary representations.


Ans: The visual work of art is always more compelling and leaves an imprint on the mind of the people. In that sense, any visual representations of slavery would have created more impact on to the mind of Americans. Copley was the greatest painter in colonial America, producing about 350 works of art. He came to define a realist art tradition in America.


Sayre, H. M. (2011). The Humanities: Culture, Continuity and Change (Vol. 2). New York: Pearson Education. Retrieved October 7, 2013

Posted on

What is a warehouse management system (WMS)? What are the benefits and downfalls of a WMS in a warehousing operation Answer

What is a warehouse management system (WMS)? What are the benefits and downfalls of a WMS in a warehousing operation?

Warehousing operations can be improved by warehouse management systems (WMS) which are software packages that control the movement and storage of materials within an operation. WMS control various activities such as inventory management, product receiving, and determination of storage locations, order selection processes, and order shipping. Presently, about 30 percent of warehousing facilities in the United States have installed a WMS. But there are downfalls also from the implementation of WMS. The software and implementation cost of WMS is quite high and in addition, only 40 percent of WMS installations are completed within budget, and 30 percent of the installations are considered failures. But, there are many benefits also resulting from the implementation of WMS. Data entry errors can be dramatically reduced. Other benefits are reduced operating expenses, less chance of stock outs, better inventory accuracy, and improved service to customers.

Posted on

Compare the feasibility and efficiency of producing public goods by tax dollars versus producing them jointly with private funds Answer

Compare the feasibility and efficiency of producing public goods by tax dollars versus producing them jointly with private funds. Support your argument with specific examples.

Public good may not be 100% funded by tax funds but could well be underwritten and funded by private organizations as well. It is not feasible to produce public goods using private funding. The reason for this is that there is no way to prevent free riders. Public goods, or collective consumption goods, exhibit two properties; non-rivalry and non-excludability. Something is non-rivaled if one person’s consumption of it does not deprive another person. A firework display is non-rivaled – since one person watching a firework display does not prevent another person from doing so. A public good is non-excludable. Its use cannot be limited to a certain group of people. The private groups may find it non-profitable to manufacture or create public good if they don’t get tax dollars from government in addition to their own private funds as they would want to maximize their profit as much as possible. An example of this would be the train industry. Amtrak is a private group that provides some funds and runs the system while receiving federal tax dollars in order to operate efficiently and at a profit. Without tax funding in addition to revenue generated from the train usage, Amtrak would not be successful and most likely be bankrupt. On the other hand, the disadvantage of producing public goods with 100 percent tax dollars is that the project or good being produced is being produced for a political purpose regardless of its economic purpose. An example of a public good produced for political purposes is the Metro Train system in Washington DC. The system loses money every year yet it is being expanded for political purposes. When public goods are produced with public and private funds then the project has a higher chance of being economically sound. An example of this would be the sports stadiums and arenas that are built around the country from contributions from both sports franchises and local governments. The local government gets to keep the team and the tax revenue it generates in the local vicinity while the sports franchise gets to enjoy a publically financed state of the art facility at a fraction of the full market cost.

Speculate about why people in higher income groups vote for reasons that are borne out of a sense of duty rather than from economic interests.

People in higher income groups vote to acquire political knowledge that is completely unrelated to the act of voting itself. That is simply the desire to be able to participate effectively in the discussions and activities of the group. Once the groups comes to view politics as important, and politics emerges as a recurrent topic of discussion, knowledge about politics and willingness to act in the collectively defined interest become a marker for the relative standing of individuals in the group. Peoples’ welfare – in the very tangible sense of how much others respect and value them – is therefore partly defined by their knowledge and participation in politics. From this perspective, participation and acquisition of political knowledge can clearly be seen as perfectly rational investments by people. They also perceive this as a sense of duty towards the society and the voting exercise gives them a sense of working for the society well being. If the goal is esteem and standing in the group then acquisition of relevant information, as well as participation in group-sanctioned activities, are means by which to accomplish that goal.

Posted on

Choose one of the frameworks (spiral, incremental or waterfall)and describe the advantages/disadvantages Answer

Traditional software project management centers on frameworks and process models. Any experienced project manager would have been through spiral, incremental, or waterfall models during his or her tenure.

If you were a new project manager assigned to a software development project, what process model would you choose and why? Explain your answers with relevant examples (use your own or other real-world scenarios).

Choose one of the frameworks (spiral, incremental or waterfall)and describe the advantages/disadvantages. Please provide a brief description of the scenario it was used in. Why was this model chosen? How well did it work for this type of project.

Software development and modification involves creative processes and procedures which may be subject to external and changeable forces. Getting it right the first time is almost impossible and that’s why it’s preferred to employ iterative developmental processes rather than linear development processes. With Software developments, finding an issue during the design process and fixing it is better that during the testing process. An incremental build model is an iterative development model which involves frequent demonstrations of progress and verification and validation of the work to date. The entire build is broken up into manageable build/task, which is verified and validated. Our software implementation in my organization is broken into various builds/milestones and requires verification and validation of each build before the next. Some of the advantages of the incremental model are flexibility (ease of change of requirements), stakeholder involvement and feedback on each stage, and the ability to identify and manage risk and defects easily and quickly. A disadvantage of the incremental model is a potential higher project cost because of the verification and validation process, and requires good planning and layout of the entire design before breaking it done into various build/task.

It actually costs less to find problems during the testing phase than to install the project with defects. Don’t get me wrong, re-work is an expensive undertaking and is usually NOT included in project estimates. This means that the cost of re-work has to be eaten in another portion of the project. Where is to be determined but rest assure the price will be paid.

Usually with IT software projects reworking and tweaking portions of the projects will require retesting all the modules to make sure nothing is broken, which can be time consuming and costly. There is no guarantee that re-working a portion of the software will not cause any issues, especially if the modules are inter-dependent. It’s a major undertaking that most project teams will rather avoid if possible.

Our text mentions costs of rework cost more as the project moves on. Having to make corrections in the early phases such as requirements are much cheaper to fix than if you wait until the implementation phase to redo something, or fix something. Those errors in the requirement phase can be fixed sometimes by just rewriting the features promised the customer. Errors made in the implementation phase can requiring recoding and system resources.

