Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans
dustinbarbour writes "A South Korean-led research team has cloned human embryos to produce embryonic stem cells, a scientific first that promises to reignite public debate over cloning. Medical researchers hope to use cloned embryonic stem cells to someday treat diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's. The cells potentially could create rejection-free transplant organ tissues." There's another story in the NYT.
...That they didn't claim to produce an entire embryo; just stem cells.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Now the big question is: who to clone?
I, for one, can only think of people that should not exist.
Can we pass a law that stupid people aren't allowed near this stuff? We've got too many of them already.
It must be Thursday... I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Not according to "Coast to Coast Radio" with Art Bell. According to him, the UN already has millions of cloned army men stationed in secret bases in Siberia and Northern Minnesota.
Human embryos != Humans
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Am in support of using stem-cells to repair organs. It's not really unehical at all. I mean an embryo doesn't have a personality or a self so it's hardly going to miss being alive.
They seem to be cloning the cloning messages.
How often did we hear this before?
They seem to be cloning the cloning messages.
How often did...
What's with the sensatioanlistic headlines this morning? KAZAA'ers PAY TO USE VPN TO BYPASS RIAA on a story about a company who offers public vpn for $6, with no implicit mention of Kazaa or FileSharing. And now WE'VE CLONED A HUMAN about a korean company who has cloned only an embryo to only a very early stage to generate stem cells, not making Steve 2.0 from Steve. Let's not go overboard, or am I talking out of turn? This is Slashdot, of course. Overboard is the story d'jour.
Th
The team detailed here has not cloned a human has such. It has cloned the stem cells in an embryo specifically for stem cells. The claims that they have made (also made in New Scientist this week) are not as radical as the claims made by the Raelians and Panayiotis Zavos, and so are much more believable than can be expected by looking at this title :)
I say all power to the team doing this as they are obviously going for something that is going to eventually become a pioneering field for saving life. I think the key issue is that they are cloning the cells (i believe) rather than the entire embryo, and so the issue of Sanctity of Life does not come into it.
Tim
tim
article here
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
imagine a beowulf cluster of clones...
"In related news, delegates to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention have attempted to introduce a "yes, you can marry your own clone" clause into the gay marriage debate."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Because that is a perfect way to destroy all the cloned zerglings that will come from South Korea.
Zergling Rush roolz!!
..that it's not 100% perfect and the only way they know is by raising the clone up to a age that the characteristics can clearly show themselves.
So what happens at the very smallest level? When these differences can't be observed?
If a person gets injected with these cloned stem cells and has a personality conflict or something?
Human embryos != Humans
No, a young human is still a human individual, just as an 80 year old is a human, a teenager, is a human, etc etc etc.
Unlike that other doctor and the Ralians(?) these people acually have the cells to prove they did it. intresting, to me at least.
Perhaps someday 2 Canidates will run for the election of "president of earth"....
... dr, evil and mini me :-)
it's only a matter of time before someone does clone a human. There's nothing mysterious or exceptionally difficult about it as compared to cloning sheep, cows, horses, etc.
The ethical questions are something else entirely, due to the fact that at this time, there's no way to relibaly bring forth healthy clones (most have some sort of genetic defect).
There's also a general misconception that a clone will be just like the clonee. Something that's extremely unlikely, just look at identical twins.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
We need more! Make more people! Quick! There's just not enough baby factories in the world. Look at China, for example. There's hardly anyone there! It's an unpopulated wasteland! More clones now! Rah rah rah sis boom bah!
--- Ban humanity.
Your stem cells can be collected and stored at birth, from the cord blood that is thrown away anyway when they tie the knot to make your belly button. It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.
When I was at Uni, they told us a US company held a patent on the harvesting(?) of cord blood stem cells, and demanded a license fee which is hampering the introduction of this. Don't know how true that is.
Nevertheless, this bypasses peoples squemishness on the use of embryos for this type of thing, though I don't have a problem with it myself. I can see why this work has been done, but there are a number of ways to generate this material that isn't morally suspect.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Well? Once the geenie is out of the bottle, can't exactly complain about it then can you? Kind of like the anti-nuke crowd...
So let me get this right: Some guys in BFE clone human stem cells. Ok, fine. Gotcha. Meanwhile, the head of the IAEA is warning that the "World May Be Headed for Nuclear Destruction" because of the proliferation of nukes by Pakistan and North Korea.
Someone remind me please why it is that I should give a rat's ass about cloning, whether it's Joe Blow's stem cells or Adolf Hitler's own gametes? Cuz I just fail to see the significane of this at all, really.
Once they find the Heorot burial yard, and can dig up the appropriate genetic material, this research brings us closer to the possibility of a Beowulf cluster of real Beowulves.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
> Did they clone Paris Hilton? If not, I don't care.
Yeah, but the clone turned out to be short, fat, and prudish.
We'll send her right over. How many do you want?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
On this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, this very thing was discussed. One of the interesting arguments: at what point to we determine an embryo a human being?
Is a ball of 100 human embryo cells a human being? One woman on the program was claiming - yes, this is so. I personally think that this is a bit extreme, almost "every sperm is sacred" extreme.
On an unrelated note, I find it ironic that the same people who claim that abortion at day 3 is criminal are often pro-death penalty.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
... and the inexorable march of science continues unabated. This is a significant breakthrough, if not a huge step forward, in the process, and there will probably be another within 12-18 months, and so on. FWIW, I think the most positive aspect of this is that it will bring bioresearch back into the public eye, and will hopefully foster intelligent, measured discussion on the obvious benefits and admitted drawbacks to all forms of new technology, bio, nano, or otherwise. As the proliferation of nuclear technology (now 60 years old) has shown, technology will out, despite all attempts to contain it. Therefore, we need to be discussing the ethics and ramifications of said technology well before it becomes public domain. Note that I'm not advocating the containment of technology -- heaven forbid! I'm merely suggesting that we're not yet ready to deal with these issues as a nation or as a race, and the time to begin thinking about them is sooner rather than later.
Another first for a non-US scientific achievement. Another reason for bigots here to feel sad.
I, for one, welcome our new clone overlords.
Stem cell technology has the potential to save millions of lives. Clearly, we need to issue bans on it.
because this is hardly a first, last edition of WIRED wrote all about it.
--jordan
What are the chances that when I get older I'll need to go overseas for a one of these new transplants (Now rejection free! Two kidneys for price of one!) because the US has banned all stem cell research and related items.
--- Ban humanity.
Can we clone some pretty girls to make supply so high to make them available for geeks too?
SHE does throw dice.
Richard Nixons head and Richard Nixons head!
eeeewwwwww
Worse than the first livestock cloning rates. Thats probably why success hasnt been reported before.
