Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 3, 2002 - Art Bell

02:54:04

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Ronald Munson - Human Cloning

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	featuring Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2018.
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good afternoon, good morning, wherever you are in all of Earth's 24 time zones.
	I'm called Pahrump, Nevada.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	And you know, I was just sitting here thinking, this has nothing to do with anything that is going to be done on the show tonight.
	But just as I was listening to some bumper music, and I do that before the show begins because it gets blood going, because I love music, and I looked at my board and my equipment and I thought, you know, how come I'm not in stereo?
	Now, I know the response to that might be, well, you have a talk show, you know, what do you need with stereo?
	And so I answered my own question, well, Because it would be neat.
	That may not be enough reason for a corporation.
	That would be my answer, though.
	It would be neat.
	Now, why would it be neat?
	Well, because a lot of FM stations carry my program, right?
	And so the bumper music would be in stereo for them, right?
	The commercials that I dub off every week, they're in stereo for whatever reason.
	So they'd come across in stereo.
	And then I thought, well, then, for example, why not put a caller... if you had a debate, for example, you could put one debatee on the left and one debater on the right.
	And that would be pretty slick.
	I could even take callers and put them in one channel and put myself in the other.
	I tell you, it's a pretty cool idea, and I just have no idea all these years why I never Consider that I might want to be in stereo.
	Is anybody listening to me at the network?
	I'd like to be in stereo.
	That would be cool.
	I'd also like to welcome a new affiliate, KKTX.
	This is an interesting place because we're on so many affiliates now, well above 500, that sometimes it's easier to look And try and see where you aren't, rather than where you are.
	You know, we used to put little pins in a map for everywhere we were.
	And I finally said, let's do that again.
	And then when you look at a map with all the little pins, you can see where you aren't.
	And a place that I saw that we weren't was Corpus Christi, Texas.
	Well, guess what?
	We're there now.
	Welcome to KKTX 1360 on the dial.
	Thousand big ones.
	Kent Cooper, the GM.
	Scott Johnson, the BD.
	Thanks for getting us on in Corpus Christi.
	I mean, that's actually, guys, how we got you.
	I looked at a map and I said, where are we not?
	And I looked at Corpus Christi and I thought, hey, you know, that's a pretty good size town.
	Why wouldn't we be in Corpus Christi?
	Well, we are now.
	KKTX, welcome.
	I got something last night just after the program.
	And it blew my mind.
	And I thought, well, you know, I can send this to Keith now and we can put it up.
	But then I thought, no, selfishly, I'd much rather wait until airtime tomorrow night and spring it on you all.
	So, about five minutes before airtime, I had Keith embargo it until then.
	Somebody sent this to me, and I don't know what to make of it.
	It is a video.
	You're going to enjoy it.
	It comes quite apparently from Japan.
	And let me read you what was sent to me with this incredible video.
	Tim from Lake Worth, Florida writes, and we've got his email address here.
	I found this incredible video that deals with a paranormal phenomena.
	It is described as coming from Japan and was filmed in a parking garage by a security camera.
	Watch it closely.
	Toward the end of the video, you will see a human figure in white, walking along a very black wall.
	It's quite distinct, folks.
	It walks behind a parked car along the back wall, and then the figure, which to me does not look solid in the first place, almost solid, I would say.
	Almost solid.
	Anyway, the figure then walks straight into the wall.
	It disappears suddenly right into the garage wall.
	Zoom in if you wish, and look closely if it's genuine.
	It is indeed incredible It was aired, apparently, on Japanese TV.
	Hence the various tags that appear on it.
	I'm sure if you can find someone who can read Japanese, you can trace the video back to where it came from.
	Oh, and there is a very good point.
	Some of my listeners who are fluent in kanji, which is a lifelong pursuit, really, You know, there are labels in country.
	Please translate for me and send me an email at artbell at mindspring.com or fastblast me the translation.
	We would obviously like to know where this has come from, but I'm telling you, oh my God, folks, this goes down as one of the best ones we've ever had.
	A parking garage video.
	There is no question about, in my mind, what I'm seeing.
	In fact, let me watch it again myself.
	Just to remind myself, you're going to have to watch this, by the way, more than once.
	Once will not do.
	The first time, you're going to see exactly what it is you're looking for.
	uh... just uh... sort of at the last minute i mean this is a static uh... surveillance by god there goes the ghost and there she goes i'm saying and right in right into the wall right into the wall and uh... as suggested you can zoom in on this and it's a mind blower an absolute mind blower so Selfishly, I kept it.
	Okay, now how to get to it.
	Go to Artbell.com.
	Artbell.com and then under What's New, that's up there at the top on the left hand corner, What's New.
	You click on it and the very first option is going to say Parking Garage Ghost in Japan.
	Click on that and then of course click on the uh... the video and watch it and I I would uh... like to get your comments please both fast uh... blasted to me and sent in email and uh... particularly if we can get a translation uh... I would certainly appreciate but uh... this is one of the uh... a top maybe certainly in the top five and maybe the top three
	Of any ghost anythings I've seen, and this just happens to be a full motion video.
	I'm telling you, this one will rock you back a little bit in your seat, my friend, so prepare for it.
	I gotta hold on to that.
	Stereo?
	Wouldn't it be neat to be in stereo?
	I wonder how much, how many millions of dollars in equipment they would have to change to put me in stereo.
	And even the thunder is wonderful in stereos.
	You hear it going back and forth.
	So somebody at the network needs to answer this question for me.
	Is it possible?
	Number one.
	Number two, is it feasible?
	I have mostly stereo stuff here.
	My uplink would have to become stereo, I think.
	I don't know how many other uplinks are in stereo.
	You see, my signal from where it is to you goes through Gazillions of satellites, and of course I'm exaggerating, but like up, down, up, down, up, down.
	That's how many hops it takes to get to your radio station.
	So, I wonder how much of that chain, I would think most of the chain would be in stereo.
	So it might be that a couple of simple uplink modifications And I could be in stereo.
	that's if that's all it's going to be guys i hope you're listening to me up
	there then we have a project we're about to uh...
	gauge in because it was a m is happy to announce that our website is
	now optimized for mobile devices specifically for the iphone and android
	platforms now you'll be able to connect to most of the
	of the offerings of the Coast website on your phone in a quick and streamlined fashion.
	And if you're a Coast Insider, you'll have our great subscriber features right on your
	phone, including the ability to listen to live programs and stream previous shows.
	No special app is necessary to enjoy our new mobile site.
	Simply visit coasttocoastam.com on your iPhone or Android browser.
	Looking for the truth?
	You'll find it on Coast to Coast AM with George Norrie.
	When you look at what's going on around this planet, it's almost as if someone has got a playbook to try to control all these countries all of a sudden.
	I've always said that not everything is a conspiracy, but a lot of it is.
	You know, when you start looking into things, there's only certain set of conclusions you can reach, and unfortunately, this is one of them.
	You know, it's very, very hard not to see things like that when you start looking at things in a larger picture.
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002, on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	You've got to go see the ghost video.
	That's number one.
	This one will unseat you.
	It will open your eyes, drop your jaw, and after you've watched it for about the third or fourth time, you're going, oh my god.
	So any help with this would be appreciated.
	Obviously, we want to know the original source.
	And as much about it as is printed out on the screen.
	But I could read some Katagani.
	When I lived in Japan, when I lived on Okinawa, and I got fairly good.
	But kanji, I had only begun to even think of digesting that before I left the island.
	And that was a decade.
	What's in the news?
	Let's see.
	A deep freeze.
	Bad weather, really bad weather.
	Killing weather.
	It's killed ten people in the southern part of the U.S.
	And I'm sorry to say, none of this is going to be any sort of surprise.
	The weather is going to get worse, and worse, and worse, and worse.
	And more violent.
	And more of what happens is going to kill people all across America, all across the world.
	And that is happening now in the South.
	Tom Daschle thought he might have had another one.
	The majority leader?
	Another anthrax letter, but they tested and it was no.
	Now they're not going to rebuild the World Trade Center towers, folks.
	How do you feel about that?
	The chairman of the group charged with rebuilding at the World Trade Center said Thursday it's very unlikely the 110-story skyscrapers will replace the Twin Towers.
	It just isn't going to happen again, and there are lots of reasons You know, safety concerns, the current economic slowdown, the fact that people might not want to work in skyscrapers anymore, particularly those.
	I mean, just a lot of reasons they're not going to rebuild.
	We are close to getting his nastiness in Afghanistan.
	Not his true nastiness, but 1,500 Taliban fighters led by Mullah Mohammed Omar are kind of cornered right now and apparently there are some negotiations going on right now for his surrender.
	We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
	Many in our nation's intelligence community are in great doubt that he will be taken alive.
	Okay, I've got some more for you but I think we should take some calls and begin open lines.
	Anybody who can make it to the website and see this uh... video you need to do that and
	get comments to me quickly i like this video wildcard liner on the air hello
	over the united for a report lauderdale hello larry uh... usually the last call the night but tonight i got in
	early uh... i want to comment about your stereo idea
	Oh yeah, what do you think?
	Well, I'm involved a little bit in video production and I know that we're told absolutely never to segregate the two sides.
	Why not?
	Well, there's a reason for that.
	I'm listening.
	It's a good idea because even when they start to talk over each other you'd be able to hear them.
	It's because you have to assume that the majority of the people uh... have setups where they might be missing a channel
	people that channel it into for instance restaurant sometimes a notorious for hooking
	up just a left channel
	uh... if you're only station sometimes you'll hear just the words of the
	movement left them improvement well if there's a way around it what you do is you make it
	like the piano object with left channel instead of all the way over maybe just over to a black
	eleven o'clock in the right side would be over to like two o'clock on that stereo
	minus But the music, the music you could do completely.
	You could make that complete stereo if your board can handle it.
	No, what you're talking about is compromise.
	Well... And I say pooey on compromise.
	In television... I want full stereo.
	In television they cheat because, especially in television, they don't allow total right and left separation too much.
	Well, but I don't give a damn about TV.
	I more or less hate TV.
	I don't want anything to do with it.
	Well, I want to be in stereo.
	The more I think about it, the more I know I want to be in stereo.
	I heard you on an FM station in Atlanta, and that's when I decided three years ago that that bumper music, you definitely need it to be in stereo.
	There you are!
	There you are!
	You see?
	I think you need to be.
	Alright, I appreciate the comments.
	Thank you very much.
	But no compromises here.
	You know, if they can't... If I happen to be... If I were in stereo, and somebody is too lazy to hook up two channels, then too bad.
	When they realize they're hearing half a debate, then they can go, damn, I'll hook up the other channel.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Art?
	Yes, turn your radio off, please.
	OK.
	Calling you from the Virgin Islands.
	Oh, really?
	The Virgin Islands?
	Yes, where you have not been yet.
	Oh, what do you mean?
	Oh, you mean where I physically have not come to visit you all?
	I'm gonna.
	Well, you've got... I guarantee, I'm gonna.
	You've got a place to stay in St.
	John, Art.
	Is that where you are, St.
	John?
	That's where I live.
	How is it living in St.
	John?
	Well, you know, people have an idea of what living on an island is like, and it's really not... I mean, I call them infrastructure challenges.
	Yeah, because, you know, people have an idea that living here is, you know, what it's like when you come on vacation, but the reality of it is you deal with a lot of, like, getting a phone installed.
	You know what I mean?
	is takes a week standing in the post office waiting for a package that is
	not isn't that the price of paradise
	well because like take today for example i i spent three hours
	on the beach watching you know beautiful women so
	all your trade or right on always trade-off yeah everything in life it
	sounds like you have really uh... just traded most away uh...
	well you mean you lucky dog you I gave up a lot to come back down here, but that's a whole nother... Yeah, but you're spending three of your hours every day watching women on the beach.
	Well, and I'll tell you, Art, there's a beach here called Cinnamon Bay that you need... I should email you some pictures because this beach is used for model shoots and Commercials, and I mean, it's just the most amazing, beautiful, idyllic beach you can ever imagine.
	It's a hard life, but somebody has to live it, right?
	Yeah, and you know, I volunteered myself, so what can I tell you?
	And of course, there's killer hurricanes.
	Well, that's another thing.
	You know, we've been lucky for the last two years, missing them, but you need to come, and I can make it happen for you if you ever want it to happen.
	And the beach?
	The beach is literally about a mile and a half away from my house, and it's all national park land, so it's completely protected and pristine.
	Are the Virgin Islands expensive, for example, as expensive as Hawaii to live in?
	I was in Hawaii a few years ago, and that's a beautiful place too.
	I would say comparable.
	I mean, St.
	John, for example, Um, you're looking if you, like, if you wanted to rent a house for a year, and you wanted to get something that was relatively nice, you're looking at, you know, two thousand a month, you know, and that's really not, and that's really not going to get you, you know, that's really not going to get you the top of the line, but, but somebody like you, Art, you could just buy the whole island.
	No, I couldn't.
	Oh, come on.
	People have such inflated ideas of, uh, believe me, so inflated it's ridiculous.
	Yeah, but you know, I never have focused on money in any of my talks with this network, and that's probably my own fault.
	I never have.
	I've just never been interested, so you would be really shocked.
	That's why we love you.
	Alright, well, keep the beach warm for me, will you?