I have been using the waterfall method pretty much the last two years with the infrastructure projects. the advantages is that it has sequential development phases and milestones reviews. In most of the projects in the deployment of hardware we had several different phases to go through before we were able to deploy the systems to their final locations. this sequential method allowed us to utilize the timetable better. combine this with milestones we were able to maintain directions and goal.   Now the disadvantage is that it required a lot of communications and that ate up precious time also. We were also constantly being called into meetings that were taking up precious time on the project. never mind the time it took to do a change order. it had to go up the ladder then back before it was allowed.

The advantages of the incremental model are:

More flexible – less costly to change scope and requirements.

Easier to test and debug during a smaller iteration.

Customer can respond to each build

Lowers initial delivery cost.

Easier to manage risk because risky pieces are identified and handled during iteration.

The Disadvantages of the Incremental mode are:

Needs good planning and design.

Needs a clear and complete definition of the whole system before it can be broken down and built incrementally.

Total cost is higher than waterfall

I would imagine that the incremental model works best with something like a software or program update. In my company the program that we use to complete our tasks was recently updated. There have been additional updates about five times since the original program came out. The company has made changes and fixed issues that the end users had identified. The incremental model was used in order to be able to get end user feedback and work on developing and enhancing the program to ensure it was workable.


Trying to understand the different methods of process models, at work we seem to use the incremental method. We have an overall process for converting our computer systems and it is broken down by each school but we try to use the same processes over and over once we find what works for us. For every school, we do an inventory walk through so we know what model of machines we have, printer models, and counts for each area of the location. Once that is completed, we provide memory to the school to be upgraded before the project is done, so the hardware can handle the software. The network specialists work on the server end and my area works on the desktop software end. Once things are ready, we go onsite and re-image the machines on the new server after the old one is removed.


  • Flexibility
  • Easier to manage problems that arise


  • Must have good planning process
  • Understand overall goal before it can be broken into increments

What is Incremental model- advantages, disadvantages and when to use it?

Incremental framework is an iterative model and usually applied in projects where there is some ambiguity in the product requirement or the business requirements change pretty quickly. This model works well with prototyping. In this method, the analysts usually create prototypes and take it to the business users and do the validation and verification of the requirements. Users generally provide their feedback on the functionalities and suggest some changes. This leads to analyst working on the product functionalities and changes in the prototypes. This iterative process ultimately leads to the finalization of all the functionalities as desired by the business user. The iterative model work better especially for those projects which require a particular or specified look and feel/layout. It also works for those projects where user involvement is high and they provide their inputs quickly.

Every project is unique in terms of the problems that arise, the priorities and resources assigned it, the environment in which it operates, and the project manager’s attitude and style used to guide and control project activities. Therefore, the organizational structure for the project must be designed to fit within that project’s operating constraints.

As a new project manager managing a software development project the individuals must from Identify stakeholder and their needs, develop strategies to manage involvement. Outline the project objectives, such as, what success looks like, making the team’s success visible and managing the project to build customer confidence. Balancing development needs with organizational expectations within selecting software development life cycle models in the aspects of comparing SDLC models, identifying the right model and analyzing strengths and weaknesses of traditional Iterative vs.. agile and scrum

The next phase when implementing agile in the design process by mapping the project’s SDLC process, optimizing time, cost, function and quality. Then reanslating your actions and requirements to the stakeholder. When structuring the contents of software development project planing and providing initial estimates, calculating realistic estimates.

Posted on

Compare and contrast kanban and CONWIP Answer

One way to achieve small lot sizes is to move inventory through the shop only as needed rather than pushing it on to the next workstation whether or not the personnel there are ready for it. As noted earlier, when inventory is moved only as needed, it is referred to as a pull system, and the ideal lot size is one. The Japanese call this system kanban. Kanbans allow arrivals at a work center to match (or nearly match) the processing time. Kanban is a Japanese word for card. In their effort to reduce inventory, the Japanese use systems that “pull” inventory through work centers. They often use a “card” to signal the need for another container of material—hence the name kanban. The card is the authorization for the next container of material to be produced. Typically, a kanban signal exists for each container of items to be obtained. An order for the container is then initiated by each kanban and “pulled” from the producing department or supplier. A sequence of kanbans “pulls” the material through the plant.


Posted on

What are some of the historical and current considerations by the Commission in regards to the allowance of mergers in the telecommunications industry Answer

What are some of the historical and current considerations by the Commission in regards to the allowance of mergers in the telecommunications industry? 

This is similar to a merger, a virtual merger – both sides have agreed to work together and co market each other services. This is two communications power coming together ensuring their dominance in cable broadband and bundled wireless. We have to be care that we don’t allow a monopoly to form. You have Verizon (wireless) company and Comcast ( wired) company coming together. Regulators believe that this is a great deal for all. They are getting unused spectrum used and its great for the consumer.

Posted on

What do you see as the biggest workforce challenge(s) for hospitals today Answer

What do you see as the biggest workforce challenge(s) for hospitals today? Are the issues any different for other types of healthcare organizations? What strategies are being used by hospitals for recruiting and retaining staff?

Many hospitals are trying to focus on a specific line of business to specialize in so that patients will go to them for that particular care. In Washington State, one hospital will specialize in hip replacements and therapy to get back to normal where another will specialize in cardiac care or chemo and align with seattle care institute and/or Fred Hutch. If they specialize in one or more specific areas or product lines than they will get that type of care. Many smaller hospitals are either merging with larger ones or partnering with them to obtain more patient’s.

What do you see as the biggest workforce challenge(s) for hospitals today?

I work in the healthcare industry, and I believe that the biggest workforce challenge for hospitals is maintaining the educational needs of medical staff. For example, I currently have 15 non-clinical nurses, 4 coders, and 4 reimbursement pricers that directly report to me, and each year the challenge for us is keeping up-to-date with all the changes in healthcare coding, and billing so that we can get reimbursed for our services by government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Our biggest challenge currently is the 5010 conversions. This is requiring that my staff not only do their current jobs audit and code charts to add to remove charges, but that they also have to participate in extensive training, take courses, and then be tested to ensure they have absorbed each change and can apply it in our environment. These updates are not only time consuming they are costly to the hospital when having to maintain the educational requirements of nursing and coding staff.

