UK scientists clone human embryo

[stubeeef]

Hey why go to the expense of cloning, there are plenty of homeless unloved people we could just "harvest" for our needs. It is much cheaper.

Dr Mengele

or

Jonathan Swift

 

[AppleMatt]

As long as the goal is to create life I don't see the impasse. I see creating ESCs as being a far greater travesty than reproductive cloning.

But the current method of extracting ESCs terminates life. The first human trial involving ESCs has been applied for, but seeing as they didn't even bother to test it in primates first I doubt it will be granted.

An ethical/moral objection to your 'create life' argument could well be along the lines of "there are thousands of orphaned children, and children waiting to be adopted"

AppleMatt

 

[MOFS]

British scientists say they have successfully cloned a human embryo -- the country's first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4563607.stm

I'm surprised. Didn't know things were moving so rapidly...

When I saw this on the t'internet, I knew good old Newcastle University would be there - its great when you go to a uni where so much cutting edge technology and science is happening. Dunno who Dr Alison Murdoch is tho'. But Newcastle was the first university to be given a licence to do this research, so this was kinda expected.

Another interesting issue is that Britain is likely to remain at the forefront of this science, what with the USA forbidding this kinda research.

 

[caveman_uk]

Hey why go to the expense of cloning, there are plenty of homeless unloved people we could just "harvest" for our needs. It is much cheaper.

Because it's easier to kill 'em when they're young? Or is it because homeless people aren't made of stem cells?

There seems to be a bit of a differentiation in some people (not necessarily Stubeef but some people) that see embryonic life as something sacred and yet other human life as somehow less valuable. So you have people who are anti-ESC research but pro-bombing Iraqi's. Or anti-abortion and pro-killing abortionists.

What makes a microscopic bunch of undifferentiated cells (which is what an 'embryo' used to provide stem cells is) more worthy of your protection than an actual living breathing human being?

 

[MongoTheGeek]

There seems to be a bit of a differentiation in some people (not necessarily Stubeef but some people) that see embryonic life as something sacred and yet other human life as somehow less valuable. So you have people who are anti-ESC research but pro-bombing Iraqi's. Or anti-abortion and pro-killing abortionists.

Oooh oohh thats me!

Seriously though I think all of us are guilty of a lot of hypocrisy unless we take the extreme positions of either all action is immorality or there is no morality.

 

[stubeeef]

Because it's easier to kill 'em when they're young? Or is it because homeless people aren't made of stem cells?

There seems to be a bit of a differentiation in some people (not necessarily Stubeef but some people) that see embryonic life as something sacred and yet other human life as somehow less valuable. So you have people who are anti-ESC research but pro-bombing Iraqi's. Or anti-abortion and pro-killing abortionists.

What makes a microscopic bunch of undifferentiated cells (which is what an 'embryo' used to provide stem cells is) more worthy of your protection than an actual living breathing human being?

I agree that many over look the living and orphaned, it is a banner of shame on the human race. Just had a discussion on a Christian forum about what you would go to jail for, and everyone agreed killing abortionests is as wrong as it gets. They are always a few strays who damage a cause, happens on both sides. Ironic though, that Roe is now anti abortion.
I believe life begins at conception, so I have problems with these experiments and harvests. There is a fear on my part, warranted or not, that eventually there could be black market clone people for parts, maybe not in my lifetime, and I hope never at all. Science I believe needs some tempermant (I am not an expert so I don't know the temperment needed....I admit) from humanity. Like the knowledge that came from Nuclear experiments culminating in "the bomb", that science has helped in medicine, state and individual terrorism. Regulation is only one aspect, if not use in conjunction with Enforcement, this could eventually go very wrong. I pray I am wrong.

 

[lachlanmullen]

sooo... how about those new dual-core G5's?

