Dear Dr. Wilmut,

When reading your book After Dolly, I came upon some illogical statements concerning if a blastocyst is truly a human being.  You say that though the blastocyst has the potential to become a person, it is not considered a person because it needs to be helped and nurtured to survive.  That is almost like saying that a two year old is not a person.  A child has to be fed and cared for by another person and you say that even a tiny fertilized egg is not a person because of its inability to care for itself.  I find that revolting.

You gave an example in the chapter that you hoped would drive home the fact that a blastocyst is not a human being.  You said that if I was visiting the IVF laboratory with a small child and a scientist showed a small petri dish containing twelve early embryos for the child to see and suddenly a fire breaks out in the laboratory.  And you ask me who would I save, the child or the petri dish?
You know that most people would say the child and so you call it settled that the twelve embryos are not considered people.   Wouldn't the scientist be in charge of the petri dish?  My responsibility is the child that I brought to the IVF lab and it is my duty to make sure that the child is safe.  The scientist's duty is to make sure that the contents, or I should say little beings, in the dish are kept safe.  The dilemma that you put the reader in is baloney.

You also said that you let nature take its course in the cases of farmyard clones after you finish dividing the cells and separating the eggs.  You can't let nature take its course because you have already messed with it!  Nothing will be the same with the pregnancy as it would have been if you let well enough alone.  Though you do have a knowledge greater than I have on the subject of cloning, I believe you should work on your logic and find places in your book where you did not phrase things correctly or address all obstacles that are in the way of explaining your ideas properly.

Sincerely,  

A home-schooled girl of fifteen