This is the biggest challenge. Even being a Physical therapist assistant it is tough to keep up with the new technology emerging in this field. More innovative ways to treat patients are making their way in our daily routine yet, not all feel that is appropriate. The ongoing continuing education courses cost a lot of money. Training staff that have been their for many years do not wish to change their techniques with patient care. Medical staff, from receptionist to administrative staff and the health officials need to be trained in ethics and in need of emergency. All this costs money and is time consuming.

According to the attached article, one reason why there shortage in the workforce today is because many nurses that are currently working are refusing to leave their jobs due to the recession. This makes it harder to new graduates to enter the medical field.

One of the strategies that is being used by some organization to overcome workforce shortages is the recruitment of nurses from foreign countries. The strategy is designed to bring new people to the workforce and to tap into a pipeline of nurses. The Philippines provides the most nurses to the U.S., as well as Canada, United Kingdom, India, and Korea.

What are the issues associated with recruiting foreign nurse to work in U.S. organizations? Do you support this strategy?



I think there is no difference for nurses in the US studying or working in the field abroad as alot do just as foreign nurses study and work here. Of course there are pros and cons in recruiting foreign nurses such as language barriers in which the US is very diverse when it comes to cultures and technological advancements seeing as though all hospitals are using more of an electronic form to process patients. So as long as US nurses can go to different countries to practice it should be the same here but policies and procedures should be followed to accomodate those countries and if you have the knowledge I would say go for it. From my experience, nurses who are born in other countries and recruited to come to the U.S are well educated and trained. These nurses generally provide good patient care and have a solid work ethic.   I think its reasonabe for us to recruit these nurses if our current educational system cannot produce enough nurses.

One of the issues with recruiting nurses from a foreign country is that we are depleting the resources of a country that need them far worse than we do; the language barrier is sometimes a major problem; are these nurses paid less than American nurses for performing the same duties, etc

I’m not sure where i stand on this issue because the patients are the ones that truly suffer when they have to wait 20-30 minutes for a nurse to tend to their needs..

I think that as population grows, the need and demand for healthcare grows. For example, here in Houston, we have the fastest growing population at the rate of 2% per year in the US. And that is one of the reasons why we have more than 137 healthcare facilities and research centers. To meet these demands, we don’t have enough Nursing schools and qualified applicants. Therefore, we have no other choice but to bring nurses from other countries to accommodate and meet the demands. These can be problematic at times due to having nurses from other countries can potentially create problems such as language and cultural barriers and potentially cost hospitals in case of lawsuits. Unless, we add cultural and social trainings on regular basis for nurses who come with different cultures. Obviously, this cost needs to be addressed and figured out whether states or federal agencies will be paying for such trainings.

The Nurse Reinvestment Act (PL 107-205), which President Bush signed on August 1, creates programs for (1) scholarships for people who agree to serve at health care facilities with a critical shortage of nurses, (2) nurse retention and career ladders, (3) loan forgiveness for nursing faculty, (4) public service announcements, and (5) training healthcare workers to treat elderly people.

I think this is a very good act for any individual that is pursuing a career in Nursing. Student loans can be a burden but since there is such a shortage, these act serves as an incentive for individuals to go into nursing but can’t typically afford it.

I can see three major reward categories: financial, non-financial and psychological, each having a variety of subcategories. Nurses that I have worked with are concerned with financial rewards, I think this is because they work 12 hour shifts and are instrumental in patient care.compared to non-financial and psychological rewards. Second is the need appreciation for their work by others, compliments from others, presents from others and contact with patients were highly valued. Younger and less experienced nurses considered promotion possibilities as more rewarding than the older and more experienced ones. Seasoned nurses valued job security and working for a hospital with a good reputation higher than their younger and more junior colleagues. If I were trying to establish an efficient reward system for nurses I would try to create a three-fold approach and not just concentrate on the financial reward alone. I consider non-financial and psychological rewards just as important since they will lead to a more personalized reward system.

This is an excellent post on employee rewards and how the importance of specific rewards may change as an employee gets older or s with the organization for a longer period of time. This is a very important point as you move forward in your career as healthcare administrators.

Intrinsic reward is a reward that gives an individual personal satisfaction for example: a job well done. An extrinsic reward is expected by an employee and does not lead to his/her greater satisfaction for exaample: hygiene factors. According to the website, Hertzberg’s two factor theory of motivation, work enviroment factors(such as minimum-wage) whose absence may lead to dissatisfaction in employees but whose presence does not necessarily lead to their satisfaction. At my job there are no rewards or awards given out to the part tim people. The full time people are recognized for there efforts with the customers i.e. gas gift cards, dvd players, or cash. In my opinion, I feel that any employee should be recognized for a job well done or impacting someone else’s life in the workplace; however, I don’t feel that because you are part time that you should be rewarded. Many people do understanding gestures all day for the customers noone pays attention to the part timers role in that we don’t get a thank you or nothing, where when I first started there it was one manager that took did thanked us. I wonder if that’s happening in the healthcare workforce for part time employees.

I am glad that you mention Herzberg in this post.   His research and theories are fundamental to the understanding of employee rewards and incentives.   His theories are studied in most MBA and management programs. In this post you mention the notion of motivation and how to improve it.   Is motivation different from employee satisfaction or is it the same thing?

Extrinsic rewards are usually financial. They are “the tangible rewards given employees by managers, such as pay raises, bonuses, and benefits” (Thomas, 2009). Extrinsic rewards are controlled by the size of the company or organization, grants given by the federal government, and budget.

Intrinsic rewards are “psychological rewards that employees get from doing meaningful work and performing it well” (Thomas, 2009). Being able to self-manage is important to employers. Employees need to be able to “use their intelligence and experience to direct their work activities to accomplish important organizational purposes. This is how today’s employees add value—innovating, problem solving and improvising to meet the conditions they encounter to meet customers’ needs” (Thomas, 2009).

Thomas, K. (2009). THE FOUR INTRINSIC REWARDS THAT DRIVE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT. Ivey Business Journal. Retireved on 3-14-13 from

With any organization, whether its nurses or management, all employees want to feel appreciated and acknowledge of their hard work. This doesn’t mean constantly telling them that they do a great job but remind them of their importance and contribution to the company. Nurses are exposed to germs, mean patients, ungrateful employees, etc. but as managers, we need to ensure that all staff are rewarded, whether this means staff luncheons, employee appreciation month or week, lunch breaks, vacation, etc. When employees feel appreciated, they work harder. You take care of your staff and your staff will take care of you. Sometimes this may require that you staff over with your staff as a team and you all achieve the goal!