US labs suffer from high human egg costs. The going rate is about $4,000 per donor. It would cost a megabuck just for the egg cells.
Everyone has been posting that they didn't clone a human. No they didn't clone a human but the embryo grew well enough in a petry dish to suggest that if they did not extract the stem cells they could have cloned a human. Laws in South Korea allows them to create stem cells in this way but they are not allowed to clone an entire human. In the United States none of this is allowed and for a long time there have been discussions to make the laws more like South Korea (cloning of full humans not allowed but this research in cloning embryos and stuff like that is.)
Anyway, yeah the title is misleading BUT the scientists believe they could have cloned a human.
Please! It's the only way a guy like me will ever get laid.
I am ready to make a down payment RIGHT NOW!
I clone human cells all the time, my body does it for me, its called cell mitosis!
Opponents of cloning fear the development will lead to cloned babies.
What if it does? So what? Clone me anytime. All it means is that there will be another guy who looks just like me walking around. Will the clone think and act like me? Fuck no; the people who think cloned genes will equal a cloned mind are the types who worry about cloned little Hitlers running around. Don't place your faith in Hollywood movies to show you what cloning is all about.
Cloned people are not any less human than "naturally born" people. What makes a human is intellect, not just how one was born.
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
They transplated the nucleus of a somatic cell into an egg, cultured it to the blastocyst stage, then extracted the stem cells from them. In what sense does that not involve a cloned embryo? If they had implanted the egg into a uterus instead of extracting the stem cells it would have developed into a more or less normal human.
We already have stem cell lines that are actively being cultivated. By cloning to get stem cells you just get all the religious zealots even more worked up. Use the cell lines that are there instead of creating more and the great research that is being done can continue without people freaking out about it.
More info on stem cells
"A South Korean-led research team has cloned human embryos"
"To make the stem cells, the team placed a human skin cells into hollowed-out eggs and treated them with chemicals to start cell division, creating an embryo. After five to six days of cell division, the embryonic stem cells were collected, destroying the embryos."
Pretty clear - they DID clone embryos, then killed them.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
An embryo is "In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development."
Late term abortions are performed on the fetus, and are not done in the first 8 weeks.
That is why they are called "late term".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Can't you get stem cells from liposuction or the roots of human hair and then not have to deal with all the messy ethical issues?
Especially when editors misrepresent the story with a sensational headline.
These scientists made stem cells, not a human being. Stop trolling, editors!
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
You must have me confused with another anonymous coward. I have no sister, and my mother died during childbirth.
The article makes it quite clear, from the very first sentence, that they DID clone embryos.
"South Korean-led research team has cloned human embryos to produce embryonic stem cells"
"To make the stem cells, the team placed a human skin cells into hollowed-out eggs and treated them with chemicals to start cell division, creating an embryo. After five to six days of cell division, the embryonic stem cells were collected, destroying the embryos." emphasis added.
Which part of "cloned human embryos" and "creating an embryo" confused you?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Group A: Primarily Christians and other Religious groups. Are against Cloning for the above reasons. Becuase God's against it.
Group B: Us heathens who believe otherwise, those who hope to benefit medically from the research and sadly those who want to make a profit.
So for some reason in America Group A can get laws passed to ban the research. However isnt religious oppression illegal in the US? So why dont the lawyers that represent those companies fight it on grounds of religious oppression?
Is such a measurement not a good comprimise? It isn't based on religion or politics, but instead on science. Seems objective if you ask me.
It may be scientific, but it sure is arbitrary. We can also determine if someone is human or not based on their skin color. Why not?
OT: Please use meaningful article titles. I saw this article on news sites yesterday but I clicked the link because I thought this was something different. This isn't tabloid journalism.
Man, we have some cranky moderators today. Remember the Raelians?
... if anyone's cloned a chicken yet, but you're one sick bastard.
The obligatory The Onion article:
Mexican Scientists Perfect Copying
What if you clone yourself and genetically modify the DNA to make it a member of the opposite sex, apply some rapid growth and then have sex with it, does that count as masturbation or incest ??
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Your subject is "I for one...", but there is no mention of "overlords". You disappointed me greatly.
Slipper slope fallacy - actually, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Therapeutic cloning can be done without us having to do reproductive cloning.
"In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning."
False Dillema fallacy. Kass is saying that we either completely ban all cloning, or we'd have to deal with and accept all types of cloning. In actuality, we can allow cloning for therapeutic purposes(you know, to save lives), while disallowing, or greatly limiting it for reproductive purposes(eg allow it for people who have no other way to reproduce, but disallow it for people who want to clone a legion of duplicates to satisfy their vanity/megalomaniacal ambitions).
Yes, but unless they have also conquered the problem with Telomeres, the resulting human would at best have a greatly shortened lifespan, and may have all sorts of other problems.
I have mixed feelings on this one. The method they have used provides a viable alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells and at the same time looks like an answer to the problem of rejection. Aside from the "we shouldn't clone" argument, I think the only other complaint is the use (and destruction) of the egg cell. While this may seem trivial to many, there are some people who will still be very upset by it.
Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue? I would think this would solve both the rejection AND Telomeres problems, as presumably these cells would have lain dormant and not used up their life cycle like other cells in the body.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Cloning, when promoted, is generally seen as a technology that could have research or medical therepeutic value, more rarely as one could allow infertile parents to have children that are genetically their own. That's not to say that I agree with human cloning (I'm not sure, and would lean towards against), but 'there are enough people in the world' is not all there is to the argument by a long shot. Look at IVF - it's not exactly producing people by the billions, but rather helping a small percentage of infertile couples.
Not necessarily. Just because it was healthy enough to produce stem cells (of yet untested quality), does not mean it could have developed into a healthy human, or anything resembling a human.
my dream can become a reality
Oh, sorry, I forgot.
"Count every vote" only matters when the general populace agrees with liberal/progressive/leftist positions. See "The people have spoken. The bastards." where the English populace overwhelmingly supports the right to use guns to defend your home. (And the link I provide has some interesting and rather amusing BBC attempts at spinning the results - of course, the Beeb never even tries to spin this , which they probably hope would just disappear....)
Or, as Bill Clinton said on Jan 20, 1999 when talking about tax cuts and the budget surplus:
So the question is, what do we do with it [the surplus]? We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But I think -- here's the problem -- if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen...
Great. Bill Clinton thinks he knows better than me what's the "right" way to spend my money.
The "We know what's best for your" arrogant air of moral superiority coming from the left these days is sickening.
But I still oppose abortion (all cases) . I don't oppose cloning - but I do oppose treating cloned humans as convenient cell farms.
Why? Because I think humans and human life has value- in and of itself. That value isn't increased or decreased by the existence (or not) of a God- or even several Gods.