	Well, before I go, I just wanted to mention one quick thing.
	I wanted to actually challenge a decision you've made.
	Go ahead.
	I really think that, and I'm obviously not trying to tell you what to do, but... Which means you probably are, but go ahead.
	Well, I'm going to use sort of a backdoor way of doing it, but I want you to really think twice about your decision about not doing these mass consciousness experiments.
	I think, and let me just get this out, I think that you're assuming that what you The position that you have been sort of put in throughout your entire life.
	Could possibly be something that could revolutionize just the way people perceive power.
	Alright, alright.
	This is going to take a few moments.
	Hold on through the break there in St.
	Thomas.
	You do nothing but lounge around anyway, from what I can hear.
	So sit there and I'll come back to you, alright?
	Sounds great.
	Alright, hold on.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	She's no one's lover tonight With me she'll be so inviting I want her all for myself Oh, temptation eyes
	Looking through my, my, my soul Temptation eyes You've got to love me You've got to love me tonight
	You've got to love me baby, yeah You've got to love me You've got to love me tonight
	The sight of a touch or the scent of a sound Or the strength of an oak when used deep in the ground
	The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac in the sun again.
	Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
	To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing.
	To have all these things in our memory stored.
	From the universe to cosmos to power!
	Rise, like a new dawn, take this place, on this trip, just for me!
	Why, why can't you know, take this pain, on this trip, just for me?
	Why, take a free ride, take a trip, up a steep, it's for free.
	I've been going this way for years, worked so hard just to earn my fee,
	had to earn my life to call it right, but by now, I know, I can't lie.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	Have you guys any idea how good this song sounds in stereo?
	Well, you see, I have stereo in my headphones.
	I'm hearing it in stereo.
	And it seems to me that You perhaps could be too.
	Wouldn't make any difference to those who don't broadcast in stereo, which is all combined, right?
	But the people who could broadcast in stereo, they'd get... Well, for example, this song.
	You hear the phasing in it?
	You ought to hear what that does across channels.
	Really slick stuff.
	Well, we're going back to our friend in paradise about the mass consciousness experiments.
	In a moment...
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002 on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002 on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Well, we're beginning to get some comments, I see, on the ghost video.
	Pretty good comments, too.
	Paul says, Hey, I'm a security camera system guy, Art.
	The image is spooky.
	Not image burn-in.
	Not a faint passer-by.
	Love it.
	Let's see.
	Uh, who else have we got here?
	Sweet Jenny just says, Wow!
	And so forth and so on.
	These look like pretty good comments, generally.
	This is one of the better ghost videos I've ever seen, so if you get an opportunity... I knew 24 hours ago this was going to come, and I was just sort of biding my time, counting it down until I could tell you about it.
	This is a good ghost video.
	I've been on a real ghost kick, you know, life after deathing lately.
	Oh, by the way, coming up in this next hour, we have a real serious credentialed expert on the subject of cloning and the ethics of cloning and all the rest of it.
	It's going to be very interesting, I suspect.
	Back to my caller.
	You're on the air, sir.
	All right.
	Yes.
	Still here.
	Still here.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	All right.
	So now, you think I'm making some kind of tragic mistake.
	By not continuing these experiments.
	And you were about to say, why?
	Well, I wouldn't say it's a tragic mistake.
	I think you're smart in not doing it the way it's been done.
	But, you know, I've been sitting here trying to rack my brain and thinking about the gentleman you had on for a moment who did the experiments at Princeton.
	I can't remember his name, but anyway.
	But it just seems to me, Art, you know, And you don't need me to tell you this, but you're in a position that few people are.
	Not only are you in that position, but you're in a position where you could literally, if it's done the right way scientifically, by teaming up with somebody like him or somebody who has sciences, you know, a wink or whatever.
	Spit it out, sir.
	Yeah, right.
	Could actually do something to change the way people perceive reality.
	Could change the way people are locked into their little worlds of perceiving the world strictly in terms of a material, tactically manipulated universe.
	I mean, you could literally... I know that's a really lofty goal.
	There's no question about it.
	And you never know.
	I mean, you could be right, but the expert that you referred to He also agreed with me that I was wise to be especially cautious about proceeding with this.
	He felt exactly the same way that I feel, and he is the expert.
	Now, what do you say to that?
	I say you're absolutely right, and he's absolutely right.
	The way it was currently doing it, you're right.
	It's like taking a buckshot and trying to hit a feather.
	You're absolutely right.
	The way it was done, it proved not only to whoever was in the science community listening, But it proved to yourself that there's something there.
	So you're right.
	You've taken the first step to actually say, yeah, this is a phenomenon that can be manipulated.
	Okay, I'm cutting to the chase here.
	How do you proceed safely?
	You proceed safely by doing it scientifically, by teaming up with somebody in science and working up some sort of... Alright, protocol, yeah, okay, well, I've got it.
	But you don't understand.
	Proceeding with this at all, under any circumstances, seems to me to be a really dicey, chancy, Thing to do because we I have no idea what we're doing and and no matter what you say you don't really either and maybe it is a matter for science and Maybe it's a matter that should be discovered more more the right word cautiously and Proceeded with more cautiously at this level where we're participating with millions of people millions of people and minds
	Concentrating on a single thing, or enough of them, so that if this is a force, it's obviously an exceptionally strong force, and anything at this, it just seems to me, scientifically, you don't begin at this level.
	You begin with smaller groups, if you're smart.
	Because you could just make all kinds of great, big, tragic errors, and Excuse me, I've thought a lot about this.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi, this is Anna from Olympia, Washington.
	How are you doing?
	Oh, pretty good.
	I wanted to make a comment on your guest last night.
	I'm a musician and I'm working with the creativity of the frontal lobe and all of that.
	Yes.
	And I noticed that today, after working on the project and working on that, that I started getting almost a headache in the front part of my head.
	Really?
	Yeah, and I was just wondering if anyone else out there You know, who's in the arts or with, you know, high-end creativity and working on that, if they've had the same thing.
	Perhaps you were being overly creative.
	That's what I was wondering, you know.
	We're all a little crazy anyway, so.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I'm not even sure what crazy is anymore.
	Yeah, me too, me too.
	But being in the arts is kind of out there, you know.
	Well, it demands a great deal of frontal lobe work.
	Yeah, I've also noticed that while playing on a classical musician, while playing the music, that I actually feel the connection in the front
	with when I'm playing.
	I thought that was kind of interesting.
	What do you play?
	I play the viola.
	And what do you notice with regard to your individual performance
	when you're in that zone?
	I feel, I know this sounds kind of a little weird, but I feel it's more in the front of my head,
	No, no, no, no.
	I'm asking about your level of performance when you're in that zone.
	It's much higher.
	Yeah, that's what I thought.
	Yeah.
	You feel more one with the music at that moment.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So I just wanted to comment on that.
	Use it.
	Thank you very much, Art.
	Take care.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Oh, hello.
	I'm calling because I heard you announce about the ghost in the parking garage.
	Yes.
	And I went to see it.
	You did now.
	Good.
	But when I requested the file not found, it said the link you followed may be outdated or inaccurate.
	Well, let me try it myself here.
	Got a computer right here.
	When we send a lot of people up there, you never know what's going to happen.
	Yeah.
	I'm really interested in it.
	Okay, are you on a cell phone?
	No, I'm BB.
	Yeah, the battery's running low.
	Oh, no, I'm watching it right now, hon.
	Okay, well, when I went to it, I pressed, you know, the click here, and then it showed RealPlayer Plus, and then it gave me a message that said, requested file not found.
	The link you followed may be outdated or inaccurate.
	Now, is that someone yelling they got it?
	No, my daughter's saying, Ma, you're on the air.
	Well, that's right you are.
	Look, I just watched it, so sorry to say this.
	I'm going to sound like somebody from Microsoft Technical Help, but the trouble's on your end.
	Okay.
	But I will find it.
	Yes, you will.
	Good luck.
	I enjoy your show.
	Take care.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi Art, this is Don in Mount Vernon, Washington.
	Hello Don.
	You're talking about being in stereo?
	Yes.
	Have you forgotten all about your Canadian friends?
	No.
	They may not have FM, but the majority of the stations up there broadcast in AM stereo.
	Well then they'd have stereo.
	Yes, I have one of these.
	We use the same standard that Canada does.
	I have one of those 1985 vintage Kenwood decks in my car, and I pick up Canadian stations all the time in stereo.
	Well, I say stereo, stereo, stereo.
	Even KEX in Portland, I believe, has stereo.
	AM stereo?
	Yes.
	So, I mean, you're opening up a whole new market.
	Oh, I'll bet I'm opening up all kinds of things.
	You got my vote.
	There's probably people out there going, oh, shoot, or worse.
	Can you imagine how Some Velvet Morning would sound in stereo?
	Oh, you read my mind.
	Yeah.
	Oh, you're reading my mind.
	Thank you very much.
	I don't need encouragement on this issue, trust me.
	But he's right about that, Some Velvet Morning.
	Oh, God, it'd be awesome in stereo.
	Yes, yes, yes, yes.
	I mean, really, how much would have to be done?
	I suppose, let's see, could you put a caller on one side and then the host on the other?
	Could you do that?
	Let's think about that.
	Yeah, it might take a little doing, but I think you could.
	Everything else, for sure, would be a cakewalk in stereo.
	And I've got it all in stereo here in my board.
	It's all stereo.
	It leaves here that way.
	Well, actually not.
	My uplink, I think, is mono.
	So it mixes there.
	But the number of changes actually required here would be extremely minimal.
	Now, downstream from here, I'm not so sure.
	But I think it can be done.
	God, that's a good idea.
	Probably cost a million dollars.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Do you think you'll ever have Betty Hill on the air?
	I have been talking to Betty Hill about every two or three months.
	She was very ill.
	Uh, she got a little bit, but she's still recovering from an operation she had.
	And, uh, she would like to come on.
	Betty Hill is one of those people, though, that goes to sleep at like 8 o'clock at night.
	Yeah.
	And she's back east.
	And you know what it means for my program.
	You've gotta, for at least one day, you've gotta change your life to be on this show.
	Right.
	So anyway, she wants to come on.
	I definitely want to get her on.
	Do you think the abduction phenomenon is developing as far as our knowledge of it?
	No.
	No?
	No, I really don't.
	I mean, I've had so many that I believe it's going on.
	Why are they doing it?
	What are the real motivations?
	I don't know, because when you talk to abductees, you're probably talking to somebody who, you know, I don't want to say brainwashed in a negative, and make it a negative connotation, but there's every possibility that their present attitude about their abduction is affected by something done to them during that abduction.
	Follow me?
	I think so.
	In other words, you might be only hearing what they wish you to hear.
	Okay, that could be.
	Also, I read in Nexus Magazine that Sylvia Brown, I think you've had her on your show.
	Sure.
	She says that the Mayan calendar doesn't end in 2012, it ends in 2003.
	What's your reaction to that?
	Well, if you view the end of the Mayan calendar as the end of time, the end of everything that is, then I would say, the less time to get our affairs in order.
	There are many people who dispute dates, you know, dating, the dating that has gone on, with regard to what year this is even right now.
	I mean, who knows?
	Could it be off by that much?
	Sure, it could be.
	Could 2012 really be 23?
	Could be.
	So, less time to prepare.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, how you doing?
	This is Jason from Hawaii.
	Yes, Jason.
	First off, I wanted to comment about your stereo.
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	Personally, I think it's annoying to hear two people on different sides of a headphone.
	Really?
	Somebody on the left and somebody on the right.
	I mean, even if it was a debate, I mean, in a debate, you want the difference.
	And if you can't, that's the one good thing TV does.
	It lets you see who is speaking.
	On radio, you don't get that.
	If in a debate, for example, as you and I might be even debating right now, It divides our voices.
	Now, with two callers, it's a lot harder to tell the difference between the voices.
	But if you had one in one place and one in another place, it would be a piece of cake.
	Possibly.
	Well, good luck trying that.
	And also, I have one other thing for you.
	Did you get my Exactly Midnight program I sent you the other day?
	Your what, sir?
	Uh, exactly.
	Midnight, because New Year's Day... Oh, I did, yes.
	Yes, I did get it.
	Thank you very much.
	Not a problem.
	Right, a way to plot, and he gave it to me.
	I was saying the other day, as I was thinking about New Year's sweeping across our country, that you're just, you're saying, Midnight!
	Here it is!
	Well, you're wrong.
	Midnight is occurring across any given time zone, Fairly slowly.
	X number of degrees per minute, geographically.
	So it would be possible to find out when a new year actually, truly reaches you.
	And I forget, but for me it was something like 1140-something or another.
	You know, it was pinned down.
	There are programs that can do that.
	So at 1140 or something, it was actually the new year here in Pahrump, Nevada.
	Not midnight.
	By midnight?
	Hell, it was way west of here.
	I know.
	Picky, picky, picky.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Wow, outstanding.
	I got through.
	Yes, you seem to have.
	Mr. Bell, it's an honor to speak to you.
	And to you.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	I'm on it.
	Okay.
	Good.
	Got it.
	Good.
	Okay.
	We went back east for Christmas this year.
	And we went to a couple places in New Jersey.