One of the issues which was in the news this winter was hospitals who require the nursing staff to get flu vaccines.   The organization feels that this protects patients, while some staff members believe this should be an individual choice. What are your perspectives on this issue?

On one side of this coin, one can argue that such is nothing more than work requirement and obeying such factors comes with the territory of profession. But also the right to choose one’s Medically related decisions is an important factor in our society, and in my opinion the stronger point of view here. If we keep changing such values, then the fabric of our social behavior will be in question.

I think that due to the large number of patients that many health care givers come in contact with that it would be wise to require flu and other vaccines not only for their protection but the protection of the patients they treat. I think that unless there is a medical reason as to why the nurse could not get the vaccine then they should be required to receive it willingly. This is just a method of preventative health care we are trying to encourage thought out with the modern changes currently being made to health care.

I also believe that this is a sensitive topic and that everyone should be able to have the choice of whether they would like to get vaccinated or not. On the other hand, like Julie, I understand why the idea of all staff members being vaccinated is being considered and think that it would be a good idea. Honestly, I don’t get flu shots because I don’t believe that it is something that I need but being in that environment may require vaccination. That is my opinion but others may feel differently about that decision and I do not feel that someone should be forced to have a vaccination if they do not agree with it.

I believe in vaccinations and public health. If you work in a healthcare facility, you are expected to perform certain tasks that will protect you and the public. If you refuse to wash your hands because of personal choice, is this viewed as the same thing? Vaccination saves lives! Just like children are required to get their shots before going to public school, healthcare workers should be required to get their flu shots to work. If you don’t want to get your flu shot, then don’t work in healthcare. If you don’t want your child to get their shots, then home school them; but don’t put my health or my family’s health in jeopardy because you don’t feel it’s necessary or your individual right. It might be your body and your choice, but if you want to do certain things, you have to abide by societal standards. You must obtain a driver’s license before you drive, a medical degree to practice medicine, and you must get your flu shot to work in healthcare!

Posted on

Partnerships may bring added value to strategic supply relationships Answer

Partnerships may bring added value to strategic supply relationships, and have been described using seven factors. Identify those factors and describe each while providing an explanation of how each provides value within the cooperative relationship. Document your sources. Respond to at least two of your fellow classmates’ postings.


Companies implement supply chain management (SCM) across the world because it achieves results such as delivery time reductions, improved financial performance, greater customer satisfaction, building trust among partners and many other reasons.  One way to define the performance of the SCM system is operational excellence to deliver leading customer experiences.  Supply chain relationships play an important role in maximizing the overall customer experience.  To achieve this excellence, companies form partnerships with other companies in various ways.  The degree of coordination and integration between partners needs to be greater than any one of the companies supporting the system.

To help properly align the supply chain, Wheatley (1998) stated the seven factors that will “guide business supply chain initiatives are 1. Pare participation to the most effective level of management.  2. Eliminate activities and resources that do not add value.  3. Create fully-fledged electronic trading relationships.  4. Develop the supply chain into a virtual factory.  Learn to love the benefits of co-opetition.  6. Make the most of opportunities on the internet.  7. Ask whether your supply chain meets the customer’s needs” (para. 1).

Harrison & van Hoek (2011) stated value add benefits created through strategic supply chain partnerships include “reduced negotiations and drawing up of separate contracts, reduced monitoring of supplier soundness, including supply quality and increased productivity.  These are accompanied by strategic advantages of shortened lead times and product cycles, and conditions amenable to longer-term investment” (p. 271).  In addition, synchronizing goals, coordinating plans, sharing risk helps create a stronger more sustainable supply chain.


Harrison, A. & van Hoek, R. (2011). Logistics management and strategy: Competing through the supply chain (4th ed).  London, England: Prentice Hall Financial Times. ISBN: 978-0-273-73022-4

Wheatley, M. (1998). Seven secrets of effective supply chains. Management Today, , 78-86. Retrieved from

Posted on

In the article by Leon Kass, “Preventing a Brave New World,” the author argues for a worldwide ban on all forms of human cloning Answer

In the article by Leon Kass, “Preventing a Brave New World,” the author argues for a worldwide ban on all forms of human cloning. Do you agree with the author’s arguments? Could we realistically allow therapeutic cloning but ban human cloning? What are the ethical questions raised by cloning? Is there any moral difference between applying genetic engineering technologies to humans and applying them to animals and plants? What role should governments play in making policies regarding ethical issues?

If you enjoy discussing hot button issues this is a question for you. This is another gut wrenching contemporary technology that creates a whole new set of issues for us. Don’t think you can answer this question with emotion or off the cuff judgments. This is a complicated technical matter and to answer it meaningfully you must have an understanding of the technical issues involved. Opinion won’t cut it here, we need knowledge – informed opinion. Lay people make a lot of assumptions about cloning that are simply irrelevant to the issue—like “I’m gonna clone my Mom”. No, you’re not. Your “Mom” has a history, a character, a personality. Those things aren’t cloned. Cloning is now a widely used technology and not just in the United States. Keep that in mind. One other caution, this is favorite topic for Hollywood producers. Film producers may have some interesting and important things to say about human cloning but keep in mind they are fiction. For the last 70 years Hollywood has made a lot of movies about foreign space invaders from other planets. We haven’t seen one yet. So movies are not a gage of rightness or wrongness of any action.

The implications of human cloning will no doubt change human history if allowed. I think that Kass is right when he states that “the technological imperative, liberal democratic society, compassionate humanitarianism, moral pluralism, and free markets” are leading us down a path that places us at risk of losing our humanity.” Kass does not say that we will lose our humanity but that human cloning will place us squarely in the path of this reality. When you consider just a few of the external factors that will inevitably exert influence on the application of human cloning, it is hard not to believe that Kass is right. For example, he mentions the “technological imperative” which is not an entity but a predominant attitude of essentiality and urgency that has become immovable within our contemporary culture and society. This technological imperative is the result of the knowledge revolution and has become a powerful and uncontrollable force. Our society is under-girded by this technological imperative to discover and apply our discoveries to reality. We are not satisfied with simply knowing that we can, we have become the “do it” generation that longs to witness the impact of our discoveries regardlesso f the consequences.