If you don't believe that then I can understand you supporting abortion and cloning embryos for their cells (but you're wrong). If that is your stance then I would assume that if you are consistent that you must oppose Murder being a crime?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
is that a story like this immediately transforms itself in the minds of some very ignorant people, into: Scientists are now able to create fully adult genetic and mental duplicates of me, who will look, talk, and act just like me, sleep with my wife and take over my life just like in The Sixth Day, and furthermore they will all be abominations in the eyes of God!! The reality of what's possible with cloning is far more mundane than our sci-fi nightmares, but the general public rarely concerns itself with the differences. Lets see:
Sci-Fi | Real Life
Genetic duplicate | Check
Adult | Baby
Same memories | No memories
Same personality | Somewhat similar personality
Steals my identity | WTF?
JC wouldn't like it | You are an idiot
Are we supposed to just wait around diseased and dying contently?
Also, it's still rather uncertain how versatile cord stem cells are compared to embryonic stem cells.
I would like to suggest someone clone Rasterman....maybe E 17 would get done
I, for one, welcome our new South Korean embryonic stem cell cloning overlords.
Seriously, if there were multiple instances of me, we could all take turns going to work, it'd be just like when Calvin and Hobbes built a Duplicator and Calvin had enough replicas that each one needed to go to school just one day a week.....
Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
Just to be precise I'll reply to my own post :)
The point above was about cloning with a breathing human as a result.
On the topic of cloning just cells I'm not sure what my opinions are. But I still think it's an ethical debate and not an religious debate. And it needs a lot more discussion before we can just let anyone play around with it.
Also see this same definition of "embryo" at this NIH site. These scientists did not create an embryo, clone an embryo, or even interact with an embryo in any way. We have no technology to do that... we'd have to create a fake womb... which is impossible for us right now.
As if Koreans weren't identical enough already.
Is a tadpole a frog IYO?
An unhappy clone hunts down with intent to kill the scientist that created him. See the dramatic conclusion in tonights episode of "Clone Stalker".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
How is this an alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells? This _is_ an aborted embryo (albeit in vitro, but the adults from in vitro embryos seem perfectly normal).
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
That's an interesting point regarding the fat cells - I hadn't heard anything about using them for cloning. Thanks for the info!
"If scientists don't play god, who will?"
For those of you who don't know who James Watson is; he is the co-discover of DNA.
That is all. Discuss.
Note that the definition of "embryo" is a fertilized egg after it has implanted in the womb. That is after weeks of development. These scientists did not create an embryo. Even if they call it an embryo (or the article cited above does), the fact is they admit they let it develop for only 5 or 6 days. At best that could be called a zygote or a blastocyst. And even if they let it develop for weeks (about the same amount of time before implantation would normally occur and it would be called an "embryo") it still wouldn't technically be an embryo since it wasn't implanted in the womb.
The womb is so important here, because we can't replicate it in a lab. And the womb is necessary for an embryo to exist and develop further into the child that will be born, breath air (instead of fluid), etc. That is why the womb is such an amazing creation, and why Christians emphasize the Bible's references to life existing in the womb in their quest against abortion. If scientists can ever replicate the womb (and they are *very, very* far from being able to do that) we'll need to have this debate in reference to cloning over whether or not embryo's are human.
For now... all they've done is harvest some stem cells.
An argument for this technology strictly from the perspective that it "could save lives" is a weak argument. The human research conducted by Nazi Germany could "save lives". Shoving hot spikes in people's toenails would no doubt teach us alot about pain and perhaps lead to better pain relievers.
Fortunately, most people- even those who deny it-have some sort of moral sense prohibiting the logical conclusion of "anything in the name of science", or more broadly "the ends justify the means".
This argument also has the very un-scientific assumption that the hypothesis is correct. This technology could cost lives. This research could prevent funding on research into umbilical cord stem cells. So the person who says it should be done because it "could save lives" has actually already made up their mind that it will, and refuses to consider any other possibilities.
The question then is not whether this technology can save lives, but whether it is ethical to procede in this fashion. Here, the core issue is when life begins. If it begins at the zygote stage, then this technology is murdering for scientific gain. The trouble is, there is no clear-cut way of drawing that line- is it when the organism is self aware? Then abortion should be acceptable several months- even years- after birth. Is it when heart activity starts? The problem with this is that we know a person may be alive and recussitated for several minutes after his heart has stopped. Brain activity? Then maybe those with less brain activity- Alzheimer's patients, mentally ill etc.- should be killed as well, since their life is of less value by that criteria.
No, the only logical point to say life has started is at the very beginning. Researchers have the unique challenge of finding ways to enhance human life without taking or harming it. Granted this can be difficult, but I have confidence that people can work within ethical limits and still find honorable ways to do the things they are now trying to do through cloning and abortion.
Geez. Last night Mimi gets a Carey clinging to her walls, and today, a skin cell turns into an embryo.
I am so behind the curve.
It is an alternative. No abortion needed. Also, because they demonstrated cloning, it opens up the possibility of transplanting into seriously ill people tissues that are genetically their own. No rejection. No lifetime of immuno-suppressant drugs.
No, it is not an aborted embryo, as it never implanted in a uterus.
Just how is this different to the human that was cloned around Christmas 2003 by the cult?
If we've only cloned stem cells this time, it's not exactly exciting news is it?
It appears this is the first time stem cells have been taken from a human clone, not the first time a human has been cloned. Wired magazine had a cover story recently of a human clone reaching the 16 cell stage, just no stem cells were taken.
Also, there's other layers of complexity in getting the cloned cells to survive long enough to grow into an ebryo and then into a full person. It doesn't appear anyone has tried this yet, or if they have they haven't published anything about it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue?
From fat tissue? At last, jobs will go back to Americans!
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Equating what is essentially incest with homosexuality DOES fit your definition.
Ooooh, get her!
I predict that in 18 years, the first porn film will be made with over 100 Korean twin lesbian sisters. I also predict that it will be popular, strangely enough
Get your own free personal location tracker
It's not quite the same thing, although some of the same arguments are valid. In this case, there was no "conception" that took place, not even in vitro. In vitro fertilization involves the introduction of sperm to egg outside of the woman's body. However, for this project, they took an egg, removed the nucleus, and replaced it with the genetic material of skin cells (presumably from an adult, but that wasn't clear). Although this could presumably grown into a functional human, I think there would be longevity problems because the amino acid sequences that control cell division (Telomeres) would be greatly shortened and cell arrest would take place much sooner.
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
Good point. The difference is that the cells destroyed monthly would be considered "natural" whereas the cloning process is "unnatural". For many, this is probably unimportant, but there are some who possess religious or philosophical beliefs that would greatly oppose this. It's something we have to at least be sensitive to, even if we don't agree with their viewpoint.