	One of them, it's called, if I get it right, the Freeling Haston, I'm not going to say this right, Arboratorium, A-R-B-O-U-R-I-T-I-O-U-M, it's in Whippany, New Jersey.
	And what is it?
	We took it, it was originally a private residence.
	It's like a big, huge, white, colonial type mansion.
	Right.
	Kind of like Washington's headquarters.
	Right.
	Not too far from there.
	I get the picture in my mind, yes.
	Part of it, like the barn they turned into, it's a barred school.
	It's a high school.
	It's a huge grounds.
	We were walking the grounds and taking pictures.
	They took one picture of the house and then the next picture after we got them developed It looks like a paranormal or something or another in the background.
	Well, that's an overall description.
	What exactly did you see?
	I can see like the head of a lizard or maybe like a turtle.
	And there's like white kind of streaks and there's like something cylindrical on the left side.
	I'd love to send you a copy of these things to have a look at.
	Do you have a computer?
	Yes, but I'm having problems with my printer.
	My hard drive crashed on it.
	You don't need a printer to send it to me.
	You can send it as a JPEG file or whatever.
	As an email attachment.
	My computer is not recognizing the printer.
	You don't need a printer to send a file?
	I can't scan the picture into my computer.
	Oh, you don't have it scanned.
	It won't scan.
	It won't do anything.
	Well, go to one of these copier places for a very minimal fee.
	They will scan photographs for you and hand you a disc and you can take it home and send it in email.
	Okay.
	How about that?
	Super.
	No, no, no.
	Emails are never www.
	My email is artbell at mindspring.com or artbell at aol.com.
	Either one will work.
	Mindspring.com.
	Got it.
	Got it?
	Uh-huh.
	All right.
	I've got to go, brother.
	Our hour is ending.
	Thank you very much.
	And if you do send it, I will share it as I have the ghost photograph, the Japanese ghost photo, video.
	Excuse me.
	It's awesome.
	This one will send the hairs on the back of your neck straight up, guaranteed.
	It's on my website now, artbell.com, under What's New.
	Check it out and you let me know.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	This is a song that I wrote in the early days of my life.
	I wrote it in the early days of my life.
	Born too late for you to notice me.
	Do you?
	I'm just a kid that you won't date.
	Why was I born too late?
	Born too late to have a chance to win your love.
	Oh why, oh why was I born too late?
	Tonight's program originally aired January 3rd, 2002.
	Those of the ponytails were part of an obscure song, Born Too Late.
	And you know that that was a problem.
	Back then, when they sang the song.
	Today, it might not be.
	Born too late?
	No problem.
	All you need is a close clone.
	That's what we're going to talk about.
	We're going to talk about cloning and a lot of other things.
	The ethics of cloning and the stem cells.
	We'll certainly touch on that and we've got a real expert coming up for you.
	It was irresistible after stories like this began popping up.
	American scientists claimed yesterday, now this was dated 25 November, American scientists claimed yesterday to have cloned the first human embryo, spreading deep alarm among pro-life groups.
	If the experiments carried out by the Advanced Cell Technology a bio-cell technology one of America's
	leading biotechnology companies are confirmed it marks a major development
	in genetic research the breakthrough came during research aimed at finding new treatments for diseases like Parkinson's
	and diabetes The company has no plans to use cloned embryos to actually create babies.
	Instead, it wants to exploit the unspecialized stem cells found in newly conceived embryos for a host of new medical treatments.
	Now, that's, of course, one side of it.
	The other side is there have been announcements.
	You may have heard them already.
	A scientist in this country who are saying if the US outlaws cloning, they will immediately transfer their operations to Europe.
	Moreover, they will be willing to for a price.
	Clone people in the United States over there, and then have the babies sent here.
	So, we have been searching for somebody to speak on the subject of cloning and more, and we found a Professor Ronald Munson.
	I'll tell you more about him in a moment.
	He's coming right up.
	Weird stories on the radio.
	Must be Coast to Coast AM with George Norring.
	You know, when I started doing this radio program, Jesse, half of the subjects I was really into, the paranormal, the unusual, ghosts and things like that.
	The conspiracy stories, you know, I was a little weary about these, other than the Kennedy assassination.
	And all of a sudden, I woke up.
	I simply woke up.
	Is that what happened with you two?
	Yeah.
	That's when I really started to say, what is going on here?
	And I started to truly then investigate 9-11.
	And today, I don't believe the government story of 9-11.
	Here's the three options.
	Either we knew about it and allowed it to happen, or we knew about it and participated in it, or these were the dumbest, food that could have ever been in charge of our country who
	could have all this pre-information and I started to think they knew what was going to happen.
	They either are part of it or they allowed it to.
	There's no doubt in my mind.
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002 on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	All right, Professor Munson now.
	Bye.
	Ronald Munson is a professor of the philosophy of science and medicine at University of Missouri, St.
	Louis.
	He received his PhD from Columbia University, was a postdoctoral fellow in biology at Harvard, taught at Columbia, has been a visiting professor at the University of California, San Diego, Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins Medical School, my, my.
	His expertise is in bioethics.
	His most recent book, you're going to love these titles, is Raising the Dead, Social and Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation, published at or by Oxford University Press, now available at bookstores and at Amazon.com, of course, at a deep discount, no doubt.
	Raising the Dead.
	Uh, let's see.
	His book, Intervention and Reflection, Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, now in its sixth edition, is the most widely used medical ethics text in the United States.
	Wow!
	His other technical books include Reasoning in Medicine, The Way of Words, Man and Nature, Philosophical Issues in Biology, Elements of Reasoning, Third Edition, and Basics of Reasoning.
	Holy moly!
	He is medical ethicist for the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Washington University Medical School's Human Subjects Committee, a consultant medical ethicist to the National Cancer Institute.
	...has acted as a source on bioethics, has been quoted in, among others, The New York Times, Washington Post, U.S.
	News and World Report, St.
	Louis Post-Dispatch, Science Digest, Smithsonian Magazine, consulted on the ethical aspects of gene therapy for Japanese national television.
	He's also written three novels, one called Nothing Human, Fan Mail, and Night Vision.
	Those are some serious credentials, Professor.
	Welcome to the program.
	Thank you very much.
	Those really are serious.
	Boy, you really have led a very busy life, haven't you?
	A lot of busy life, but I hope I'm not as boring as a list of books makes me sound.
	Well, now, people who write books... But see, you wrote novels, too.
	Indeed, I do.
	Yeah, so I'm sure you're just not that boring.
	Well, I try to bring the same techniques of fiction to writing of non-fiction, which makes things a little easier for the reader and more interesting for the writer.
	Well, you can't really instruct somebody if you can't keep their attention, right?
	I think you know that better than anyone.
	So, I guess you're good at doing that.
	I read a little bit of the story that slammed me and a lot of other people here recently, the first cloned human embryo.
	I guess people have a sort of a sense, you know, not an educated medical sense, but they have a sense that this is big news, you know, perhaps really big news in the beginning of a big change in the world.
	Is it that?
	Well, it is if it works.
	It's big news if the company that you refer to, Advanced Cell Technology, actually pulls
	off what it's trying to pull off.
	So far, many serious scientists doubt that they're going to be able to do that.
	Why?
	They think that the technical problems are more difficult than Advanced Cell Technology
	suggests.
	Advanced cell technology got to a stage at which they were able to get an embryo to divide two or three times and then it stopped.
	And the truth of the matter is that no one really knows how to go forward from that point.
	But I'm confident, and I think others are, that eventually this is a problem that in principle can be solved.
	It's a scientific problem that looks as though it will admit to a solution if enough resources and enough energy and effort is put in that direction.
	And should we?
	I think we should.
	I think we should.
	And if I am asked why I would focus, for one thing, on the kind of cloning that you referred to, the therapeutic aspect of cloning, Not the reproductive aspect of cloning.
	But you're not going to get one without the other.
	Well, I'm not sure that's true.
	I'm pretty sure.
	In other words, if, and this is obviously more of a social, ethical question, but if it's possible for rich people, people with great resources and usually great egos to go with those resources, if they want to clone of themselves, That could be a pretty big ego item.
	And there will be people who will be willing to pay for that, and will in fact do so.
	In fact, they're lining up right now.
	So, if there's money and buyers, there's going to be sellers.
	It's like the drug market.
	That could be so.
	And I have to say, in favor of what you say, is that cloning is not like atomic energy.
	It's not necessary to have big machines, lots of equipment in order to do cloning.
	What's most important is the know-how.
	The technological know-how.
	So that if we could assume that that technology was understood, then I think you are right.
	Cloning is inevitable in that sense.
	It is inevitable.
	But let me tell you what I worry about.
	What I worry about is not cloning for reproductive purposes.
	I think that down the road that may happen.
	Right.
	But what I'm afraid of is that people will be so worried about the downside of reproductive cloning that they will deprive us of the opportunities afforded by therapeutic cloning.
	One will cloud the other.
	One will cloud the other.
	We will become so frightened at the idea... With some good cause.
	So then, it's up to you then to educate the American public about the difference.
	There are, though, even ethical questions about the kind of cloning you're speaking of right now in stem cell research.
	There are plenty of ethical questions there if you don't even go to full cloning.
	There are certainly, there's a question there, there's a basic question there, which I think rarely gets discussed, despite all of the discussion, of all the publicity, of the many articles about stem cells, I think very rarely do people come down to what is the single most important issue, and it is the sticking place for those who object to creating embryos for stem cells.
	And that question is a very simple question.
	What are we going to think about the embryo?
	All right, now let's go back even further.
	Professor, what is a stem cell, please?
	All right, let me be a professor for just a moment.
	We all know that when reproduction takes place with humans, there's a sperm that meets an egg, and as soon as that happens, this triggers a series of events in which, after a few days, a ball of cells is formed.
	300 to 500 cells.
	Well, on the inside of that little ball of cells is a little bump.
	And that little bump consists of embryonic stem cells.
	And those embryonic stem cells have the capacity to produce all the cells in our body.
	Every specialized cell begins as a stem cell.
	So that's what they are.
	So then a stem cell is like a road map for everything to happen?
	It's more than that.
	It is like a pile of building material.
	Okay, so that's more descriptive of DNA.
	And this would be the actual materials that the DNA instructs.
	That's right.
	The cells contain that genetic information, but it's genetic information, it's like owning It's like having a box of putty or a box of modeling clay.
	You can make anything out of it.
	Life stuff.
	It's life stuff.
	But once you make it, you can't unmake it.
	Once the stem cells begin to not only divide but to develop.
	To develop into certain other specialized cells, the cells that make up the brain, the cells that make up the eye.
	And when that happens, there's no going back.
	Well, is this material instructed to become these individual things, or within a human embryo stem cell stash, are there specialized stem cells that do become the brain, that then become the heart?
	How does it work?
	Well, there is some confusion here because there are the embryonic stem cells.
	It can become anything.
	Any other cells.
	Any other human cells, at least.
	And then there are the so-called adult stem cells.
	Now those are the cells that are stem cells that have reached a certain point.
	And it's at that point that the cells they produce are, for example, red blood cells, or brain cells, or, we think, Every organ has stem cells, adult stem cells, that make up that organ, direct the synthesis of other cells that are, say, heart tissue.
	So, I am a little confused.
	The difference between the initial stem cells and then the adult stem cells.
	Could you take No.
	Let me take another analogy.
	You take the steel and you make it into wire.
	Yes.
	Once you've got the wire, there's a limited number of things that you can do with the wire, but there's still a lot of them.
	Right.
	But if you take the step back, in this analogy, The steel, the unformed steel of the stem cells in the wire are the adult stem cells.
	It's what it becomes.
	It's what it becomes.
	Well, so what has to happen to the stem cells to be instructed to become something specific?
	They're very complicated chemical messages that we don't know.
	We don't know this orchestrated symphony of chemical messages that direct the stem cells
	to form this tissue and that tissue and to go forward from that point.
	That's what is so important about stem cell research.
	It's to put us on the road to understanding what these stem cells can do and how they
	do it.
	That's why I said I'm so worried that we will not be going down that road because of the
	fears of going down another road, which actually I don't think anyone seriously wants to go
	Although I don't deny that you're right to be concerned, that indeed, that you're right, that there are people whose ego is so great.
	We're going to go down it.
	We're going to do it.
	Sure.
	Of course we are.
	In fact, one question I meant to ask you.
	You were to guess.
	I mean, after all, Professor, there are private labs all over the world, I'm sure, well-financed in some parts of the world, and it's possible.
	Could it be possible it's already been done?
	I think that's highly unlikely.
	Simply not enough is known.
	Now, if you say, is it possible someone has tried it, it could be.
	It could be that someone has tried it, but I think that Our best scientists don't know how to do it.
	So I think it's very unlikely that someone who is stuck away in some, say, very remote, imaginary South American country with a well-equipped lab is going to be able to pull off what our best scientists say they can't do.
	So it's not that they haven't tried.
	It may well be they've tried.
	We don't know.
	We don't know that.
	We have no evidence that they have or that they haven't.
	Moreover, Professor, if one of them began to get more than just a few divisions and began to get an embryo, do you for one second think that any lab around would actually stop it and toss the whole experiment, or would they continue?
	Well, that's a good question, and the answer is, I really don't know the answer to that.
	I think it depends on the individuals.
	And I think you're right to say there is no way that we could actually stop this.