 

[caveman_uk]

There is a fear on my part, warranted or not, that eventually there could be black market clone people for parts, maybe not in my lifetime, and I hope never at all. Science I believe needs some tempermant (I am not an expert so I don't know the temperment needed....I admit) from humanity. Like the knowledge that came from Nuclear experiments culminating in "the bomb", that science has helped in medicine, state and individual terrorism. Regulation is only one aspect, if not use in conjunction with Enforcement, this could eventually go very wrong. I pray I am wrong.

It's true that a genie once out of a bottle can't be put back in. The problem is that you can't wish this sort of research away however much you find it unethical or distasteful. Someone is still going to do it now that the basic information you need to be able to do it is out there. Banning it in your country doesn't mean it won't happen elsewhere and wouldn't you rather it was done with some sort of ethical oversight than somewhere else potentially with looser morals?

A similar problem comes with the anti-vivisectionists - banning it in the UK wouldn't stop it happening. The work would be done in other countries with much less concern for the welfare of animals. Banning it here is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'La la la it's not happening'

 

[stubeeef]

It's true that a genie once out of a bottle can't be put back in. The problem is that you can't wish this sort of research away however much you find it unethical or distasteful. Someone is still going to do it now that the basic information you need to be able to do it is out there. Banning it in your country doesn't mean it won't happen elsewhere and wouldn't you rather it was done with some sort of ethical oversight than somewhere else potentially with looser morals?

A similar problem comes with the anti-vivisectionists - banning it in the UK wouldn't stop it happening. The work would be done in other countries with much less concern for the welfare of animals. Banning it here is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'La la la it's not happening'

So are you proposing unlimited, everyone go at - research? Or something with some limits? Who would enforce the limits?

 

[AppleMatt]

So are you proposing unlimited, everyone go at - research? Or something with some limits? Who would enforce the limits?

It's already enforced in both the EU and the US.

AppleMatt

 

[rainman::|:|]

If the argument is that we must stop all scientific research that conflicts with some people's religious beliefs (because the ethic and moral debate on embyronic stem cells goes back to religion, I'm sorry), we're going to have a pretty difficult time advancing any further... it all offends someone.

More pointedly, who the hell said anything about wanting to clone whole people? Once you get to that level, the ethical limits are certainly tested (and from our perspective now, probably shattered) if this occurs... but this is not what we're talking about. I challenge you to find one respected scientist who is in favor of moving forward with full human cloning.

 

[caveman_uk]

So are you proposing unlimited, everyone go at - research? Or something with some limits? Who would enforce the limits?

What do you think I meant when I said the below?

Banning it in your country doesn't mean it won't happen elsewhere and wouldn't you rather it was done with some sort of ethical oversight than somewhere else potentially with looser morals?

As for enforcement - Licensing and regulations to be decided by a Licensing authority which decides what you can and can't do on an ethical and scientific basis, with all sides having legal redress (including those not directly involved such as objectors and concerned citizens). There's plenty of precedence for licensing systems such as this.

 

[stubeeef]

I believe that life begins at conception, scientifically the ball is in motion.

No one has said that whole person cloning is on the table, at least I am not aware of it, it is more the "genie" out of the bottle thing, like N korea building an army (sarcastic reach there, relax!), I even said "not in my lifetime". And who said to stop all research based on my or another religion?

that we must stop all scientific research that conflicts with some people's religious beliefs

Are ethics only found in religion?

I am not aware of the enforcement tools available to the group responsible for enforecement.

Caveman-yes I would like ethical oversight, but without teeth it is just another oil for food.

 

[AppleMatt]

If the argument is that we must stop all scientific research that conflicts with some people's religious beliefs (because the ethic and moral debate on embyronic stem cells goes back to religion, I'm sorry), we're going to have a pretty difficult time advancing any further... it all offends someone.

I follow no religion, I don't believe in any god nor a 'higher being'. Yet I object to many of the methods that can be used to obtain embryonic stem cells, from an moral standpoint. There are far more sides to the argument that religion, and stating otherwise is reductionist.