In the same manner, Kass makes mention of our liberal democratic society which suggests he believes that our political prowess lacks the strength and integrity to control the application of human cloning. Again, I agree here. Our current liberal democratic government has a tendency to be controlled by powerful corporate institutions whose monetary influence transforms politicians into political puppets who act in their own interest rather than representing the interest of the people. It is for these reasons that I agree with Kass and do not support human cloning in any way, shape or form.

Similar arguments were used to oppose vaccinations, heart transplants, space travel, birth control pills, in-vitro fertilizaton, freezing human eggs, and countless other innovations. Is this just another one of the long line of arguments about the terrible things that will result for this innovation or that one?  

You are certainly correct in that there a have been no shortage of arguments against predecessor human reproductive technologies such as birth control, in-vitro fertilization, and the freezing of human eggs. Obviously these scientific advances have made their way into our society unwelcomed or not; this is fact. However, the fact that the above are legally available for us to make use of does not mean that the introduction of these human reproductive advances have offered society worthwhile benefits. The jury is still out here. I’m sure that the arguments against cloning are similar to those against the predecessor human reproductive technologies. Similar arguments posed considered the sacredness of human procreation, and questions regarding when life begins (birth or conception). The last question relates to the issues about using cloned embryos to supply stem cells. What is likely to happen is that human cloning will be allowed on the merit of its medical advantages. What is of greater concern is renegade doctors cloning humans outside of government regulatiatory use.

I’m not sure if the introduction of some human reproductive advances have offered society as a whole worthwhile benefits, but they have sure offered benefits to several in my extended family and also some friends – the opportunity to parent a child. And when I look at these children, I can’t help but believe they were meant to be in this world. I would also say that birth control has arguably been a benefit to society. The choice not to parent is as valid as the choice to have a child. I think reproductive technologies are a different kettle of fish than cloning because cloning implies replication.

I’m not aware that human reproductive cloning is illegal. I know the Federal Government will not allow Federal funds to support reproductive cloning, there may be some states that have passed laws against cloning, but I am not aware of what Constitutional power on a Federal or State level would allow the government to forbid human cloning by private parties. Does anyone have any information on this? I’m not sure what you would arrest someone for, creating a human being?  

Generally speaking I am not opposed to human cloning, that being said, there some aspects of it that boggles my mind. Let’s pose a scenario in which an imperfect human clone was created, it has health problems that derive from a fault in the cloning process, or mental issues, or both (if we assume that a clone is human), what do we do with it (or is it him/her), do we destroy it, does it get medical care and drain resources, do we treat it like a human or like an object to be discarded? Until we have answers to those questions how can we even consider creating a clone? I mean if Dolly, the cloned sheep, was deformed they would have simply discarded her or experimented on her to see what went wrong, can we do the same on a human clone?

I would think there are some states that may have laws against human reproductive cloning, but I will be interested if the courts will find them enforceable if it goes that far. If I were a business firm in Missouri I would not try to produce a human clone there, but if I were a firm in Missouri I might consider paying someone in China to do it and then reap the benefits if any.

That’s the thing I have with this. Just because there is not a law forbidding something, doesn’t mean there won’t be the potential for dire consequences outside the laws of science or medicine for our actions. We’re asked to debate on all these scientific pros and cons, yet somehow disregard the different views of societies across vast cultural boundaries, of who have many (scientific and non-scientific) ideals about these very issues, and who are willing to bring more emotional, religious, economical, social, philosophical and political biases into it that it may not really matter what science can prove if people are going to fight over it and annex relationships, treaties, potentially resorting to violence, acts of terrorism and the like. If we want to engage globalization and figure out ways to build relationships across all of these boundaries, some will have to make concessions. We can’t just bully everyone to follow us with our ethnocentric or liberalized/politically correct attitudes and expect everything will work out ok. If you think so, just go hang out in Gaza and the West Bank for a while and see what’s going on with that clash of ideologies. We could begin by looking in the mirror and examining our own cross-idealogical and cultural competencies. What do you imagine will be the course of our country, if the United Nations, who has already stated (as referenced in a post earlier) that they believe it to be immoral and unethical, passes an international law forbidding this globally (for human reproduction, research or therapy, all or some)? Will America just disregard the law and risk being kicked out of the UN and the possible severances of many host-nation agreements, treaties, and economic alliance memberships that could follow? I don’t know if we want to risk it on a touchy issue like this with how interdependent we are with many other nations. Don’t just assume that because many may not be opposed to this, or there may be scientific or medical benefits, that these issues hold no merit.

With the pace and growth in the biomedical science, human species have succeeded in cloning sheep, cows, mice, pigs, and goats and technically speaking, it is very much possible to do human cloning now. I would very much agree with the author’s point of view on the negative impact of human cloning on the mankind. Kass in this article is using the word “Repugnance” to even think or argue on a subject like “Human cloning” and goes further to equate this to “Human Bestiality”. He is raising objection to all kinds of human cloning which also includes the creation of cloned embryos for research. I feel that there are more negative effects of human cloning than positive ones (if any). The downside of such highly technical and complicated human cloning exercises is producing unhealthy, abnormal, and malformed children. It is also going to create a whole lot of psychological and relationship issues hitherto unknown as mentioned by Kass in his article. Any effort done to intervene with the natural reproductive cycle would tantamount to playing with the creative forces of the nature. What will be the final outcome of this, we probably don’t know in all its aspects. If I look at the negative sides of this, I find that some of the outcomes are – producing unhealthy children, high failure rate of cloning, social and psychological issues, shift from procreation to mass manufacture. In my mind, Mass manufacturing always leads to standardization and sub-par production of objects and in this case it would lead to creation of “Robo-Humans” if I call it by this term.

I still haven’t got my thought around cloning of embryos for research and whether this should be allowed at all. An argument in favour would be that it would help in further research and also potentially be useful for transplantation to repair somatic damage. Argument against would be that we are again playing with nascent life.


Kass, Leon R. (2001). Preventing a brave new world. Human Life Review27. 3: 14-35.