	Right, but I'm just asking, generally, you are certainly familiar with scientists and how they proceed.
	If they began to get these divisions, and that could be just down the road, would you think the majority of them, maybe I can rephrase it and get an answer, the majority of them Would stop realizing what they're doing or would they proceed with the experiment?
	Which is more likely?
	This may surprise you, but I think they would stop.
	I'm always impressed by how seriously responsible medical scientists are.
	I think that it's possible to think of scientists quite often in this kind of Wild science fiction way in which they are so crazed with or so ego driven that they will do virtually anything to satisfy their curiosity.
	Well they are somewhat ego driven I think.
	Everyone who is successful I think is ego driven.
	And they are that.
	So there would be, as this little thing grew, there would be some pretty serious struggle going on, wouldn't there?
	I will.
	That's very true.
	And I think that those who object to reproductive cloning, cloning for the purpose of reproduction, are quite right to do so.
	The results of that, we know from animal studies, would be disastrous.
	Ah, yes.
	I do want to ask you about that.
	What happened to Dolly?
	Dolly, so far as I know, is still flourishing.
	You may have more recent information than I have.
	Well, you know, I heard something about aging too quickly, or... I can't exactly remember.
	There was some follow-up to the story about some problems with aging too quickly, and I can't really be more specific than that.
	Well, I know what you're talking about, and there's still some great speculation.
	There's speculation about whether the cells in a cloned organism are going to have as it were the
	memory of their original organism and they're going to be that old too.
	Has something to do with the telomeres or something?
	Exactly.
	Is that right?
	Those little...
	Life's fuse.
	Exactly.
	Hold on, we're at the bottom of the hour, Professor.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	I'll get dressed into the town.
	I'll find some crowded avenue.
	Though it will be empty without you Can't get used to losing you No matter what I try to do Gonna live my whole life true Loving you Called up some girl I used to know After I heard She said you sure look good with your blue eyes
	Pretty blue eyes Saw you from my window
	My heart seems to beat Gonna sit by your doorstep
	So that I can meet Pretty blue eyes
	Come out today so I can tell you What I have to say
	That I love you Love you
	Pretty blue eyes Saw you from my window
	My heart seems to beat Gonna sit by your doorstep
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premiere Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	A lot of people ask where this research is going.
	Well, in the West and even other parts of the world, a lot of people prefer pretty blue eyes.
	And it may be that soon you'll be able to order up exactly what you want.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an on-going presentation of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	Professor, welcome back.
	You have received a fair amount of grant money, right?
	National Endowment for Humanities, Walden Springs Fund, National Science Foundation.
	Big organizations, big money for research.
	What's going on with stem cell research now and the money flow?
	I think that we're now faced with a big problem with stem cell research.
	It's such a hot political issue that we really don't know whether it's going to be adequately funded.
	As I think you and all your listeners know, this is a topic that has Broken the ranks of those who are politically conservative on the abortion topic, because there are those who favor stem cell research who would otherwise oppose abortion or destroying embryos, because they see what it promises.
	And I think that we can, in the very near future, have to settle this issue as to whether we are going to Yeah, on the stem cell bus or whether we're going to be left behind.
	Okay, what is the promise?
	What are the promises?
	The promises are almost limitless when it comes to what has come to be known as regenerative medicine because that is what stem cells promise.
	If you imagine our abilities with stem cells to cure diabetes How would we do that?
	Well, we would make use of stem cells to grow new insulin-producing cells in the pancreas.
	Or, imagine for the first time, we would be able to treat Alzheimer's disease.
	How would we do that?
	Same way we would treat Parkinson's disease.
	The same way we would treat Huntington's disease.
	Namely, we would use those stem cells to grow the proper kinds of brain tissue that is Either missing or damaged in these cases.
	I could go on and on.
	Nerve cell damages, look at spinal cord injuries, how tragic.
	Everyone knows Christopher Reeve is an example of the tragedy that can happen when the spinal cord is severed.
	And yet, if we had this regenerative medicine based on stem cell engineering, it would be possible to repair this sort of damage.
	Once it's repaired, so far as we can imagine, the person would in fact be restored.
	It's impossible to be too dramatic about this, but this is a promise in which the blind can literally be made to see and cripples can literally be made to walk if we are able to get control of a stem cell technology.
	It must be controversial in and of itself, aside from the whole big press thing about cloning.
	Forget that for a second.
	Just the argument about stem cell research itself.
	Draw the two sides for me.
	You've drawn one already.
	I mean, draw the other.
	The other side is this.
	So far as we No, now, the only way we can get stem cells is from the destruction of human embryos.
	And by human embryos, I mean cell that has been fertilized and has began to divide in the way that I
	talked earlier with the stem cells and that little group on the inside.
	Now the only way we can get those out is to destroy that embryo.
	Yes, alright, well my question then would be, ideally, if you were able to do it, how
	far would you let the embryo develop to get the, to harvest the best stem cells?
	They need to be only until the stage of about five hundred, about five days worth of development.
	Five days.
	Only just a few days until there is a, development has taken place into three to five hundred There's no advantage to going further than that.
	No advantage to going further.
	This is quite adequate to get those cells.
	In fact, if you go too far, then the stem cells themselves begin to differentiate.
	They begin to lose their plasticity.
	They begin to have their fate determined.
	I hear that it might be possible to grow limbs.
	in the same way that we imagine stem cell engineering to developing, taking these cells
	and allowing them, guiding them to develop along various pathways to form any sorts of
	tissue whatsoever.
	I hear that it might be possible to grow limbs, it might, arms, legs, it might be possible
	to grow a new heart, a new liver, a new lung.
	That is the promise of regenerative medicine.
	It really is.
	And I tell you not only this, not only could you grow a new heart, for example, but you could grow a replacement of your own heart.
	You would not have to if, again, if stem cell technology were perfected.
	You could make use of your own genetic material to grow a heart that would replace your heart.
	Now what's the advantage of that?
	It's obvious there's no rejection involved.
	No drugs that have to control rejection.
	Because it is your heart.
	It is your heart.
	It is your heart.
	It's not a spare part that has been borrowed or taken from someone else.
	It's not a mechanical device.
	It's your heart.
	You have a new heart and it can't be beat.
	What would this ultimately possibly mean for the entire aging process?
	After all, we only age because our organs begin to give out on sort of a schedule.
	They do.
	So what would this mean?
	This, some have suggested, and this is where it becomes extremely speculative, no one knows how long we could last if we made use of stone cells to continue to renew organs, to make the kinds of replacements, not just replacements that Removing one and substituting another but a kind of continuous renewal.
	What if indeed we could improve our hearts performance by injections of stem cells that would repair damaged tissues and take the place of tissues that have worn out through abuse of some sort.
	We don't know, then, what the limits of life might be.
	So, longevity research would be very much affected by stem cell technology.
	This would be another aspect of regenerative medicine.
	But that, of course, is one that's even in the more distant future.
	Okay.
	Again, returning to this for a second, what would the most strident critics of stem cell research People tend to screech and scream about why we ought not be doing it.
	What would they say?
	The first thing they would say is that you are murdering human beings.
	That the embryo is a human being that is no different from you or me or someone walking down the street.
	At the instant of conception.
	At the instant of conception.
	Consequently... Well, they do have sort of an interesting point in that Everything required begins to occur actually at the instant of conception.
	I disagree with that.
	You do?
	Everything is there if you mean all the information is there.
	That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean that all the stages of development have taken place.
	Now, the reason I think it's easier to separate this issue from the abortion issue for most people is this.
	A 300 cell group clump is, I think, in no one's view, at least I won't say no one's view, is clearly distinct, in my view at least, from a developing fetus.
	Even one that's, say, two weeks old.
	Consequently, what's the difference between a fertilized egg that's developed for five days and a fetus that's developed into a human-like being?
	Well, I think that there's a significant difference in those that most people would recognize.
	Now, when I say most people, I'm well aware of the fact There are large groups of people who are socially, religious, conservative, and they do regard life as beginning at birth, and I don't disagree that life begins at birth.
	Where I disagree is to regard that fertilized egg as having the same status as a human being.
	Just as a matter of interest, when would you regard it as acquiring that status?
	I don't know.
	And I'll tell you, let me give another analogy.
	If you take your right hand and you put it on the front of your head and then you move it to the back of your head, I don't think you'll have any trouble.
	But if I say, okay, now where does the back of your head end and the front of your head begin, I think you're going to get into trouble there.
	Now, all I'm saying in this particular case, and I wouldn't say I know how to resolve all these questions, but all I'm saying here is, fertilized egg, I think, is sufficiently different from a fetus that even those who can oppose abortion can see that there is a significant difference here.
	And even though I don't know where to draw the line, when it gets to be obscure, I at least know both ends of the line.
	Even I'm not sure about it.
	what i mean i i i do uh...
	nine this on i'm aware of the fact that for many people this is a controversial position
	and i don't pretend that it's not uh... even i i'm not sure about it i i it seems like when
	that instant occurs that that meeting
	an instance for a minute uh... that the magic is there
	and uh... the magic of life is there and so by some definition it is it is life
	I don't disagree that it's life.
	That's why I think that the dispute that this country has not had, the issue we have not faced, is what is the status of that embryo?
	I ask you this question.
	Is it a person?
	And the answer of those who are religious conservatives say, yes, it is a person from the very moment of conception.
	But now, I think they owe us an argument.
	I think they owe us an argument to why we should think of it as a person.
	I ask you this question.
	Well, because it's not going to become a dog or a cat or a butterfly.
	There's no question about what it's going to become.
	What it's going to become, though, is presumably not what it is.
	It's what it's going to become.
	Yes, but that instruction is already sitting there.
	The instructions are there, but the instructions haven't been read out.
	They haven't been put into operation.
	And that, I think, is a significant difference.
	Now, I don't think we're going to resolve that question this evening, as you know.
	The abortion issue has hinged around this, and this country has been on that topic for perhaps the last 35 or 40 years.
	Forever.
	And we have not resolved it.
	And I suspect we won't resolve this.
	But I do think that for those who are not completely committed to the notion that at the moment of conception, an embryo is the equivalent of any other human being in the world, I think for anyone who is not committed to that position, That it's reasonable to believe that they will see that the embryo could be destroyed for a serious reason.
	And that serious reason is to do good.
	To treat diseases that are now untreatable.
	To save lives which are otherwise going to be lost.
	To help people who otherwise are helpless.
	To prolong life.
	To prolong life.
	To improve life.
	This is potentially a tool of such power that if we refuse to employ it, we will, I think, be regarded by future generations as having made a very serious moral mistake.
	We will have turned our backs on something that will allow us to prevent and relieve An unlimited amount of human suffering.
	If we make the decision in this country not to do it, what will happen in the rest of the world, do you know?
	What will happen in the rest of the world?
	Yeah, sure, Europe, Asia.
	They will go forward.
	They will move in the direction of developing stem cell technology.
	You will not develop there as fast as it would if we were participants.
	Because remember, this country is a powerhouse scientifically.
	We have the money.
	We have the physical resources.
	And more than that, we have the intellectual resources to turn and focus on problems and solve those problems faster.
	than any other nation in the world can.
	The Japanese are getting pretty good, though, and the French have been pretty good in this area.
	There are other areas.
	The Israelis are extremely good.
	The British have moved forward.
	The Australians did very much of this work when, in this country, working with human embryos was illegal.
	So the technology, the know-how, is there in the rest of the world.
	And whatever we decide to do, we will not stop the advancement of stem cell technology.
	Well, what do you feel about the outcome with regard to stem cell research?
	Is it going to be outlawed?
	Do you believe that's the direction it's headed right now?
	Is it inevitable, or is it still up in the air, or are you winning the fight, or what?
	I think it's up in the air.
	I think that it's a good sign that the strong traditional coalition opposed to abortion has divided on this topic.
	I think that that's a positive sign.
	I think that in the future it's a question as to whether the message can be adequately conveyed to the American people What the issues are and the advantages of developing stem cell technology is.
	And I think that discussions such as this are crucial for providing that kind of information.
	Now, I know that there will be people who will forever disagree with this because they will see what lies at the base of it is, in their view, an evil.
	And they will not endorse Something that exploits what they consider to be evil.
	And I respect that point of view.
	But my respect for that point of view doesn't mean that I have to either accept it myself, nor I think does it mean that we have to make it into a public policy.
	We can respect people's views without Using those views is the foundation for our laws.
	But Professor, you agree that technology is just technology.
	Evil is within men.
	And there are lots and lots of evil men around the world.
	There's no question about it.
	There are.
	There is.
	Now, we have nuclear power.
	I think there's still an open question about whether the world is going to, you know, ultimately survive the discovery of Element 92.
	I don't think the book is closed on that one yet.
	So, really, the parallel is a pretty good one.
	We plowed ahead, didn't we, with atomic energy and It's very, very good sometimes and it's very, very bad sometimes, right?
	We have powers which can destroy us.
	There are nuclear powers, there are biological powers.
	We have to maintain at all times public discussion and public vigilance and decide what it is that we want to do.
	That we have learned a lot by facing threats of the past.
	I think that the threat of nuclear destruction has made us more aware of the possibility that we as a species could cease to exist.
	And on that note, hold on for just a sec.
	Take a good break.
	We'll be back after the break here at the top of the hour.