More pointedly, who the hell said anything about wanting to clone whole people? Once you get to that level, the ethical limits are certainly tested (and from our perspective now, probably shattered) if this occurs... but this is not what we're talking about. I challenge you to find one respected scientist who is in favor of moving forward with full human cloning.

There are two main reasons cloning has arisen:
1 - This method uses a method delivered from animal cloning experiments (for no justifiable reason I might add).
2 - Consequently it advances human cloning techniques.

The fact that there may be few 'respected' scientists in 'our' society that are outwardly in favour of cloning is completely irrelevant, and will do nothing to stop it.

AppleMatt

 

[.Andy]

I'll drop a few things in here to clarify what's going on (I lecture and research stem cells).

Firstly some definitions;

* Stem cells are precursor cells that differentiate (transform) into any cell in the body.

* Adult stem cells. These are generally cells that are in some way comitted into turning into specfic cell types. That means that they usually can't be turned into every tissue in the body. Examples of these cells are the blood precursors in our bone marrow that give rise to our blood cells. For the most part they are very rare. Experiments with them have been very promising however and lots of research is being directed into using them.

* Embryonic Stem Cells. These are isolated from a small bunch of cells at the very beginning of development (at the Blastocyst) stage. As they are isolated very early in development they are not committed at all to any tissue type. Thus they are able to form any tissue in the body. This characteristic is why they are very exciting.

* Cloning. In this context cloning means either the production of an embryo with exactly the same genetic material as the donor. To do this the DNA from a female's egg is removed, leaving the egg "enucleated". It is in essence an empty shell that contains only the enzymes and cellular structures. If we wanted to clone you, we would take a cell from you, and remove your DNA using a fine needle under a microscope. This DNA would then be injected into the enucleated egg, resulting in an egg that contains the identical genetic material as you. This egg is given a small electric shock and in a very small number of cases turns into a developing blastocyst. This process is in part is (exept for the DNA manipulation) the same as that used during IVF.

But Cloning should always be broken up into two parts - reproductive and therapeutic.

Reproductive cloning is the aim of producing an identical copy of an animal or human. Thus when the embryo reaches the blastocyst stage, it is implated into the uterus of a surrrogate mother, where it can develop and be given birth to. This process is hugely inefficient and expensive however. In cattle only a small number of implantations reach full term, and post-natal death is also likely. As you go up the chain of mammals it appears that this process gets more and more difficult. With present technology it is estimated that possibly over 1000 women would need to be implanted with cloned embryos to give a single live birth. The rest would reabsorb, have spontaneous abortions, or result in still births. It is highly likely any live births would suffer complications such possible developmental abnormalities. Implanting that many women is ethically unfathomable (as well as financially) and is one of the reasons there is a blanket ban on the implantation of cloned embryos. The Raleans have claimed to have done this but have provided no proof whatsoever that they achieved a cloned baby (or 6). Frankly it is a publicity stunt for their religeon that has worked wonders for them at the detriment of medical science.

Therapeutic Cloning is the aim of producing embryonic stem cells identical in genetic makeup to treat a patient with a disease. If the cells are genetically identical, this means that they will not be rejected by the patients immune system. To do this embryonic stem cells are removed from a cloned blastocyst, and these cells are used to produce new tissues to replace/support diseased/damaged tissues. This supplies hope of treating many diseases such as Parkinson's and heart attacks which we don't really have a gold standard method of treatment.

Thus what these scientists did is very exciting. The better we get at cloning blastocysts, the closer we are to being able to isolate healthy and safe embryonic stem cells to treat patients. Unfortunately the better we get at cloning blastocysts for therapeutic cloning does bring us closer to reproductive cloning - thus this is where the legislation and public debate needs to be. We need to publicly debate the need for reproductive cloning and come to a consensus.

Every single scientist (with a few nutbag exceptions) does not agree with therapeutic cloning at present because it is very inefficient and potentially very dangerous physically and mentally for surrogate mothers. They will argue however within their own beliefs over whether or not it is an ethical process in the long run. Be careful that you see the distinction.

Andy.