That's an interesting point regarding the fat cells - I hadn't heard anything about using them for cloning. Thanks for the info!
Glad I could provide some information. If you're interested, here's an article about it.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
After exploreing this issue it's become clear to me that the exact moment when life begins is unclear at best. A fetus may or may not be human. Were just not sure. If where not sure then there's a chance it may be a human life. If there's a chance of it being a human life, is it right for us to gamble with it? We enact all kinds of laws to protect children from things that might harm them. Shouldn't abortion be treated the same way, as a potental threat, until we have definitive proof as to when life begins?
It so funny! It make me laugh!
Hello, this person is speaking out their ass. This is not informative. There is no reliable scientific basis to demonstrate that cloned cells have substantially different telomeres from other cells. There are plenty of ASSUMPTIONS that this might be true by those who are against cloning, but there is no hard proof. It was also assumed that stem cell transplants would cause cancer and that has not been found to be the case at all.
Thanks for the laugh. I'm having a stressful day and I needed it. The only problem is that the whole advantage of cultivating from fat tissue is that you can generate your own stem cells. If you use somebody else's stem cells, you have to deal with the rejection problem. So, unfortunately, it's not likely I'll have a new career donating fat. Although, I have plenty to spare at the moment. I'd be happy to donate it for research.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
now we have a situation where instead of the jocks, actors, musicians, etc. will have there pick of 200 instead of 100, and since there are no "average girls", geeks will have a choice of ZERO. This will overwhelm the gene pool with humans of less than stellar intelligence, and whom are only interested in there popularity. In turn the Average IQ of the human race will start to decline to a point where Apes rule the world and humans can no longer speak.
After Millenia of Fighting, Apes and humans will unleash a scourge of death and destruction upon the earth, using remnants of nuclear and biological weapons left over from the 20th - 22nd centuries. Resulting in the Total Annihilation of life as we know it (Except cockroaches).
HAVE A NICE DAY.
~~~
I'm pretty sure they already cleared up the issue with telomeres. The problem resulted from using cells at the end of their division cycle (50 divisions) so that it wasn't active when they tore the nucleus out. It's been found though that the nucleus can be taken out at the beginning of this cycle resulting in an interesting phenomenon where the cloned cell then gets extra telomeres and is potentially superior to the original.
How funny would it be to clone JC?
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
Would a cloned human being have a soul?
maybe soon we will be able to grow entire humans, let them develop over time, and harvest their organs and other useful body parts.
clones dont have souls!
wheeeeeeee!
Humans have been cloned for a long time now. Just looked that the Democratic Presidential candidates.
http://rupertzone.net
Pig-human chimeras contain cell surprise...at New Scientist...here:
9 94558
...The injections must be given after the body plan of the fetus has developed, but before the immune system is active. The former ensures the animals look like normal pigs and sheep....
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
Pigs grown from fetuses into which human stem cells were injected have surprised scientists by having cells in which the DNA from the two species is mixed at the most intimate level.
It is the first time such fused cells have been seen in living creatures. The discovery could have serious implications for xenotransplantation - the use of animal tissue and organs in humans - and even the origin of diseases such as HIV.
The adult pigs that had received human stem cells as fetuses were found to have pig cells, human cells and the hybrid cells in their blood and organs.
"What we found was completely unexpected. We found that the human and pig cells had totally fused in the animals' bodies," said Jeffrey Platt, director of the Mayo Clinic Transplantation Biology Program.
The hybrid cells had both human and pig surface markers. But, most surprisingly, the hybrid cell nuclei were found to have chromosomal DNA that contained both human and pig genes. The researchers found that about 60 per cent of the animals' non-pig cells were hybrids, with the remainder being fully human.
I CANNOT believe that these animals looked like "normal" pigs. If the Pig and Human nuclear DNA mixed, and the animal was 60% percent human, one would think that the animals were more human than pig.
Cloning isn't so bad when compared to an experiment like this gone awry.
Yeah, I just got done reading an article on that, but I couldn't glean any information speculating on why this is the case. Maybe one of the chemicals used to start cell division was telomerase? Any ideas?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
"No, it is not an aborted embryo, as it never implanted in a uterus."
Now you're just arguing over semantics... It all depends on your definition of abortion (and embryo, for that matter).
Every sperm is sacred, eh?
That's the problem bud, where's the beginning? I say it's not before your capable of thinking, a prerequisite for which is nervous cells, of which these embryos have none
Considering that an embryo is the beginning stage of a human being, there is a moral question of using embrionic stem cells for research. We are literally creating humans for harvest(TM).
Adult stem cells, OTOH, have no such moral dilemna, and they have a much greater potential, because:
- Adult stem cells can be extracted from the patient directly, and match the patient's own DNA. There is no risk of the body rejecting a cure using adult stem cells. Embrionic stem cells, OTOH, can never exactly match the patient's DNA.
- Doctors have already successfully treated diseases such as Parkinson's using adult stem cells in clinical trials.
The truly ironic thing is that embrionic stem cell researchers are hoping someday to find cures for diseases that are already being treated with adult stem cells.Wake up. It has nothing to do with genuine research and everything to do with politics. The far left has a political motive for using embrionic stem cells. The left fears an "overpopulation crisis" - that is, a situation in which the world's wealth is no longer concentrated in the hands of the elite. The idea is that "other" people use up precious resources that could otherwise be owned by the elite. The idea is to keep the fertility of the underclasses to a minimum, so that they can never gain political control and upset the balance of power. One way to do this is to keep them from having children. Birth control was the first step; this is the next. If a cure for a debilitating disease is found in embrionic stem cells, then the powers that be could justify sterilizing the women of the underclass for the sake of treating the diseases of the elite. Of course, the destitute woman would be willing to sell her eggs for the sake of curing disease, right? Of course, the poor could not afford said treatment, but that doesn't really matter, right? The end result is the same - the elite get a cure for their disease, while securing their position in society, all at the expense of the underclass.
Now how moral is that?
Note, it's the Republicans who are against embrionic stem cell research. For a party that has been tarred and feathered as the Big Business Party, they seem rather docile when it comes to protecting the big business of embrionic stem cell research. Just something to think about.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Just remember...
God has prior art on this.
For problems, seek only the simplest solution, complexity brings with it more problems.
This has gotta be a hoax. Or do you have to be Korean to understand that [Dr.] Woo Suk Hwang is pronounced "You suck wang?"
It wasn't you, but micheal "sensationalism sells" who gave the story that ridiculous title. When I read it (the headline) I assumed it was just another bunch of wack-jobs like the Ralians again, but in fact this really has nothing to do with actual human cloning except in the eyes of crazy fundies like Bush.