	That's one of the possibilities with cloning, by the way.
	Imagine her.
	Fill out a form.
	Send in a check or a credit card.
	Four to six weeks delivery.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	tonight featuring a replay of coast to coast am from january 3rd 2002
	got me dreaming sweet dreams night time too i love you and i'm dreaming of you
	And I'm dreaming of you, but I want you Dream baby, make me stop my dreaming
	i said won't you dream baby make me stop my dreaming you can make my dreams come true
	You can make my dreams come true Nothing but a heartache, never a day
	hey hey!
	nothing but a heartache everyday nothing but a heartache and i'm all on my way nothing but a heartache
	Nothing but a heartache, tears all on the way Nothing but a heartache, never a day
	and i'm understanding you got me all right and i can hear him nothing but a heartache
	But nothing can take me over Can I get you?
	Nothing but a heartache, never a day Nothing but a heartache, tears all on the way
	and i'm all on my way nothing but a heartache and i'm all on my way nothing but a heartache
	Nothing but a heartache, I wish I said I just can't win Please find me a one, can I get him?
	and i'm understanding you got me all right and i can hear him
	I got a lot of those heartaches I got a lot of those tears of heartache
	Tears all, all the way Nothing but a heartache, never a day
	Nothing but a heartache, never a day Nothing but a heartache, tears all on the way
	Nothing but a heartache, I wish I said I just can't win Please find me a one, can I get him?
	I got a lot of those heartaches I got a lot of those tears of heartache
	somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Professor Ronald Munson is my guest.
	Heavy-duty credentials.
	We're talking about cloning and stem cells, stem cell research and the direction everything is going to go and what the possibilities are.
	There are so many questions.
	I'm going to get to a few more of them in just a moment.
	Stay right where you are.
	Coast to Coast AM is happy to announce that our website is now optimized for mobile device users, specifically for the iPhone and Android platforms.
	Now you'll be able to connect to most of the offerings of the Coast website on your phone
	in a quick and streamlined fashion.
	And if you're a Coast Insider, you'll have our great subscriber features right on your
	phone, including the ability to listen to live programs and stream previous shows.
	No special app is necessary to enjoy our new mobile site.
	Simply visit coasttocoastam.com on your iPhone or Android browser.
	Streamlink, the audio subscription service of Coast to Coast AM has a new name, Coast
	You'll still get all the same great features for the same low price, just 15 cents a day when you sign up for one year.
	The package includes podcasting, which offers the convenience of having shows downloaded automatically to your computer or MP3 player, and the iPhone app with live and on-demand programs.
	You'll also get our amazing download library of free full years of shows.
	Just think, as a new subscriber, over 1,000 shows will be available for you to collect, enjoy, and listen to at your leisure.
	Plus, you'll get streamed and on-demand broadcasts of Art Bell's Somewhere in Time shows and two weekly classics.
	And as a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Norrie and special guests.
	If you're a fan of Coast, you won't want to be without Coast Insider.
	Visit coast2coastam.com to sign up today.
	Looking for the truth?
	You'll find it on Coast to Coast AM with George Norrie.
	When you look at what's going on around this planet, it's almost as if someone has got a playbook to try to control all these countries all of a sudden.
	I've always said that not everything is a conspiracy, but a lot of it is.
	You know, when you start looking into things, there's only certain set of conclusions you can reach, and unfortunately, this is one of them.
	You know, it's very, very hard not to see things like that when you start looking at things in a larger picture.
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002, on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Once again, Professor Ronald Munson and a warm welcome to you.
	Okay, Professor, what about the concept of a better human being?
	In other words, as we learn more, I guess we've mapped the genome now, and here we are beginning to fiddle with It would.
	It would.
	and uh... all sorts of interesting things that that we're doing a lot of
	them certainly would lead to the possibility of actually improving the breed
	it would it would
	and you know i think it
	many many terrible things the nazi did was to
	smirch the name eugenics nowadays
	every time the name is mentioned it's not to condemned an idea
	Instead of discussing the idea, it's become a label for it that says it's no good.
	That's what the Nazis did, yeah.
	That's one of the many bad things they did.
	But let's talk about the concept of improving the breed.
	Let's talk about, first, improving it in the sense of Eliminating the sorts of genes that cause horrible diseases.
	Yes.
	We know that there are a variety of genes that are single gene diseases.
	That if that gene is present, then the disease is present in the child.
	Now, if we have the power to, say, go in And replace that gene, the bad gene, with a normal gene, then the child is not going to have the problem.
	Is there anything wrong with that?
	There are of course people who say there is.
	They will say it's tinkering, it's tampering.
	When will we stop?
	There are people who believe, and believe it or not, really they believe this, that disease Well, that sort of line of reasoning, I think, is one of those dangerous lines of reasoning that leads us to the conclusion that whatever happens is something that we should accept.
	Now, I think those people, if they hold this view, they themselves act against it.
	They wash their hands.
	They take medicines when they're sick.
	They take care of themselves to avoid diseases.
	They don't really accept whatever comes along.
	They accept responsibility.
	Now, responsibility, I think, is a crucial concept whenever you talk about what we are going to do genetically.
	Let me tell you why that is.
	We don't hold people responsible for things they can't help.
	We don't condemn people for having brown hair.
	We shouldn't condemn them for having brown skin.
	Because these are things that people can't change.
	Similarly, we don't hold anybody responsible for earthquakes.
	The Northridge earthquake took place.
	Who was responsible?
	The answer is nobody was responsible.
	Because we have responsibility only if we can exercise control.
	Now, when it comes to genetics, we can now exercise control.
	Now what that means is here is an area in which before we had no responsibilities and now we've acquired them.
	So it's not a question any longer of do we have responsibilities.
	The question now becomes what are we going to do?
	How are we going to act responsibly?
	Because we now have power.
	We now have control.
	How shall we use it?
	Shall we refuse to use it at all?
	Or should we try to use it wisely?
	Well, one obviously is going to say they hope we would use it wisely, but it's of course a two-edged sword.
	It is.
	The technology is just like nuclear power is.
	It is a two-edged sword, but I think if we don't take advantage, if we don't develop those powers that we have, once again, here is a case in which we lose the opportunity to cure diseases that are life-destroying, even if they are not themselves fatal.
	That's the beginning, but how far to go?
	Yeah, let's get a little designer in our thought.
	And in the world of the designer, it seems to me that there are certain things that you might want to do.
	I mean, our vision, for example, is it's OK.
	Stereo, we get 3D.
	It's pretty good.
	We see colors.
	But you know, it's possible that it would be nice.
	Some people would think of perhaps be able to see behind them as well as in front of them.
	Another eye and another location might be Really handy for some people.
	I'm just giving one example, but that's the kind of thing that way out there somewhere would be possible.
	It would be nice for you to be smarter too, wouldn't it?
	Smarter, yes.
	I'd love to be smarter.
	Why not?
	You know what?
	I really wish I had a better musical ability.
	I wish I had perfect pitch.
	Well, how about tripling or quadrupling your IQ?
	I wouldn't mind at all, but I did ask What price?
	There are two ways of asking this question.
	One of them, are you going to ask me, if I could do that right now by swallowing a pill that would have no other consequences, would I swallow the pill?
	Would you?
	If I believe you, I certainly would swallow the pill.
	Now, the second way of asking that question is, how are we going to get to that point?
	Are we willing to do what it is that it takes to get to that point?
	And there, I think we're not quite so sure anymore.
	There, I think we have to ask, Are we going to have to break a lot of eggs to get to this omelet?
	If so, maybe we don't want the omelet badly enough to break the eggs that the price is too high to get there.
	Is it likely to be too high?
	That's the question now.
	When I said before, we can eliminate diseases, you wanted to go beyond that point.
	And you're not the only one, of course.
	And then the question is, how far beyond that point?
	And we don't know yet.
	Now, I think that we can take some risks.
	Notice we go back to the nuclear analogy.
	You know you can't make too many mistakes with nuclear weapons because you blow up the world.
	Or at the very least yourself and neighbors.
	Or at least yourself and neighbors in 250,000 years of contamination.
	But at least genetics has this going for it.
	First of all we have animals.
	We can perfect techniques on animals.
	Yes, it's true that humans are not identical with animals and so on, but at least we can know.
	You know, as you point out, the dangers of cloning.
	One of the dangers of cloning, we already know why we don't want to try it with humans right now.
	we know how many disasters were associated with producing cloned animals and we're not
	willing to take the risk of producing that many dead or deformed babies in order perhaps
	to get one cloned. Not a price we want to pay.
	Actually monsters, right?
	Absolutely.
	We're not willing to pay that price.
	And if you think there's a debate with the right-to-life people right now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
	If you start producing mistakes on the way to a human clone, there are going to be people that will die for this, right?
	Well, that is quite true.
	But notice that you have many more people than just right-to-life people who are against that.
	Anyone who is reasonable is not going to favor that.
	But on the genetic front, we do at least have the advantage of learning from animals.
	And then after that, if we think we've got it right, we can certainly try to cure diseases.
	We can even try to enhance people.
	And if we get it wrong, if it doesn't work, Yes, it is a disaster, but it's not a disaster on a regional, worldwide scale.
	But I mean, it would be possible, for example, to design humans that could live in other environments, maybe even underwater, maybe in climates like the one that exists on Mars right now, or some other planet.
	In other words, create a human being with different It is possible to do that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Look at what the frightening prospects are, too.
	We're talking about enhancement.
	We're talking about producing more specialized human beings, or ones that are better.
	That's right.
	But you know, we could also produce ones that are not so good.
	We could go around and, using genetic technology, we could systematically alter the brains of Newly born children so that the result would be that we would create a race of sub-humans, which we could then use to do the labors of the world.
	That's a potential.
	That's a possibility.
	So to talk about genetics is to talk about this whole range of possibilities.
	To create a human being who would be, or let's not even use the word human, to create a creature similar to a human, but who would be Pleased and happy to be nothing but a slave.
	Exactly.
	That really would be possible.
	It would be at least in principle possible.
	Of course in practice we don't know how to do any of these things, but we're close enough to understanding genetics to know that in principle we could do such a thing.
	So this range, it's back to the question of responsibility.
	We have now to take responsibility for our actions.
	You know, we're not in the hands anymore of nature.
	We have taken control.
	We have become nature's business manager.
	We're the ones that arrange the world now.
	We don't arrange everything in it, but we arrange a lot of the furniture.
	There's a concept for you.
	Nature's manager.
	And of course, what many would say is we are beginning to get into the creation business.
	And there's no way to deny that's really what it is.
	It's the creation business.
	And boy, it would be a big business, Professor.
	It would be.
	We are in it whether we like it or not.
	The question is, do we do it poorly, or do we do it well, and exactly what is it that we do, and what is it that we refuse to do?
	It's now our decisions.
	The decisions are in our hands, and that's why these talks, that's why these discussions are so important.
	Well, I know this.
	I know that when people who can't afford it get a fatal disease, They go to Mexico, they go to Switzerland, they go to various countries where procedures are being done that are far from approval by our FDA process.
	They will spend whatever they have to go wherever they have to go to get whatever might have some chance of curing them of rather imminent demise.
	And so if people will do that, Then I suppose if these things cannot be done here and they can be done elsewhere, they'll be done.
	Period.
	Just a matter of where.
	They'll be attempted.
	Much better, I think, that we take control ourselves.
	We follow our processes because we have in place stringent review policies.
	We protect patients.
	We protect experimental subjects.
	We demand high standards be met both scientifically and ethically.
	Much better that we should pursue researches in this country than that we should throw these kinds of problems associated with genetics.
	Alright, so then when you see a headline that says that This scientist or that scientist is saying publicly that if it's outlawed here, they're just going to take it overseas.
	They're going to allow designer babies.
	They're going to take orders.
	They're going to do this whether we like it or not, whether it's done here or elsewhere.
	When you see those kinds of headlines, you must go, oh my God, we're dead.
	We're never going to get anywhere with this, not with this kind of thing.
	It does worry me when I see these kinds of threats.
	And it worries me, too, that we will be cut out of this in effect race, a race for a technology that is so
	new and is so promising that if we don't have it we are going to suffer from it.
	We as individuals, it's a technology that we as individuals probably are not going to
	get benefits from it, but our children will get benefits from it.
	It's that close.
	Well, if it's within our range to create, let us say a human with an IQ three times
	what yours is right now, then there will be certain groups that will inevitably proceed
	with that sort of thing.
	And I'm thinking, for example, of our government.
	A bunch of people running around with those kinds of IQs, my gosh, they could just do all kinds of things that would keep the United States at the forefront of all technology.
	They could, and it's fun to speculate that.
	Well, you know that they're too tempting not to do?
	Well, if we knew how, it might be tempting.
	But let's remember to keep in perspective the fact that this is still the most science fiction-laden scenario we could come up with.
	Because keep in mind, we really don't know what the genetic basis for intelligence is.
	And indeed, we're not even sure what intelligence is.
	So it's going a bit far to say, what if there was someone three or four times as intelligent as someone else?
	We know that there are certain traits that those traits are associated with intelligence.
	Perhaps linguistic skill is one of them.
	And maybe in the not-too-distant future, if we are out to improve human beings, we might take a chance on, say, trying to produce a child with The future is murky, the future is frightening, but the future is also wrapped in a golden glow.
	is a gene that seems to run in families.