I was struck by your comment that cloning is bad because it is “tantamount to playing with the creative forces of the nature”.   Isn’t that what we do all the time, isn’t that what technology largely is?   We dam rivers, we fly in space, we fly airplanes, we build artificial hearts, we transplant human hearts, we inject anti-biotics we made in a lab, on and on and on. Is a prohibition on cloning based in not violating the creative forces of nature an argument that comes a little late. Why do you think it is that Kass is having such a negative reaction that he uses prejudicial terminology like “repugnant”?

   With respect to the poor success rate of cloning I would remind the class that all the first receipients of heart transplants died within a few minutes or hours of the transplant. Today a very heffty number of humans are walking around happily with transplanted hearts as well as other organs. New technologies often run high risks, is that really a strong argument against cloning?

His (Kass) argument concerning the term surrounds what he believes is an “emotional expression of deep wisdom, which is beyond reason’s power completely to articulate it.” (Winston & Edelbach, 2012, p.321). He takes cloning and genetic engineering akin to incest and child abuse and, ultimately a defilement on human dignity (p.322). Further, he articulates his objections as (p.323):

1) that it constitutes unethical experimentation

2) that it threatens identity and individuality

3) that it turns procreation into manufacture (especially when understood as the harbinger of manipulations to come)

4)and that it means despotism over children and perversion of parenthood.

He’s got a point here, and one cannot scientifically defend his allegations as such without allowing some metaphysics into their thinking. Some questions that I would like some answers to are:

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with people who are naturally procreated?

As disturbingly biased and set in my morale ways, I have to ask if there will be anything that modern humans will regard as sacred in a world of cloning? Money and feeling good all the time can’t be the sacred trust, can it?

Can a dollar amount be placed on a human’s value as an individual (not their portfolio’s net worth)?

Will cloned people be a sort of commodity? If so, who will be held responsible when something goes wrong? The scientist/physician? I don’t suspect anyone we will be able to say it was an ‘act of God,’ will they?

Is there a ‘perfect’ human defined? If so, who will he or she be like?

Do we want everyone to be the same? I want my children to grow up to be happy and productive, but I don’t believe that selecting certain genes or cloning someone who was successful is a sure bet that the child will turn out to be that way, he or she could grow up to be completely void of an identity.

Why mess with a good thing?

If people want to pick and choose what kind of children they will have, what does that say about the value of the ones who don’t meet their expectations? Is a child with a disability undesirable or unlovable? I imagine no one would say yes to both of these questions, but doesn’t the idea kind of cheapen the human race?

Ok, off subject, will blues music die, or will it become something completely different?

These are heavy ideas here. I’m going to try to avoid a hyperbolic existential anxiety attack and do a little bit more research before continuing…my rational mind may be able to place some sense around this, but the horror these questions may reap on my deeper emotions is something that I cannot guarantee I’ll be able to maintain a handle on.


Winston, Edelbach. (2012). Society, Ethics, and Technology, (Update Ed.), (4th Ed.), pp. 321-323. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Publishing.

Yes, there is often a lot wrong with natural procreation, for example birth deformities, mental retardation, fatal results for the mother, and the list could go on. That is why we have in-utero surgery, birth control, use ultrasound in pregnancy and many other interventions to protect child and mother. Evolution has created a very dangerously enlarged human baby with a huge head that must past through a birth canal that can sometimes not accommodate the child.

I”m not sure what is scared to you but assuming that is related to religious issues I can understand how this might be a problem. There are are many religions in the world and a number of them would have little problem with this issue. Moreover there are many non-religious persons and a number of societies much less religious than the United States, so if Kass is looking for an international policy on human cloning, specific religious sentiments are likely to have a limited appeal.

You seem to not want to select your children’s genes. But in fact humans do that all the time. We have many social pressures to select a mate in our own social group which is selecting genes. Certain physical things are appealing in the opposite sex, and that is selecting genes. And the world is full of matchmakers and mothers who are always in the market for “a good match” which often has a genetic component in what they are looking for.   Doesn’t it make more sense for scientists to select the best genes right in the lab?

I agree there is a problem with selecting a child’s sex since sexual imbalances can become social problems, but we don’t need cloning to have that as a problem, we have that problem now in certain societies.

I don’t think you want to see children with birth defects being born but you seem to think society would lose something if we didn’t have them. Did I understand that wrong, could you explain.

Why is this a different problem, John, from the opposition that often arose in the past over technological innovations often medical ones.   There were riots in some countries when officials tried to impose vaccination against small pox and other diseases. Some religious groups do not even now accept medical interventions like blood transfusions and other treatments for reasons associated with their beliefs.   There are some who object to birth control techniques. Condoms were once illegal in many states and the pill caused outrage in some circles. Is opposition to cloning just another example of this tendency to fear something that seems new and many of us don’t understand well?

I also don’t align my values with everything Kass suggests. For what it is worth, I was not programmed to reason in the fashion that all morality is either relative or absolute. If I must discuss this in a relative fashion, I can usually find a common ground from the meta-ethical and normative perspective until it concerns such issues as murder, stealing, cheating, etc. I believe those acts to be morally evil and those beliefs/values have been instilled into me by my parents and my culture (and some from consequences of my actions and the drill sgt in basic training, etc.). Luckily for me, I’m not the only one who feels that way and we have laws that forbid them as crimes. I do however, have an altruistic streak in me and will usually advocate for those who are helpless, or oppressed on the raggedy fringes of society…perhaps it comes from a religion, I don’t know. I rarely go to church, perhaps I should go more often. Anyhow, we can argue all day on issues of whether there is good and evil, but where is that getting us in the near term and the long term and what are we going to with it? I don’t understand how comparing old social taboos and laws on birth control or condoms have anything to do with destroying human life for research and science, or possibly setting a course for disaster for generations to come. Is there anything that can be the greatest common moral factor, that people of all faiths or lackthereof can agree on? Yes, no? If there is, than let’s work on defining what they are, and create a code of ethics to guide our actions and use that to shape what kind of future we’re going to allow technology to be a part of or control.

I think that cloning is not something that we should be playing around with, I mean this is something big, there are somethings in this world that we shouldn’t do and I think cloning is one of those things, but this day and time we have so much technology and find many ways to make the life style so much better I have done some research and have found the pro’s and con’s of cloning potential medical benefits and also potential harms and disadvantages. There are alot of great things that can come from this but also alot of harmful things not just now but for generations to come.

