From the Globe and Mail: "It's natural that our physical and mental abilities deteriorate in old age. Thus, all of the [everyday technologies aimed at changing that] could be described as 'unnatural.' They are unnatural but not, on that account, morally objectionable. It's fallacious to equate what's natural with what's good. ... Today, no one worries much about the ethics of analgesics or eyeglasses. Quite the opposite: You'd seem a complete idiot if you rejected all artificial aids to better living. So why is there so much fear and fretting about the present and future use of biotechnology to make ourselves healthier, stronger, smarter and longer-lived? John Harris, a leading British bioethicist, believes that the ethical controversy swirling around such new technologies as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, embryonic stem cell cloning and regenerative medicine is mostly the product of ignorance, prejudice and bad reasoning." Good to see sense from the bioethics community for a change; would that it spreads.