	It seems then that it probably has a genetic basis and maybe we could find that.
	You bet.
	So the future is murky, the future is frightening, but the future is also wrapped in a golden
	glow.
	Wrapped in a golden glow, huh?
	I promise.
	A promise.
	But the promise can go badly wrong.
	Professor, hold it right there.
	We'll be right back.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	Heard him talk and I heard him say That she had the longest bucket hat, the prettiest green eyes anywhere
	I remember the music of the sea, I remember the music of the sea
	It's like a heat wave.
	White lightning, bound to guide you out.
	Mama's baby is in the heart of every schoolgirl.
	Love me tender, even crying in the house.
	For me.
	For you.
	For sweet and true.
	Oh, sweet and soothing, all you're wanting for, all you're longing for,
	is that silver, that little boy's smile.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired January 3rd, 2002.
	Many of you have heard me interview some of our nation's best theoretical physicists.
	They're working on all kinds of interesting things that Einstein didn't quite get done, like the theory of everything.
	Well, somebody, you know, with a IQ, say, three or four times, or five or ten times that of the professor, might knock off that one-inch equation in about ten minutes.
	What would that mean to the human race?
	Yeah, I'd be a new religion.
	Streamlink, the audio subscription service of Coast to Coast AM has a new name, Coast
	Insider.
	You'll still get all the same great features for the same low price, just 15 cents a day
	when you sign up for one year.
	The package includes podcasting, which offers the convenience of having shows downloaded
	automatically to your computer or MP3 player, and the iPhone app with live and on-demand
	programs.
	You'll also get our amazing download library of free full years of shows.
	Just think, as a new subscriber, over 1,000 shows will be available for you to collect,
	enjoy, and listen to at your leisure.
	Plus, you'll get streamed and on-demand broadcasts of Art Bell's Somewhere in Time shows and two weekly classics.
	And as a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Norrie and special guests.
	If you're a fan of Coast, you won't want to be without Coast Insider.
	Visit coasttocoastam.com to sign up today.
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002, on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Economically, in America, for the most part, we live in a land of supply and demand.
	Supply and demand.
	Supply and demand.
	If there is a demand for something, there's going to be a supply for it, no matter what, right?
	Drugs, things that make you feel better, things that alter your reality.
	Supply and demand.
	Supply and demand.
	That rules just about everything.
	I'll tell you an interesting story, Professor.
	texas my remodel but another one fast-paced america does not believe in
	slaves art that america would not be free
	but i'll tell you an interesting story professor one night just for the fun of
	it uh... i asked this exact question and that was that if we
	uh... if you could purchase
	of being who was uh... uh... designer made uh...
	to do you know life's difficult work wash dishes clean house
	uh... do whatever The jobs that we don't want to do anymore.
	You know, like now, for example, we allow a lot of people to come up to the southern border of our country in order to do jobs that we really don't want to do, like go out in the field and pick corn, that kind of thing.
	I ask these people, Would you buy such a being?
	Would you own such a being?
	And easily, 80% of them said, you betcha.
	When I pinned them down and they were honest, they said, you bet.
	I'm not surprised with that.
	Not surprised, huh?
	I think that there are people, though, when they would get beyond the immediate appeal of that, would see that what they were doing was something that deep down they would object to.
	They would be taking someone who would be a human and creating them in a way that would be less than human.
	Condemning such a person to a kind of life that was indeed sub-human.
	Yeah, but they wouldn't be unhappy with that.
	They would be happy with that.
	I understand the moral objections to slavery.
	As practiced in this country years ago, obviously, because we're talking about equals.
	In this case, we're not talking about equals, are we?
	We're talking about something entirely different.
	We are talking about something entirely different.
	How did we get these creatures to begin with?
	We made them.
	We made them in a way that we would regard them as being happy.
	We would have them regard themselves as being happy, but not from our standpoint because we would in effect be treating them as less than human.
	But that's our prejudice.
	It's not a fact.
	It's not science.
	It's our prejudice.
	We would begin feeling guilty or like we were doing something immoral.
	We would be doing something immoral.
	I think that it's quite right that we would be.
	Let me ask you this question.
	Do you think that we have the power now to do this?
	Do you think that it would be right for someone who said, you know, I would really like to have a child, but I'm afraid my child is going to be not sufficiently dependent on me.
	And so we make use of the rather crude technology that it takes to produce a child that is, say, physically deficient in some fashion.
	So this child is not going to go away and leave us.
	We could do that.
	Well, why would we object?
	What would be the objection?
	The objection to that is, I think, that we would not be, it's not a question of happiness, we would not be according that child a status as a human being of equal worth.
	Now I've talked before, and you know the views on embryos that I don't think they're people.
	At the same time, I think it's a moral mistake to create creatures who are less than human.
	Why?
	Because... I don't think the example you gave is a good one.
	You said to make the child more dependent by giving it some sort of physical abnormality.
	That's not quite the same moral argument as creating a creature Who would not have the same wants and needs and cares and desires and all the rest of it as a normal human being, minus physical disability.
	These creatures would live and be happy to do what they're doing.
	It would be a little different.
	I agree that it would be a little different.
	The analogy is not exact, but let me ask you the question.
	What do you think would justify our doing that?
	Would it be That's an expression of our wish.
	Well, I'm not going to even try to justify it.
	I'm just going to tell you about supplying the man.
	The mistake, I believe, would be that we would have someone who would be basically a human being who would not be treated as a human being.
	And it doesn't really matter that the person would be happy being that.
	Some people are quite happy because they are ignorant of possibilities, and we can.
	Exploit those possibilities, but we consider it wrong to take advantage of ignorance.
	So, too, I think it would be wrong to create sub-humans, even if they were happy in their work and they were completely devoted to us, because we would have done what was not necessary.
	We, instead of guaranteeing them an equal life, a life equal to ours, we would have created in a way in which they were definitely not equal.
	Not equal, you bet.
	Not equal.
	Absolutely.
	And that I think is where the mistake lies.
	It's not treating human beings as having an apparent worth.
	I'm not exactly sure that it's the same argument as taking somebody who is inherently equal, given the opportunity, and not allowing them to be equal by law or social pressure or whatever.
	That's one argument, but another is actually having a creature that is not equal, period, truly.
	Scientifically, verifiably, not equal.
	They're little different arguments.
	It's a little different argument.
	Now, if we happened upon another science fiction scenario, if we happened on the Hidden Valley, in which there was a group of creatures that resembled this, then I think that our obligations to them would be quite different.
	But if we deliberately That's what the difference is because in that case we are making use of our powers to produce something that is human and yet is not of equal worth.
	It's equal moral worth but we have arranged the world so that these creatures have built-in All right.
	Lisa in Seattle, I get these neat computer questions while I'm doing the program, does bring up something I'd like to ask about.
	She says she heard that a man has recently patented a process involving taking animal DNA and interfacing it with human, thus creating a whole new race in effect.
	She heard this on national public radio.
	What in the world is going on in that area?
	Well, I'm not exactly sure what she has in mind.
	I don't know that anyone has created another race.
	But it's not at all unusual to produce what are known as transgenic animals.
	The most prominent one of those, I suppose, and it may be that this is what she has in mind, is the attempt to breed pigs.
	that have had their DNA altered so that their organs will be compatible with human organs.
	Righto.
	Now, people have worried about that for a variety of reasons.
	Some have worried about it because they think it makes us somewhat less human, as though we share part of our DNA with some other creature.
	Or makes pigs more human.
	Or it makes pigs more human, and it blurs the line between species.
	Right, right, right.
	Exactly.
	Now, I don't believe this is a worry myself.
	The reason I don't think this is a worry is because we already share something like 98% of our DNA with other mammals.
	But the closer we get to the primates, the closer it is, the closer we are to the great apes, the closer we are to the chimps.
	Yeah, but if we decide to suddenly share say 99%, oh boy!
	What a big... I mean, 2% makes a lot of difference right now, so 1% seems to me half of that makes a lot of difference, and you could end up with a whole new... It could be.
	It could be, but think of what we're talking about now.
	What we're talking about are small modifications.
	But the pig case is a very interesting case, because you know, despite the fact that there's been a lot of talk about transgenic animals, pigs in particular, This really hasn't worked.
	People have worked very hard to get transplantable organs out of pigs by tinkering with the genetic code of the pig.
	And it hasn't not worked.
	And Lisa is right.
	There are dangers there, but they're not the dangers, I think, that she's worried about, about blurring the species boundary.
	The dangers are more real than that because pigs have got viruses.
	That's exactly where I was going to go, and all of a sudden some new DNA combination might suddenly, when it never would do it before, cause one of those nasty little things to species jump and just be real comfortable with a human as a host suddenly, right?
	That's exactly right.
	We may be, quite unintentionally, Taking a risk of creating a disease like AIDS.
	AIDS apparently originated, the HIV virus apparently jumped the species at one time and then mutated and spread in the human population.
	It just may happen that if we make use of animal organs that the kind of Viruses that are intertwined in the pig DNA may mix up with human DNA and recombine in a way that will produce some entirely new virus that is lethal to us.
	I don't want to sound as though I'm completely pessimistic about this, but at least it's potentially possible it could be a devastating plague.
	It's happened before in the history of the world.
	It's happened in the last few decades of our world.
	So we know it's possible.
	That's not a minor oops.
	You could even get something so awful that it would virtually be suicide for the human race.
	It is possible.
	And that's why some people in Europe have asked that we declare a moratorium on making use of animal organs.
	As transplant organs into human beings.
	And your feeling on that?
	My feeling on that is that we definitely shouldn't use primates.
	No chimps, no baboons, no apes.
	They're so close to us and that means genetically they're so close to us and that means that the sorts of viruses that infect them also infect us.
	I know.
	So that's where the danger is.
	The trouble is, that's also where the big yield is for the scientists.
	That is where the yield is for the scientists, and I'll tell you this, your supply and demand analysis of the world is true right here, because there is big money to be made out of animal organs.
	If they were successful, this is a market That amounts, potentially, to billions of dollars a year.
	Sure.
	Consequently, big drug companies are very interested in breeding the kinds of pigs that we might get those organs from.
	How much of that is going on right now?
	There is a considerable amount of it that's going on, even though some people, as I say, in Europe have called for a moratorium.
	They said, let's stop and assess the dangers here.
	But we don't know of cases in which there have been any species jumping viruses that have mutated or recombined yet.
	This may be that we're lucky.
	It only takes it one time.
	Well, okay, if stem cell research is really, really controversial right now in America, With the danger you just outlined, why isn't this research as controversial and as in danger?
	I think in part because we have only recently realized the potential danger.
	And for so long now, there has been great excitement about the potential for using animal organs.
	I can think myself, ten years ago, Fifteen years ago there was a similar excitement.
	It seemed as though the use of animal organs for transplants was right around the corner.
	Now we've crossed several, we've gone around several corners since that time and we don't have them yet because this has turned out to be an extremely difficult problem that scientists have not been successful in overcoming.
	Let me tell you something interesting about this, and I think everybody would find this interesting.
	It's a very tiny scientific point, but it makes the whole pig organ transplant question very interesting.
	There is a little cell marker, a little bit of protein on the surface of pig cells, and once an organ is put into a human being, That marker is recognized by our immune system and attacked.
	And it will reduce that organ to a blackened, pulpy mass, typically in a matter of minutes or an hour.
	What?
	Now what's interesting about that is that we seem to have pre-formed antibodies.
	That's why the attack is just instantaneous attack.
	Wow.
	And the reason we have them Is that that same marker is on the cells of some bacteria.
	So our immune systems are generally already primed for attack.
	That's why scientists have been faced with a big problem with pig organs.
	Those organs are attacked immediately.
	So they've tried to find some ways around that.
	They've tried to mask them.
	They've tried to eliminate them.
	They've tried to bleed them out.
	They've tried to add new DNA.
	So far they haven't done it.
	Yet.
	Yet.
	Meanwhile, there's this newly perceived risk.
	And I think, to get back to your question, the reason we don't talk about this very much is because nobody knows about it very much.
	We like to talk more about the excitement.
	of a new scientific breakthrough, then we like to talk about the danger of a new scientific
	breakthrough.
	So the oops factor in proceeding with that, and particularly getting to the higher primates,
	is pretty high in your opinion.
	I don't know that it's pretty high, but it's one of those things in which you have to say
	the probability is very low, but if it happens, it's very important.
	As you say, the oops factor is not highly probable, but it's such a big oops that maybe we don't want to take that risk.
	But most areas of this research have, perhaps to a lesser degree, but also have oops factors that have to be at least considered, right?
	What do you have in mind?
	I don't know.
	Even in the creation, even in stem cell research and the creation of organs, we don't know, since we haven't done it yet, we don't know the full downside to doing it, right?
	That's right, we don't.
	And it may be that this is one of those cases in which it's very easy to be optimistic when we are standing at the beginning.
	Right.
	And if we go along this path, it may turn out that things look dimmer and dimmer.
	But you know, we can't find out unless we take a little trip.
	We have to go forward in order to find out whether we can reach the goal.
	If we stand in place and stare ahead into the darkness, we won't see anything.
	Well, we're going to take that little trip.
	Not to worry.