/. Has so many intelligent posters, and the site does nothing but ignore them. Checkout the diary section on a site like dailykos (warning, hard-core leftism) and you'll see one way that posters can really help make a site work.
Which brings me to a central complaint I have about Slashdot.
There are lots of things Slashdot could do, like allowing people to fact-check a submission (like kuro5hin's edit queue before vote queue), and so many others that could really make this site something special.
But for whatever reason (either out of shear laziness or some kind of desire to maintain power for themselves) the people who run Slashdot have no interest in using the community as anything other then tools to filter comments. Which really sucks, since it seems that those people mostly fall into about the bottom 1/3rd intelligence/knowlageablility bracket of posters on here.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I attended a lecture by a big-wig stem cell researcher (sorry, don't recall his name) at my University a few months back, and he addressed the topic of getting stem cells from adult tissues.
He said that the stem cell research community was initially very excited about this line of research when it first made headlines, because it could allow the same research without the ethical issues connected to embryo's.
Unfortunately, though early results looked promising, subsequent investigations cast doubt on how useful adult-derived stem cells would be compared to the unlimited pluripotential of embryonic stem cells to turn into other cell therapeutic cell types.
Also unfortunately, the prospect of using adult stem cells in place of embryonic stem cells is still ceased upon by opponents of embryonic stem research to win over those who don't know the science, and to cast the scientists as being unethical in the face of perfect alternatives. But the science doesn't back this position up.
see subject.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Tell me about it... it's like a horror movie:
The Baby-Boomers That Wouldn't Die!
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Using the stastics that 0.4% incidence of identical twins.
They all look alike, especially in the north.
I have seen this, and it always brings tears to my eyes. Now, with these solutions so close, yet banned by the selfish ignorance of others, it stirs deep anger within me for those who would do this to children.
Most of us on here agree that OSS is a very important issue. But even it is dwarfed by the importance of this issue. The sanctity of human life, a child's life. The ending of the suffering of millions. Hundreds of millions of suffering people regaining the ability to lead a normal life and be like most moms, dads and children.
Yes, the individuals denying this research do not raise their hands directly to do harm, but they enforce the continuation of harm, suffering and death by not allowing this hope to be researched. It is like a Mafia Don who does not pull the trigger, but gave the order. Do you really think a pacemaker is a good alternative to a healthy heart? A syringe to healthy islet cells? Paralyzation to a working nervous system?
If religious belief is your answer to denying this, I challenge you to post where in what Bible (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, whatever) it is written anywhere that talks about anything like this. I have never seen it written or heard of it written. I have only heard people in power use it to whip up their flock to action on something else they tie to it.
Ignorance is not an excuse for violence, in God's eyes, whether it be passive or active!
links to sites with further information World Health Organization Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Bitchy, or what?
Fine. It's not an aborted fetus. It's a roast beef sandwich. If you disagree, you're just arguing over semantics. It all depends on your definition of roast beef (and sanwich, for that matter).
The Triad of Evil is hard at work doing evil things....like engaging in medical research that could replace many modern treatments with solid cures, and thus reduce the medical industry's long-term income potential.
Evil....EVIL.....
welcome our... stem cell overlords.
Look at all the difficulties scientists have in preventing genetically modified crops from interbreeding with neighboring crops. That's with plants; preventing humans from interbreeding will be much more difficult. Plants don't move, aren't sexually active all the time, and don't actively resist you when you tell them with whom they can reproduce. Humans do all of those things. The only way to create a genetically modified class would be to make it impossible to pass on those genes with something like Monsanto's heavily protested Terminator gene technology. Specific issues like the Terminator gene are ideas to worry about instead of having needless fears about all types of genetic modification.
... then what's the point of cloning humans?
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
And what of miscarriages where the woman's immune system attacks embryos and aborts the fetus? Should we charge the mother with murder?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
"The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today, cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for babymaking," Dr. Kass wrote in an e-mail message. "In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning."
The Shrub and his right-wing religious fundamentalists appear to be insistent on offshoring our genetics lead. If this Luddite behavior keeps up, we'll be like Irish citizens who have to take a trip to England for an aborition without getting arrested. But, in this case, it'll be to send our aging parents to get a new lung, liver, kidney, spinal-cord repair, brain tissue repair, ocular replacements...etc. I wonder where all the exciting medical treatments and research of the future will be held, in the U.S., or in countries who were technically behind us only a few decades ago?
= 9J =
Cloning is like prostitution. Moral or not, legal or not, people are going to do it and get paid for it. The question is whether we want an open, regulated industry or an underground one.
This was mainly the work of an American university scientist.
I dont mind who does the work.. american or not. I am glad its being done.
In the same tone you suggest, Germans should have a lot to boast about. Their rocketry put man on the moon and evolved into icbms. Their auto bahn is replicated world over, mainly in the US. Now their paranoia seems to be imitated by their ex-rivals, france.
Wish I had a few mod points to burn. :) The psuedo-scientific moralistic pontificating of the grandparent shouldn't get +5 insightful while the rebuttal which reveals it as pure nonsense fueled by pure ignorance languishes at 1.
Biology is beautiful, especially human biology. I wish those who believe it is all God's creation would take the time to learn a little more about it. Seems only logical to take the time to understand and appreciate the inner workings of what a religious nut must believe is God's most perfect creation.
Literally.
It's a conspiracy! Like in the X-Files! This little clone could be the damn dirty liberal responsible for the fall of the human race! In this world gone mad, we won't spank the liberal, the liberal will spank us! And after our fall these liberal fucks will start wearing our clothes and they'll remake the world in their own image! Oh, then only those as super-smart as me will be left to bitterly cry, "You maniacs! Damn yous! God damn yous all to hell!"
DUUM BUUM BUUUUUUUUM!
Popular science ran an interesting article a while ago linked here, where a doctor at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research found stem cells in her childs baby teeth. While this would limit the possibilities for "rejection free transplants", it doesn't have any real moral repercussions and would provide a way of obtaining stem cells for research purposes. As for the cloning aspect to obtain stem cells, I believe that when one views human life to be so cheap that it can be grown in a tube and thrown away at will for the sake of harvesting a few cells, it has far greater ramifications into many other views and attitudes that society adopts. Just some food for thought.
Eggs alone are not fertilized, just like sperm. Are you going to charge every man to ejaculates with murder? Even during sex, there's no way that every single sperm will be used to fertilize an egg.
And you do realize that the eggs that they used didn't even have their original contents, right? They were the contents of ordinary adult cells. So which one has the essence of life in it? If it's the adult cells that the genetic material came from, then every time you cut yourself you're committing mass murder. Thousands of potential human being just die.
Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
Hmm... well I've seen lots of babies, and not one of them was a single cell. To call an ovum with a skin cell nucleus in it (or even a blastocyst) a "baby" is a logical leap I cannot join you on.