I probably used the wrong word . What I meant here was playing with “Natural Procreation and evolutionary process of nature”. Ordinary procreation, whether it results in twins or singletons, is an open-ended process. Each new individual has a unique configuration of genes which leads to an amazing range of human variability. Cloning forecloses the opportunity for genetic surprise and growth among cloned humans, limiting such future people to genetic configurations that have alreday been expressed in the past.

Let’s not forget that mankind’s evoloutionary process is going on for ages and any effort to intervene with this process in a very drastic way by something like Human cloning should be clearly thought through. Here, we are not just talking about the probable high failure rate of cloning but it is more than that as highlighted in Kass’ article. It is about commodification of human being, risking with the diversity of human beings and others. Also, any change using genetic manipulation that we allow to occur would continue to exist in future and would get carried over to future generations with varied and unpredictable implications/consequences.


I appreciated the Kass article, but I don’t share the total negativity he expressed. I think there is great potential for in utero somatic cell gene therapy, which targets parts of the body affected by disease, for example the lungs with cystic fibrosis. Somatic gene cell therapy are not carried on from one generation to the next. Germ line gene therapy, where a genetic change is made that will be carried forward to the next generation, is more problematic. But take inheritable diseases, Tay-Sachs disease, for example. What would be wrong with getting rid of that disease forever?

we as humans never interferedin the “Natural Procreation and evolutionary process of nature” we would still be eating fruit and grubbing for roots in a tropical rain forest somewhere, living in small groups and not wearing cloths or speaking a language. Now after all this heart transplants, antibiotics, in-uterine surgery to save children, and brain surgery you now want us to stop interfering with mother nature by not doing cloning? Does that argument really hold up given our history?

the interference that we are talking about here is of a very different nature – It is tampering with the human genes which have been instrumental in human’s evolution and progress. What we are trying to do is – interference with the very fundamental block of life – the effects of which at a broad level can’t be measured now but can be done only ex post facto. Secondly, these changes are going to be permanent i.e. changes made can’t be reversed as it sets in motion and gets carried over to the future generations. If later we find that there are severe and drastic consequences of human cloning, can it be easily addressed/repaired/reversed? Any effort to contain or completely remove from the genetic cycle would have severe social, ethical and legal implications. Also, assume for a moment that entire human population is cloned at some point of time ( very wild assumption 🙂 ), how would we measure what was good/better, whom would we compare with to measure the effect ? There would be no reference point. I am not sure if I am making sense here. But the point here is that these changes will be permanent in nature and there would be no going back once set into action or motion.

Secondly, why should we go after Human cloning. What is the benefit of the same? I can understand the argument and benefit of somatic cell gene therapy, embryonic research as pointed out by Doug. But, what is it there as part of “Human Cloning” that can’t be done through natural process/cycle. Somehow, the cost/benefit aspect of this doesn’t really justify for such a misadventure into unknown territory where too many social, ethical and legal questions await us for answering before we even think of embarking on such a misadventure.

In theory, assuming cloning technology advances we could produce “better” human beings than come out of the natural system. If mother nature was so wonderful I would think we’d want to still be wandering through the wild places of the earth living nude, eating nuts and berries and small animals raw. But we had the option to introduce culture into our lives and here we are pretty far from anything like a natural life for our species.   But now for some reason we want to stop this particular technology aimed at controlling the conditions of the human reproduction. We have actually done that in a lot of ways by racial prohibitions between marriage among different human groups, by exterminating minorities on occasion, and so on. Cloning can be seen as just another way to improve the population a little less offensive that former methods. I confess to suggesting an extreme case in the same manner as you did, but if the opposition to cloning is all over the place it makes me wonder if there is really a good reason not to do it Iassuming it could be perfected) or are we just having knee jerk reactions to a radical new technology as has happened to many new technologies in the past. What do you think?


Genes natural selection or extermination (via exterminating minorities) are all within the boundary of so called “Natural gene cycle/system”. I am not bringing in/debating the ethics or morality part of doing such a savage act (exterminating minorities etc.) here but only looking at from the genes selection/choice perspective. Mingling or co-mingling with certain sections of the culture/society or marrying within a particular race/group are all examples of natural genes mixing/selection. We have never done some thing as drastic as human cloing in the past ever.

Also, such a serious issue requires a lot of deliberation on the risk aspect of this type of an innovation. Given that neither you nor I have enough facts/data on what would be the repercussions/effects of human cloning on the entire mankind, I would try to look at the risk part of doing vs not doing this type of cloning technology. You would agree as things stand today, there is an immense amount of risk or unknown (as mentioned in Kass’s article) if such innovation is carried out on a mass scale. Whereas the risk of not doing is zero/very less as we would still be able to carry on with the natural cycle of procreation and regeneration. To support “in favour argument”, can someone guarantee me that human cloning is going to create a better culture or better conditions/future for human population. I would certainly ask for the data/facts on the other side of the story to make a valid argument for “Doing the Human Cloning”.

In my analysis, I would consider the “Immense inherent risk in human cloning” as a good reason/argument for not going ahead with Human cloning.

I assume you man reproductive cloning, do you mean to include therapeutic cloning? Do you think there will a different attitude toward cloning when some human clones have successfully been done?  

I meant reproductive cloning. Regarding therapeutic cloning e.g. such as embryonic stem cell research, things like regenerative medicine, Somatic cell nuclear transfer etc. seems beneficial for the mankind. I still need to dig down deeper and do more research around this to find out fallout/implications. To answer your question, probably yes, as I don’t look at this issue on the basis of religion or belief. I am taking a purely rational view of creating a better society/culture than where we are today. If we find success in the reproductive cloning and we have delibrated enough on all the associated implications, the social and scientific community/important stakeholders could explore further in this area.

I’ve changed my mind a little on some of these issues over the past decade. I was initially very unhappy when George W. Bush put the brakes on embryonic stem cell research. The promise it showed treating MS and Parkinsons patients, in particular, made me believe it should get a green light. And the embryos to be used would have been discarded, anyway. However, researchers are having more success using adult stem cells than you might have anticipated from the initial debate – without the ethical issues involved. I still think there may be merit in cloning embryos for the sole purpose of producing embryonic stem cells for research purposes, but taking our time developing appropriate policies is important.

