Seems like Stanford was founded on good strong principles.

This one quote shows the flawed bias on the part of the columnist:

< i > " But why does Stanford feel the need to hide behind "bioethicists" who aren't ethical when it could stand proudly with its first visionary, David Starr Jordan? Stanford's cloning project is just the most advanced stage in his brutal evolutionary thought." < /i >

I'm not sure if the writer is aware that with a 90+% failure rate, evolution is a very brutal business. The survival of our species isn't something for us to take lightly, and our preservation may will demand that we make decisions that some consider "unethical". In the end what's more unethical, the loss of some embryos and test subjects, or of the entire species. If we can call upon our young to give their lives for a piece of cloth and pretty words, surely we can do the same for the health and future well being of our species. Survival has an ethics all its own.

Lee, (Death comes for every individual, but it doesn't have to come for our species)