Maybe you should run for Governor of Texas.
Helium balloons want to be free.
I want 10 clones and make them do various things I have to do in everyday life. Cook, wash dishes, do laundry, do grocery shopping, go to work, find females etc.
I will be the one who blows the pay check and screws the chicks my clones rope in.
*evil laugh* bahahawhhwahwhawhawhwah
"I want 10 clones and make them do various things I have to do in everyday life. Cook, wash dishes, do laundry, do grocery shopping, go to work, find females etc."
Why find the females? With just a little tinkering, you can have 10 female clones.
The definition of roast beef is not a contraversal issue. There is no real arguement for the clump of cells in question to be roast beef, there are however arguements both for and against it being an embryo.
It's a legitimate fear, but I think the elements in the US that are for business and for keeping our edge technologically will keep the US for banning stem-cell research. There's no way to avoid the fact that stem cells are an enourmous part of the future of medicine.
An example of this is Bush's partial ban on stem cell research. Being fairly religious, he probably wanted to ban it completely, but he just couldn't do it. He had to leave a loop-hole. Bush seems to be at the upper limit of the presidents-with-religious-convictions range. Every few years there will be pressure to open the doors to more research.
It might be true that, when you are older, you want to go to South Korea to get transplants because South Korean hospitals are better at it, but that's just going to be the result of having good competitors. I doubt the US is going to fall completely out of the race.
Can't say for sure, tho.
Hehe.. cloning is kinda like that innit?
Why was my comment modded Troll? Some people totally lack a sense of humor! My comment was tongue-and-cheek, yet at the same time pointed to convey scientific fact. Geez, makes me wonder...
Wow. Sounds like you could create a new X-men (urr X-man?). He could be named Stinkoman!
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
We do have a Jon 2.0... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/02/01/offbeat.b aby.version2.0.ap/
How many asses did the embryos have?
Are you sure it's incest, and not masturbation?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Err... isn't the whole point of this "marriage amendment" to the Constitution the assumption that the "right" (at least, the conservative homophobic portion of it) knows what's right for America
...and Clinton and Kerry.
Staunch left-wingers like Clinton and Kerry oppose gay marriage. Clinton even signed the "Defense of Marriage Act".
Don't paint this as part of the fringe: like or or not, opposition to homosexual marriage is mainstream.
Any political group that has Rush Limbaugh regularly espousing its views
From the wired article:
In their fourth and most successful protocol, the researchers got 19 of 66 cloned eggs to develop into blastocysts -- the embryonic stage when it becomes possible to derive stem cells.
This is actually astounding success if others are able to duplicate their process.
Feels like I'm lookin' in the mirror What would people say If only they knew that I was
Part of some geneticist's plan (plan-plan-plan) Born to be a carbon copy man (man-man-man) There in a petri dish late one night They took a donor's body cell and fertilized a human egg and so I say
I think I'm a clone now There's always two of me just a-hangin' around I think I'm a clone now 'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down
Look at the way We go out walking close together I guess you could say I'm really beside myself
I still remember how it began (gan-gan-gan) They produced a carbon copy man (man-man-man) Born in a science lab late one night Without a mother or a father, just a test tube and a womb with a view
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) There's always two of me just a-hangin' around I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) 'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) And I can stay at home while I'm out of town I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) 'Cause every pair of genes is a hand-me-down
Signing autographs for my fans Come and meet the carbon copy man Livin' in stereo, it's all right Well I can be my own best friend and I can send myself for pizza so I say
I think I'm a clone now Another one of me's always hangin' around I think I'm a clone now 'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) I've been on Oprah Winfrey - I'm world renowned I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) And every pair of genes is a hand-me-down
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) That's my genetic twin always hangin' around I think I'm a clone now (a clone now) 'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
[ www.azlyrics.com ]
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
They believe "Life begin at conception".
Since cloning don't involve conception at all, there should be no problem right?
OTOH, how come a lot of people again abortion also against cloning???
IMHO, the idea of "Life begin at conception" is dead! Anyone have better idea?
You're engaging in a clasic fallacy of composition. Study a biology book on sexual reproduction. At the point where the gametes fuse, a new member of the species is created. The fact that it doesn't LOOK the same at a later stage of development doesn't change the fact of its biological identity.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The ability to clone humans is way overrated. It implies nothing, there is no moral dilemna here; even if you could exactly clone someone, they would be a separate person. A person is his DNA plus the sum of his experience; without that experience, you might look the same, but you wouldn't be the same.
Why would I care?
I'm not trolling, I'm a middle aged guy who is usually "sensitive" to stuff like this, and I can't see any issues here.
Seems mostly like a way to stir up certain religions.
I mean, she's cute, but she seems a little emaciated. Look at that neck; its like a chicken neck going on there. Cute face, but cute faces are really a dime a dozen. Its like those cuties on "Wild on!". Cute, but if it wasn't for their asses, they'd be picking beans in a field somewhere.
Women with a little muscle are a lot more attractive. Plus, after seeing the girl on TV, she's lazy and annoying. Nobody's that good in the sack to justify that kind of crap.
Well, I was being facetious, but I don't think te fallacy is mine. To call an entity a "baby" it needs to haave the attribute of a baby, which a single cell or even a blastocyst does not. It contains in its DNA part of the recipe for making a baby, but this is not a baby.
Helium balloons want to be free.
I still disagree, most especially from the ethical perspective (I actually suspect you agree with me on the ethical perspective, but your first post appeared to be making the opposite point).
It was an embryo - I don't think you will contest that. Its process of maturation was aborted. Ergo it was an aborted embryo. I agree that its long term viability was in question, but I don't think the ethics of killing something should have much to do with the fact that it was going to die anyway (isn't everything?).
Personally, I can't see how there could be any sane non-religious issue with aborting an embryo that is less sentient than a goldfish, but I think that point stands aside from establishing the ethical equivalent of killing a clone that could have become a human baby and killing a 'normal' embryo that could have become a human baby. I think inserting ethical ambiguity there is a big mistake. They are the same.
Um, not exactly. In fact, I'd be very surprised if it survived past a few more cell divisions. Last I heard, it was virtually impossible to clone primates due to a lack of mitotic-spindle apparatus in the transferred nucleus. (see here)
Having said that, from what the article said it seems they've found a way around that somehow. I'd wait until it's had some proper peer review before I believed it, though.
The title should read "Korean Scientists Kill 30 Children to Advance Research". Each of us began life as a fertilized egg. We advanced through the normal stages of development until we could live outside of our mothers. (And we were still quite reliant on our parents for our survival for a good while after that.) These were human lives that were taken; lives of innocent children. Genetically human is human. Why can't we see that?