	There's nothing that's going to stop it, as far as I know.
	I mean, they can pass laws, but, you know, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
	Professor, hold on.
	We'll be right back.
	I presume you can stick around and maybe take a few calls, I kind of think?
	Yes, I can.
	Oh, very good.
	Stay right there.
	Is this fascinating or what?
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coaster Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	This is a video of the Coaster Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	You can look around, there ain't a window.
	The End.
	Bright as a thunderstorm.
	the world.
	Riders on the storm.
	Into this house we're born.
	Into this world we're thrown.
	Like a dog without a bone and hat you're out of loan.
	Riders on the storm.
	There's a killer on the road His brain is squirming like a toad
	Take a long holiday Let your children play
	If you give this man a ride Sweet family will die
	Killer on the road Yeah
	www.premiereradionetworks.com www.premiereradionetworks.com
	That's exactly what we're going to do through this next hour.
	Well, this is a fascinating new science and it's a rare opportunity for you to ask a man
	with the credentials of Professor Monson a question about it.
	That's exactly what we're going to do through this next hour.
	Stay right where you are.
	Streamlink, the audio subscription service of Coast to Coast AM has a new name.
	Coast Insider.
	You'll still get all the same great features for the same low price.
	The package includes podcasting, which automatically downloads shows for you, and the iPhone app.
	You'll also get our amazing download library of three full years of shows.
	That's over a thousand shows for you to collect and enjoy.
	If you're a fan of Coast, you won't want to be without Coast Insider.
	Visit coasttocoastam.com to sign up.
	Weird stories on the radio?
	Must be Coast to Coast AM with George Norrie.
	You know, when I started doing this radio program, Jesse, half of the subjects I was really into, the paranormal, the unusual, ghosts and things like that.
	Yep.
	The conspiracy stories, you know, I was a little weary about these, other than the Kennedy assassination.
	And all of a sudden, I woke up.
	I simply woke up.
	Is that what happened with you two?
	Yeah.
	That's when I really started to say, what is going on here?
	And I started to truly then investigate 9-11, and today, I don't believe the government's story of 9-11.
	Here's the three options.
	Either we knew about it and allowed it to happen, or we knew about it and participated in it, or these were the dumbest buffoons that could have ever been in charge of our country, who could have all this pre-information.
	And I started to think they knew what was going to happen.
	They either are part of it or they allowed it to.
	There's no doubt in my mind.
	You're listening to Arc Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an on-going presentation of Coast to Coast AM from January 3rd, 2002.
	Professor Moulton, I may have some news for you.
	I've got this from several sources now, all of them sent from different places.
	Christine in Sorrento, B.C., British Columbia, says, On the news tonight, the same scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep has now cloned five piglets that they want to use for human implantation experiments.
	That was on the news yesterday.
	Oh, you have heard about this.
	Indeed I have.
	Ah, so we really are.
	We're at the Institute in Edinburgh.
	So we're moving right along here.
	We're moving right along, indeed we are.
	But you know, once again, it hasn't worked yet.
	Uh-huh.
	We'll see whether it works this time.
	And the dangers we talked about, whether there are viruses there that we can't get rid of and how much risk they pose, is still a possibility to be discussed.
	And I quite frankly think that we ought to discuss it as a society.
	It's not a secret.
	It's just not part of the public consciousness.
	I take it that you discuss this sort of thing with your colleagues.
	I do.
	I do.
	I discuss it in my book.
	It's about organ transplants, the Raising the Dead book.
	It's about organ transplants, but chapters on stem cells and chapters on what we call xenotransplants of animal organs.
	And there the issues come up.
	Well, let me ask about your literal title while we're, before we go to the phones here.
	Yes, Raising the Dead.
	Well, gee whiz, it seems like if you could clone And we may not be many years away from cloning, for sure.
	Or it may be here now.
	Just about now.
	You could take cells from the dead, could you not?
	You could.
	We could clone the dead.
	As long as we got the cells in time.
	As long as we got them while they were still fresh.
	How long that is, I don't know, but there is a limit.
	Well, in principle it's possible.
	If in fact that is true, then would it not again benefit somebody with the ego to do it, to have their cells preserved as you would hamburger meat in the freezer?
	But what good would it do them?
	That's like saying If we all had an identical twin, and we died, we would still live on.
	But that's not true.
	Our genes would live on, but we wouldn't live on because our identity is more than our genes.
	Yes, but I suppose you're going to do the experiment.
	Let's say that we had preserved some cells from Mr. Einstein.
	Yes.
	I assume his were probably Not real usable at the moment?
	No, no.
	They don't seem to be.
	Not likely.
	Or did they actually... Well, his brain is still around, but you know, we don't know whether the techniques would work with that.
	Let's make that supposition.
	I'm happy to do that.
	Okie dokie.
	Well, suppose we could.
	We clone him.
	We grow up a child who is Einstein's genetic twin.
	Right.
	What do we get?
	Well, frankly, we don't know what we get.
	We get somebody who's very smart, but do we get somebody who does the equivalent of working out a theory of relativity?
	We don't know, because what we don't know is what are the factors that shape people's lives.
	Are we sure we even get somebody smart, or is that pretty much a given?
	We don't know.
	That's the only assumption, because we don't know what produces intelligence.
	Surely it must have something to do with the genetic inheritance, but we don't know exactly what that is.
	So he may just be an ordinary bright guy, but he may not be the kind of world-class genius that we associate with a name.
	We just don't know.
	As I tell people, imagine you're a tape and you erase yourself, all your memories, back to your babyhood.
	The tape begins to unwind again.
	It begins to pick up all those noises and sounds and it begins to reform your personality.
	It would be very unlikely that you're going to end up the same person.
	Why?
	Because all the factors in the environment are going to be different.
	And we don't even know what those factors are.
	I mean, we can imagine some of them, but we don't know exactly what shapes people's personality, provides their motivation, provides them with... Okay, okay, but still, all that said, there is a pretty fair chance, isn't there, that if Einstein were cloned, you would very possibly end up with a world-class thinker.
	It's possible.
	Well, that's pretty far to go already.
	go much further than that.
	Well that's pretty far to go already. I mean if we could if we could clone the dead
	there's going to be a big demand for that.
	It could well be.
	Given your analysis of the way our society works.
	There is money there and there is ego there.
	It may well be that it's done.
	Another President Kennedy.
	Or if he's not to your taste, President whoever.
	These are the kinds of things that people think about.
	Leaders who are so valuable you can't put a price on them.
	And don't forget the boys from Brazil.
	On the other hand, perhaps you can put a price on all of this, and that's probably where it's going.
	Let's try it.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Professor Ronald Munson.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Bloomington, Minnesota.
	Okay.
	And I have a question about mitochondrion DNA.
	Okay.
	If a clone is made from the nucleus of the cell, What happens to the mitochondria?
	Well, first I have to preface what I said by saying I'm not a scientist.
	So, anything I should say, you have to take with a grain of salt.
	But, you're right that the DNA that is in the mitochondria, which provides cells with energy, the maternal, I assume you're asking about the maternal mitochondria, that's a little bit of genetic information that is not carried in the nuclear DNA.
	The result of that is that even a cloned organism, if it involves replacing the nucleus by taking the nucleus from another cell and putting it in the egg, is still going to have that additional mitochondrial DNA there.
	So there will be that little bit of information that is not the same.
	So what happens to that?
	Well, so far as I know, no one knows the answer to that question.
	But you're right.
	It's not exactly the same.
	Wouldn't a cloned person without the mitochondria have a drastic difference in personality?
	We don't know.
	I mean I certainly don't know and so far as I know no one else does.
	If you have some information I would be happy to have it.
	I've been trying to get information.
	Okay well maybe the reason you're not getting it is because nobody knows yet.
	But, you know, we're so close to being able to answer these questions if we proceed.
	Or maybe there's no if about it.
	I mean, you know, we are going to obviously proceed someplace or another if this country decides to begin passing all kinds of laws in this area.
	And I see the temptation to do that.
	Then it's going to proceed elsewhere.
	Professor?
	You are quite right.
	We can see right now that there are scientific establishments all over the world
	that are working in the whole area of genetics in general and the stem cells in particular and with cloning as in the
	middle.
	But that question is a very good question, and it's one that is,
	as I say, so far as I know, not yet answered.
	But it's not an unanswerable question.
	It's just one we don't know the answer to yet.
	Okay, well, let me read you one little computer blast that I've got here from Helena in New York City.
	And I've got a lot of these, so it's just sort of representative.
	Helena says, if life is what DNA makes, Well, let me say that just as I just said I'm not a scientist, I have to say I'm not a theologian either.
	his permission to do these things professor outlined could we not invoke or incur incur his raf
	amen she acts well let me say that uh... just as i just thought i'm not a
	scientist i have to say i'm not a theologian either
	so i really don't know how to answer a theological question along those lines
	my version of my answer would be my answer and i don't speak with any
	particular authority But my general view of that is that in these matters we don't know what God wants us to do or doesn't want us to do.
	I think that we have to guide ourselves by principles, and our principles are ones that say, basically, don't do anything that causes harm to people.
	That single principle is one I think that all religions accept, and it's one that I think that you would find is a principle that's almost itself enough to guide scientific inquiry and preserve us from some of its worst nightmare scenarios.
	Isn't there also another danger in proceeding with, for example, a better human being one way or the other, perhaps even in many, many, many ways of creating a super Human?
	Heck, better hearing, better intelligence, better senses.
	My goodness, we could almost have eyes that would look In spectrums that go beyond what we can see right now, and there might be many advantages in seeing in higher spectrums, all kinds of things.
	But, you know, if we created a better human, then there's always a danger that they would regard us as, perhaps we would regard the slaves we were talking about a little while ago.
	Under those conditions, that's entirely a possibility, but we would hope that when we design these new generation of creatures, that we would make them benign.
	Right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Professor Munson.
	Hi.
	Good morning, Art.
	Good morning.
	Where are you?
	I'm in British Columbia.
	Okay.
	Regarding the 80% of the people of your listeners that are dreaming of clones to hold a lawn and do the laundry.
	Do you not think, Professor, that in North America, anyway, we're sufficiently evolved that something like that could never happen?
	I mean, if you do make a class of unequal people and they don't have the necessary intelligence themselves to request that their intelligence be upped in the same way that it was downed in the first place, You'd have a whole bunch of clone advocates running around doing it for them?
	I would hope that we would never do such a thing, and I agree with you, but I hope that we have the kind of acknowledgements of basic moral principles that would assure us that this is not the sort of thing that would happen, that it would be wrong, that we would recognize that it was wrong, that we would discourage it in every way possible, and that we would Were anyone to try it, we would take steps to prevent it.
	So I agree with you on that, certainly.
	Not every possibility that can be exploited is one that ought to be exploited.
	Well, the clones themselves wouldn't object at all, but she was saying the human movement, the Clone Advocate Society or whatever would be born to stop all of this would be a strong one, just like the right-to-life people.
	They'd be every bit as passionate, if not more so.
	I agree.
	I would be in their number.
	And you would be in their number?
	I would be in their number.
	I would think that we would want to keep this from happening, and if it did happen, I would think we would want to put an end to it, and I would think that we would want to take care of those who were mistakenly produced by any genetic engineering techniques.
	But, Professor, there is a rational I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that I ever got what the argument was in favor of this.
	for the uh... for the uh... the ethical aspects of it uh...
	one who understand the science of what you're making why
	uh... these these other arguments are ridiculous aren't they
	i'm sorry i'm not quite sure that i have a couple of what what the argument was
	in favor of this well all my gosh in favor of it i can i can tell you to
	have a being who would uh...
	uh... not be interested in furthering itself or what its rights are
	It would simply be made happy.
	Its center of happiness would be pleasing human beings, doing dishes, doing the laundry, doing... So you mean it would be a matter of convenience?
	Is that an argument?
	Uh, oh, you betcha.
	Is it an argument?
	Isn't that the same argument, however, that would allow us to do anything that we find convenient?
	Absolutely.
	Well, there I think we would have to say we have certain principles.
	Well, I'm afraid that we would then have to talk about what would they be.
	I'm not sure they wouldn't be human beings.
	That's as if they wouldn't be human beings as we understand them.
	Well, I'm afraid that we would then have to talk about what would they be.
	I'm not sure they wouldn't be human beings.
	I think that we would recognize that if they were not human beings, if they were sufficiently
	close, that we would, as they say in moral philosophy, they have an interest.
	Their interest is not to be treated in ways that we would treat sub-humans that we have
	created in ways to be subservient, which is to say we would want to give them the same
	rights that we have.
	What percentage of full human DNA do your moral objections begin, considering that there's 2% difference between the highest primate and humans?
	I have no answer to the question.
	And indeed, I would say that we still haven't dealt with the problems of our neighboring species, which some people say are sibling species, like the chimps.
	Yes, there's advocates, but Professor, they are used in all kinds of medical experiments with just a 2% difference.
	Not so much anymore, I'm pleased to say.
	And it may well be, it goes back to a principle of yours, it may be that they're not used so much anymore, not because they're almost sibling species, but because they're so expensive.
	I think this might be a case though in which what is right turns out to be also what is
	prudent.
	And what is prudent turns out to be what is right.
	That's really interesting.