I highly recommend the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot. It tells the story of a poor black woman who died in 1951 of cervical cancer. Before her death, her doctor at Johns Hopkins sent a part of her tumor, without her knowledge, to a doctor who had been working unsuccessfully for twenty years to culture cells which could live and replicate outside the human body. Her cells lived. Known as the HeLa cells, it’s estimated that they have produced over 50 million metric tons of cells used all over the world for research. Her cells were instrumental in developing the polio vaccine, many other disease treatments, gene mapping, cloning and in vitro fertilization. They were even sent into space. In addition to the fascinating science the book discusses (and how far medicine has come since 1951), it raises some important ethical issues. The selling of these cells has generated fortunes in profits, yet her family never received a penny and continued to live in dire poverty – in fact they didn’t know of their mother’s contribution until much later. Her story is really the beginning of the beginning of the technologies discussed in this thread.

Humans play around with the creation of life all the time when they procreate in the old fashioned way. Not infrequently children are produced by adults that may not be very good at having the responsibility for children. Doesn’t it seem more sensible to do these things carefully with planning?   You have to have a license to drive a car but nothing is required for two people to produce a baby. Does that seem odd?

Why is cloning immoral for you? I am not aware of any sacred religious text in any society that forbids cloning.

Humans pervert nature every day, Jeremiah, when we use HVAC, wear clothing, use anti-biotics, and eat farmed food. So I’m not sure that argument carries much weight in relation to cloning. Am I missing something?

My moral issues are all born from the unanwered questions. Its not that cloning itself is evil, but it sure could go bad fast.

These are the questions that boggle me:

(These first two questions look at areas where cloning could defy Biblicial authority) Who are the clones parents? What do we do with the mistake embryos/fetuses/children?

Do we have exclusive rights to our own dna? Can dna be stolen? Who has the rights to dna of the deceased?

When cloning is perfected and everyone is doing it, can society decide who gets cloned and who doesn’t?

The term parent doesn’t seem to apply to a clone does it, Jacqueline, except in the sense that people artificially become parents by adopting a child. Someone could stand in or a adopt a clone. [there will be lots of complicated questions should this ever happen].   I hate to tell you about your DNA but you leave your DNA laying around where ever you go. Someone could get your DNA off your coke glass in the cafeteria. So owning DNA is a bit problematic I guess. There has never been a legal decision as far as I know.   I’m not sure what the law is about police asking for a sample of DNA.

   As to who could be cloned, I assume that cloning if it ever comes will always be costly [think of costs of birthing a natural birth and raising a child then put the costs of cloning on top of that) I would assume that people who could pay for it will be wealthy people again assuming it is even possible and allowed.

As I said before I am skeptic about therapeutic cloning–not against it. I AM against reproductive cloning totally. My point was creating humans in the same process as we genetically engineer animals for food–replicating a human species on an “assembly line”. The recreation of a human being with the manipulation of DNA to make a “copy” is reproductive cloning. I don’t see how anyone thinks it is okay. Of course there is invitro fertilization or surrogate pregnancy–but that is not the same thing (DNA is not manipulated). You can’t “tweek” the DNA programming of an embryo and compromise the life of an embryo. Last time I checked it is ILLEGAL–so religious “text” is irrelevant and does not override state/federal laws.

Comparing HVAC, clothing, antibiotics or farmed food to making a duplicate copy of another human being is the same perversion of nature? I don’t understand that comparision. Reproductive cloning is a serious issue beyond “air conditioning”…this exploitation of humans is a perversion of nature–Jerimiah is absolutely correct. And I as I stated before a degradation of humanity.

How could you tell a child that he/she is a “clone”…that they are basically a replacement or a xerox-copy of the same child that died before them? You don’t think there would be serious, traumatic mental repercussions from child who can not self identify especially knowing they were created as a clone? Not to mention the devasting unpredictable physical outcomes from a Frankenstein cloning experiment—that is why reproductive cloning of humans is not federally funded and ILLEGAL in numerous states.

website added:

The same methods used to clone animals like “Dolly” will be used in human cloning. The following   quote is of great concern and speaks to more than ethics. There are too many uncertainties at this point.

“It is known that epigenetic and genetic mechanisms are involved in clone failure, but we still do not know exactly how. Human reproductive cloning is unethical, but the production of cells from cloned embryos could offer many potential benefits. So, can human cloning be made safe?”

Susan M. Rhind1, Jane E. Taylor2, Paul A. De Sousa2, Tim J. King2, Michelle McGarry2 & Ian Wilmut, Nature Reviews Genetics 4, (November 2003).

Can we really say that they could produce “perfect” babies? Part of what makes us better as people is our ability to overcome the tragedies of our existence. The physical limitations put upon us by the roll of the genetic dice help to determine who exactly has the strength to overcome them and excel despite them. I can understand the need for people to want to help limit the suffering of children (I’m not a monster. I cry when faced with the suffering of others), but do we all believe that memories can be cloned? I don’t believe memories are a physical thing that can be duplicated. They can be replicated imperfectly, but the brain will always know something is not completely right.

When transplants have happened, some people have spoken about having “memories” (until it’s proven it cannot be simply called a memory) that don’t belong to them we have to wonder if we can ever truly know the memories and how they could surface. I’m not sure I like the idea of clones walking around who possibly share memories of my daughter’s life because she chose to donate her eggs one day because they were offering money, and she needed it.

I don’t want people walking around with her memories (as good as I hope them to be) because what if the person who got them somehow began to believe them, and showed up on our doorstep someday? I know the chance is slim, but I don’t know how well we would deal with seeing someone that looked so similar to my daughter.

Cloning tissues and organs falls under a different category that cloning human beings. I think it would be advantageous to science and medicine to clone tissues and organs. However, the research in this involves fetal tissue which is a completely different ethical discussion. I do not know enough about the procedure be against it. So, with my present understanding I would allow cloning for tissues and organs.

No matter how optimistic I try to be with the topic of reproductive cloning, I find it cruel and unjust to clone a human being with the intent not to let it develop freely as any human would, but to treat it more as a living object to extract data. I also fear that if the cloning of humans becomes a huge success it could eventually have an impact on human reproduction. Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning provides great opportunities to help patients and has the potential to provide great amounts of new information while keeping it at a cellular level.