And don't give me the argument about the thousands of suffering people who are waiting for transplants. Their admittedly heart-breaking predicaments do not justify the taking of a single child's life. To do so would be barbaric. That's why advocates of research cloning have to sugar-coat the language they use when they discuss this topic. They're not children or babies. They're "embryos" or "blastocysts." They're still human, and they still rely on us for their survival.
What really gets me is that we need laws to tell us that killing children is wrong. I'm reminded of a quote:
I know that Dr. King had a different topic in mind when he said this, but I also think that this quote may be very appropriately applied to many men and women today who are misguided with respect to the basic rights of unborn humans. I'll say it again: Genetically human is human.-- Jeff Clough, Humble Programmer
In fact, if I remember correctly, some species' telomeres actually lengthen after cloning.
First off, DNA evidence is based on bodily fluids which will still have the persons real DNA. Secondly, DNA evidence can only be legitimately used to clear the innocent, not prove guilt. DNA tests are not 100% identifying, but can be used to say that a particular sample does not match. This is a very important distinction when the population is large, which, in fact, it is.
Thus even if part of your cloned kidney somehow ended up at a crime scene, it would only fail to remove you from the pool of suspects. Other correlating evidence would be needed to establish guilt.
Every woman who was ever born disposes of an egg cell every 28 days. It's a natural occurance, like breathing.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
... but that number doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Are you sure about that number? 100,000 eggs means 100,000 months (roughly), or about 8333 years!!
I'm no doctor
I don't know why that would be, except that cells are tiny and the resources to produce 300k of them (or 2 million; read the referenced link) probably don't amount to much.
The problem isn't really with the Telemeres per se, as the telomere knockout mice don't show a shortened life span in the 1st generation. The problem with cloning from ES cells is that the imprinted genes are all misregulated (here for the details http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/552 7/95)
Basically, imprinting is the process by which the parents can pass down traits to their progeny through modification of the DNA itself without changing the actual sequence. This mode of inheritance is deemed epigenetic. We know very little about how epigenetic modifications happen or exactly how they control gene expression. Aside from all of the moral blather, this fact alone should keep us from even thinking about cloning humans.
Are you aware that the tone of your argument ranks you right up there with the bigots and racists? Don't take this as an insult. I'm just pointing it out to you. Regarding religious beliefs, just because their belief system isn't the same as yours doesn't mean they are ignorant. You may find that some people who have different beliefs than you share your knowledge on many topics and still disagree with you. Regarding the killing of women, I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Now, if a group of people is going around killing researchers because they disagree with the ethics of the researchers, the comparison becomes fair.
I would say that being 'sensitive' to something is just another way of saying that you support it, at least on some level.
No. Being sensitive means that you've listened to other viewpoints and are aware of how others feel. It doesn't mean you agree, but it may impact how you deal with dissenters. Not being sensitive to the feelings and beliefs of others is, oddly enough, a form of bigotry in itself.
are you saying that there is some group out there who specifically says that humans shouldnt use anything that comes out of a woman, or a man, for any purpose other than what... natural sex?
Are you aware that some of the more strict Catholic orders do not allow any form of contraception? Based on this, I wouldn't be too surprised to see people opposed to any use of the reproductive system for anything besides natural sex and reproduction.
they already harvest eggs and sperm for use in other people. how is this different?
There are already groups of people who are against this.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
By that same logic, isn't every cell's nucleus a person? When placed in the right environment, it could develop into a person. Should I start nurturing my hangnails? They contain just as much 'divine fire,' just as much DNA (more?), than sperm or egg cells.
Also, when you come on so strong, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. One "insensitive clod" would have put you over the line.
Prostitution is like murder. Moral or not, legal or not, people are going to do it and sometimes get paid for it. The question is whether we want an open, regulated industry or an underground one.
I'm haven't completely made up my mind yet. I probably agree with you, but I'm still waiting for this to filter through my value system. I'm also looking at what others have to say to see what viewpoints I may have missed.... such as your argument below....
It was an embryo - I don't think you will contest that. Its process of maturation was aborted. Ergo it was an aborted embryo. I agree that its long term viability was in question, but I don't think the ethics of killing something should have much to do with the fact that it was going to die anyway (isn't everything?).
I hadn't considered it this way. Thanks for providing another perspective.
I think inserting ethical ambiguity there is a big mistake. They are the same.
After reading your argument above, I agree with you.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Your mantra - genetically human is human - is too simple. For example, many different types of human cells are cultured in labs all around the world. They are derived from adult humans... every type of cell from neurons to muscle cells to adult stem cells. One of the first such cell lines ever made, HeLa, is actually named for Helen Lang, the person from whom the original cell came. All these cells are as genetically human as any cell of a similar type in your body or mine. I feel no remorse when, in the course of my research, I bleach a plate of them and kill several million of them. Scientists DO draw a distinction between a single cell, an embryo, and a child. They represent very different points on the developmental pathway, and therefore cannot be treated as equivalent. Whether you think cloning is right or wrong, you shouldn't oversimplify the situation.
How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?
Wow, your sig is perfectly on-topic!
---- Just another spud server.
FYI, the January 2004 issue of Wired magazine has an interesting article about research cloning. The author follows a couple of geneticists at Advanced Cell Technology as they perform all the steps of research cloning and the results. In fact, the article seems to indicate that ACT may have been quicker at successful extraction of stem cells from a cloned human blastocyst. There is a short interview with one of the geneticists about the ethics of therapeutic cloning. Well worth reading. Look for the issue with the bright red cover - you can't miss it.
I destroy 20 times more sperm cells than that each weekday and 40 times more on the weekends.
For obvious reasons, this will be posted AC.
You will, however, have an excellent source of cells for yourself when your extra weight toasts your pancreas.
Cool! Now go away and come back when you have cloned me Natalie Portman OR better still 2 Natalie Portman clones ;-)
----START SIG---- It is better to know that you have lost than to not know that you have won! ----END SIG----
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan tried to come up with a balanced answer, based on science, to the question of at what point abortion is unethical. As I recall, the resulting article is included in Sagan's last published book, Billions and Billions.
Brain activity isn't a sufficiently precise criterion for human personhood, because -- as others here have pointed out -- plenty of other creatures have brain activity.
But you're onto something when you say "if an embryo thinks, it has to be a living human." (You mean "fetus" rather than "embryo," I take it.) Their conclusion in the article is that what makes a human a human is the capacity for thought. That involves a certain level of brain development, detectable via particular kinds of brain activity (I don't remember the details, but they're in the book) which, statistically, begin right around the start of the third trimester of gestation -- which happens to be the established standard cutoff for abortion procedures. Sagan and Druyan advocate maintaining the status quo with regard to abortion policies.