	You know, of course, they're valuable simply because they are so close to us, so experiments done on them yield the best sort of information that would be short of experimenting on human beings.
	I mean, that's just fact, right?
	That is true.
	All right.
	Professor, hold it right there.
	To some degree, I'm playing devil's advocate and doing a pretty good job of it, I would say.
	I feel devilish.
	But it's working!
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from January 3rd, 2002.
	2002.
	What a wonderful world.
	The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky, are also on the faces of people going by.
	I see friends shaking hands, saying how they feel.
	They're really saying...
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Costa Costean from January 3rd, 2002.
	The subject is cloning and stem cells and where all of this science is going and what we're doing with it and what we might do with it and what we shouldn't do with it.
	Absolutely fascinating stuff.
	We'll get right back to it.
	And it is a wonderful world, isn't it?
	Isn't it?
	Is it?
	Now we take you back to the night of January 3rd, 2002, on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	You.
	Tomorrow night, as always, is Open Lines, and I am, as always, open to suggestions of any special line that you think would be particularly interesting, informative, and or entertaining to do.
	And we have ever so many possibilities, so if you would like to suggest one, as always, you are welcome to do it.
	I have a couple of thoughts, which I'm not sure I should carry through with.
	But I will accept suggestions by email at artbellatmindspring.com.
	That's artbellatmindspring.com or artbellataol.com.
	Professor Ronald Munson's book is Raising the Dead.
	Social and Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation.
	And if your interest has been piqued tonight with all of this, and I can't imagine it has not, then you surely might want to read this book.
	You can get it at Amazon.com.
	Raising the Dead.
	Interesting title.
	Did you pick the title, Professor, or did your publisher?
	I picked the title.
	You did, huh?
	And for a very good reason.
	Well, obviously.
	People who need organ transplants, I admit it's a bit of a hyperbole, but people who need organ transplants often describe themselves as feeling that they have been reborn, that they have literally been raised from the dead.
	Yes.
	This is one of the great miracles of a secular kind.
	uh... that was brought to us by the last half of the last century
	well when we were faced with things we couldn't do it dog-gone thing about uh... you know like dying
	we always said things like it's god's will
	We always, I guess, consoled ourselves once somebody was gone by saying, you know, God, it was his time, her time, God took them.
	It's God's will that it happened in this way.
	A lot of people say that, Professor, and they all probably are going to be objecting to subverting what they consider to be God's will.
	Well, I think that we have to say that we don't know the will of God until we see it in action.
	So how do we know that we can't control the processes that will allow people to continue to live unless we try and fail?
	I didn't say we couldn't do it.
	I just said we're going to have to reconsider the phrase, the will of God.
	It may well be.
	As I say, I'm not a theologian, but I think that the will of God has often been Understood, in perhaps a deeper or at least a different fashion, depending on what we have been able to accomplish.
	Because we often don't know in advance of what we can do and what we can't do.
	Well, and you know, before we had a flight when Orville and his friend were out fooling around there in North Carolina, everybody was saying, well, if God had meant us to fly, he'd have given us wings for sure.
	It's just possible that this kind of technology actually Might give us wings, huh?
	It's absolutely possible.
	You know, talking about this topic, I think it's worth noting about what we're, just in this one area, we've been talking a lot about stem cells, but in this one area, we could save as many as 100,000 people a year if this stem cell technology worked And we could produce off-the-shelf organs for people.
	Because right now, there are about 75,000 people in this country, at any given time, who are waiting for an organ.
	As a matter of scientific curiosity, maybe you can answer this.
	To save 100,000 people in a year, a pretty lofty goal, alright, how many human embryos would we have to harvest?
	We don't know the answer to that question because we're very far from that.
	We know that those stem cells can be, as the scientists say, eternalized, which is to say they can be gotten to reproduce.
	And so the recent policy by the President's endorsement of 60 or so, 60 to 70 stem cell lines, is going in the right direction because we don't have to have always be destroying embryos to get stem cells, but we don't know yet how many stem cell lines we have to have.
	It would be as if I said to you, well, how many color swatches do you have to have to match everybody's hair color?
	Well, I don't know the answer to that question, and no one knows the answer to the question either about how many stem cells we need.
	So you're feeling as the President is getting pretty sound advice on this?
	Well, let me put it this way.
	I think that the compromise is a compromise that leans in the direction of conservatism.
	But it is a compromise.
	I can be pleased with it myself only because it was not An absolute rejection of the possibility of stem cell research.
	How many stem cell lines do you think Bill Clinton would have given us?
	I think he would have let us have what we needed.
	That would be the right way to go.
	But you know, we live in a society in which compromise is necessary to get along.
	If I don't go to these phones, I'll be shot.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Munson.
	Good morning.
	Hello.
	Yes.
	Professor Munson, I want to find out something.
	Just hypothetically, if we have 100,000 people, would we have to have 100,000 clones?
	And would we treat them as we do cattle?
	Hold it, sir.
	Back up.
	If you have 100,000 people, you mean that need something?
	Yes.
	If you've been listening carefully about stem cell research, We're discussing the possibility of regeneration or growing of specific organs.
	Okay.
	You wouldn't need a clone at all for that.
	You wouldn't need a clone at all for that?
	No, that's the whole point the professor has been trying to make.
	Okay, how do you get the stem cells?
	Well, we've said all this, but basically these stem cells, Professor?
	They come from embryos.
	You take a human embryo, Grow it up until it is about a few days old, five days old.
	You take out the stem cells and that's a stem cell line.
	Ideally, if we have a perfect technology here, those stem cells would then be used with a bath of chemicals of the right sort and we would in effect grow a new kidney for you.
	And I had a feeling, had we gone on, he's the sort who would have said, I would never take anything like that, because it's not what God would have me do, and I would rather die.
	I've had people call with that response.
	I would die before I'd take anything of the sort.
	Well, I think that that's an individual decision.
	It's just, you know, my objection is not that people should make such decisions for themselves, but it's that they should make such decisions for others.
	It's alright for them to say, I would die, but I don't like it if they tell me, I want you to die because I don't think that you should use stem cells.
	Well, if they're dying to support a conviction that strong, you can bet they would think you ought not be doing it either.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Munson.
	Hello.
	Hi Art.
	Hi Professor.
	They want to use my wife as a donor for peripheral stem cell harvesting from her bone marrow for transplant for her brother who has multiple myeloma and I'd like to know what the effects on the donor with this procedure is and if it even works.
	We have great concern and it's It's really just torn the family apart because... Alright, so I understand it.
	They want to do what now, please, again?
	They want to use my wife, who's a match with her brother, as a donor to go in and do a peripheral stem cell harvesting directly from her bone marrow.
	Right.
	And we just... Is this to ensure a higher success of transplantation?
	No, if I may interrupt.
	Go ahead, sir.
	First of all, I can speak of this only in the most general terms.
	As I said, I'm not a theologian, I'm not a scientist, and I'm not a physician.
	But what's involved here scientifically is taking the adult stem cells, namely those that are in the bone marrow that are responsible for producing, in effect, the immune system.
	Right.
	So someone who is suffering from a disease, in particular a form of leukemia, Can by radiation and or by drugs have the bone marrow cells simply wiped out and then replenished by using the stem cells taken from a donor.
	Now there is some little risk to the donor.
	The stem cells are removed from the bone marrow.
	There is some pain involved.
	My understanding of this is that there's relatively low risk that's involved.
	Doesn't sound like fun, but go right ahead.
	It's something that I think your caller should have a discussion with the physicians involved and make sure that every question is answered, including the questions of how much pain is this, what are the risks going to be, and get all the information before giving consent.
	So, you could reduce an immune system altogether, put in these stem cells, and have you then created a new immune system?
	Is it, in effect, a permanent fix, theoretically?
	Theoretically, it is, because these stem cells then should produce a new immune system, and they should grow into cells that are compatible with the body.
	Wow.
	It's not to say things can't go wrong, but that's the general outline of it.
	And the downside for the donor aside from pain?
	The risk of infection.
	Sure.
	There's a very little downside.
	It's not a pleasant experience.
	I believe that typically this is a It's not something that anyone would choose to do for anything less than a serious reason, but on the other hand, it's not something, considering that a life is at stake, and presumably in this case, the life of someone is at risk.
	It's a serious reason, obviously.
	Yes, it is.
	Okay, first time caller on the line, you're on the air with Professor Monson.
	Hey, how's it going?
	Okay, sir, where are you?
	I'm in Louisville, Kentucky.
	Okay.
	And my question is about combining a couple of technologies.
	The technology that you can, maybe here or not here, that you can download information from the brain, saying for some reason, somehow you're able to download an entire, all the experiences, all thoughts, everything from a grown human On to a hard drive.
	Clone this human and do some sort of quick growth.
	That's science fiction I know right now, but say in the future some quick growth where in a couple of weeks you have a full grown human of the person when he died.
	Upload all that information onto a blank brain and would you not in effect have the exact same person?
	Alright, well, oh boy.
	This caller is sure right.
	That's being considered now in science fiction.
	Yes, it absolutely is.
	The answer to that question, of course, is that at time T, if you then take this clone that's been speedily grown up, and then you have a data dump into this clone, then you have, in effect, not only genetically identical twins, but for that moment you have individual people who are virtually the same now notice that they then go their separate ways and after that everybody changes because everybody has new experiences and they process things differently even if they're genetic twins.
	The question that you can't quite answer is in that transference of everything that for that instant at least as you point out makes them absolutely the same In every thought, in everything.
	Every cellular memory, all the rest of it.
	How are we not to know that the consciousness is not at that instant transferred as well?
	If somebody's dying of some truly incurable something or another, then why not take the chance to download everything you are mentally into a new, fit, younger body?
	And away you go.
	It would be worth a try if we could do it.
	I see nothing wrong with it in principle.
	But can it be done in practice?
	That's where it counts.
	Wild Card Line, you're on air with Professor Munson.
	Hello.
	Hello, good morning gentlemen.
	Good morning.
	I have two quick questions and I'll shoot them both out at once if I can.
	Alright, where are you?
	I'm in Durango, Colorado.
	My first question was, I just wanted to ask Professor Munson to clear this up, if it's maybe, by chance, an urban legend or not.
	I heard it several years ago.
	It's an urban legend, I can tell you, because I know what you're going to say.
	What's that?
	Okay.
	I was going to ask, I heard that, a couple years ago, I heard that the first successful flora-fauna hybrid was made in that they crossed a gene from codfish, which lived in cold water, with corn to make corn that can grow in the snow.
	I was wondering if that is true or not.
	I don't know.
	I didn't think that was the question you were going to ask.
	Certainly there are hybrids that have been produced.
	Ones that involve putting the genes into fish, for example, that allow them to forage in environments that are artificial.
	Again though, isn't there a big oops factor here too, and in fact I think, and I can't cite the specific examples, but it was something about some kind of change to some sort of agricultural product and an effect on butterflies or some such, something where they went oops.
	You mentioned about whether the genetically modified Corn has been responsible for infertility in monarch butterflies.
	Yes, there you are.
	That's a vexed question.
	Initially, it was thought to be very straightforward, and the answer was yes.
	But scientists who have looked at it since have at least raised some question about whether something happens.
	to the monarch that render them infertile.
	It's just not known.
	But even if it's not known, I think everybody is well aware of the fact that we are dealing
	here with dangerous issues.
	If it didn't happen, it perhaps could have happened.
	Well, I think you're wrong that everybody understands that.
	They seem to understand dangerous issues with stem cell research, or maybe not as dangerous as controversial and cloning for sure, but not too many people have been considering, you know, what we're talking about tonight, the pigs through even the discussion right now, as a really dangerous area that we all ought to look at real hard, but that's what you're saying.
	I'm saying that we should look at it, that we should talk about it, that we should learn more about it, that we should insist that the scientists take their duties seriously toward us as a society and help educate us on these issues so that we can discuss them among ourselves.
	All right.
	Anything else, Collar?
	Yes.
	I believe you've had Rael on your show before in the Raelian group.
	Yes.
	On their website they have two different services which you can already buy.
	One is insure a clone for human beings and the other is insure a pet.
	Okay, you can stop right there.
	We're almost out of time.
	I'm so sorry to say, he's right.
	I interviewed the Rillians and they are in business, Professor.
	I'm sure you know about them.
	I'm sorry, I'm ignorant on the topic.
	You don't know about the Rillians?
	Really?
	I'm sorry.
	It's not a proud ignorance, it's a real ignorance.
	Oh, well, they're big time into cloning, and they may have somebody... Oh, yes, I know who you mean.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry.
	Okay, now that you do know who we mean, then this sort of thing must really scare the hell out of you.
	I mean... It does!
	I mean, can you imagine a more unlikely group of people to set out to clone?
	This is everyone's nightmare, and I think that they represent and play into the hands of every critic of cloning and stem cell technology.
	Professor, this is awful.
	Listen, I'm going to have to have you back.
	Thank you.
	It's like we're not done.
	This was wonderful.
	But we're out of time.
	That's it.
	All I can say is, incredible interview, Professor.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Good night.
	Good night.
	Absolutely incredible, and you can bet we will have them back.
	I'm Art Bellum.
	This is Coast to Coast AM from the high desert, Tata.
	What will you do when you get lonely?
	No one waiting by your side.

▲