No no, what they don't want the media to know is that they [South Korea] are really creating a super human race to take on North Korea's nuclear arsenal. "One strained to rule them all." Will be on the soldiers forehead.
-- Ben --
You might as well ask - if someone dies from cancer/heart attack, should we charge that person with suicide?
The distinction is really between what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" or intentional. eg. Humans die. But that doesn't necessarily give anyone the right to kill someone just because they're going to die anyway.
A while ago, according to this article.
No, I didn't RTFA, too much NyQuil.
`/\/\
(^.^)
(")(")
not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
jeeze, the north korean's with their atomic bombs and the south korean's with their cloning... if they combined powers...
I will show the world that I can be its master. I shall perfect my own race of people -- a race of atomic supermen which will conquer the world!
thank you mr. wood, here's your oscar.
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
this type of cloning seems like such a great idea.. it seems like the bush administration in particular, really tries to slow down the evolutionary process of technology.. there's so many awesome technological advances that we could be applying to society.. things that could seriously benefit everyone..
there's tons of pro-choice and anti-abortion people out there.. but this seems like a win-win situation.. atleast a mother wouldn't be throwing her child away.. technically, she would be an organ donor..
and don't give me none of that, "its murder!! its a human being!!".. so again, technically, if the baby happens to kill the mother during birth, the child could be charged for murder? after all its a human being... the same rights apply.. if you eat eggs, then you should support cloning to benefit humans in need.
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
its the woman's choice, always has been.
if they don't want the kid, it changes everything---abortions or not.
From neglect to intentional self inflicted abuse.
Some countries, they simply have the kid, and then neglect them so much they die; and actually rationalize it with their religion. (christian in the case I'm thinking of)
There are worse things than abortion. Although if you get into that whole line-drawing mess, an ape is supposed to be as smart as a 2 year old. Look what we do to apes...
Get some DNA from anyone, but better from someone who could have committed the crime.
;-)
We are talking future; almost anything could be possible.
So you go to wallmart with their cells; get a file with a listing of their DNA. Instead of running that file thru that family doctor program you got with your computer--- you pay somebody in the black market to print out the DNA on their DNA sequencer and create some cells or organs. (like the rich would probably have been doing with their organs)
you could freeze store it; or use right away when you commit the crime.
Sure, its organized. But its all a matter of means, and time.
If it gets too easy, then smaller time criminals will use it.
Like that complex and expensive tool now commonly used in crimes---a handgun. Sound funny? that is because its so simple and easy to get in modern times.
In 200 years, it might be that easy to play with DNA. Or maybe it will always be as hard as hacking into a wireless network....
LOL Well, there is a difference between a natural death and a murder. The baby in a miscarrage dies as an act of nature, the mother's body rejects it or the baby has a fatal disorder of some type. Ripping a baby apart to get stem cells is a PURPOSFUL act. Murder.
The women could have taken immune suppressants to prevent such an occurrence. Do we then charge her with criminal negligeance causing death?
What about women who don't know they are pregnant and, due to stress or some conscious action, cause a miscarriage? Do we charge them with criminal negligeance causing death?
Where is the line dividing natural and intentional occurrences? Are we not natural beings? If so, are not our actions thus natural? Why then is a death incurred from a willful action unnatural?
There is more in heaven and earth applerules, than are dreamt of in your (simplistic) philosophy. The fact is that, philosophically, law is based on consequences not morality. If there are no negative consequences to society, then an action is not forbidden. Only if there are significant positive consequences, is an action made mandatory. Now chew on that and figure out which side this issue falls on.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Roaches aren't human. Killing anything NOT human is pretty much legal (assuming the thing is your property). Killing humans is illegal. As such, the metric of determining brainwave activity probably works for a fetus, which we can all assume is probably human unless the mom screwed an alien or something.
See, it's not hard.
I did not claim that the metric of brain activity is a bad idea. Based on my theory you just have to convince people that prior to brain activity embryos/fetuses are quite dissimilar to us.
You can go to jail for killing a dog, btw:G /3-05-05-01.htm
(just first link I found from web search, I recall other examples)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blindworld/GUIDEDO
I understood you, and I think you're needlessly obfuscating the point with shades of gray. One need not initiate any sort of "similarity" consideration. It's black and white - does the thing have 46 chromosomes, look like a human, and have brainwaves? Yes? Then don't kill it.
As for your point two posts ago, while it's true that people don't like to kill "cute" things...it's still legal. One can euthanise an old dog...but not a human. One can kill, eat, and wear a cow...but not a human. As for your guide dog bit, I believe it was the cruelty that was found illegal. Clearly, if one held dogs to the level of murder, he wouldn't have gotten 23.5 months.
So I think the law and such is pretty clear cut on this.
Don't worry, they got fucked in the M2 ;)
"For many, this is probably unimportant, but there are some who possess religious or philosophical beliefs that would greatly oppose this. It's something we have to at least be sensitive to, even if we don't agree with their viewpoint."
;)
1) These religious or philosophical beliefs must be stopped. These "faith" belief systems have been
making science drag its feet for centuries. We don't have to be sensitive to religion or what
people believe in.
Hell, any "parent" should have the right to chop up their offspring at any age; from the time of conception, all the way up til college.
2) 100,000 eggs, further illustrates how *cheap* life is and how little value it really has in
abundance. Life is a commodity, it should be bought and sold, let's stop pussyfooting the euphemisms of respect and get at the real issues here.
well i dont have to be sensetive to racists and bigots
This makes you a bigot. You're bigoted against racists. That's no different from saying, 'I don't have to be sensitive to people with a different race", or "I don't have to be sensitive to people with a different sexual orientation". If you can't discriminate, you can't discriminate. You can't have it both ways, or you're both a bigot and a hypocrite. Being an insensitive, bigoted, racist, intolerant asshole may very well be their life choice, and you have to tolerate that, or you're just as bad as they are!
Why then is a death incurred from a willful action unnatural?
Premise: It is rediculous to prohibit death by natural causes.
Premise: Death incurred from a willful action is natural.
Conclusion: It is rediculous to prohibit murder.
Corrolary: You want someone to kill you.
Is this what you're proposing, or are you just an idiot who doesn't follow his statements to their logical conclusion?
Even during sex, there's no way that every single sperm will be used to fertilize an egg.
There are thousands and thousands of sperm in an ejaculation, and rarely more than one can fertilize an egg. That's not just murder. Every man who has two children would immediately be convicted of serial mass murder.
Oddly enough, I've never met one who did. Actually, I've never met one who disposed of an egg on any regular-to-within-one-day cycle.
Although if you get into that whole line-drawing mess, an ape is supposed to be as smart as a 2 year old.
According to my training book, a Labrador Retriever is as smart as a 3 year old. Look what we do to dogs.