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)
Human embryos != Humans
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
article here
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
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.
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.
Go here for more info on how we really get stem cells. For those who do not want to read here's a little blurb:
You can thank Bush for that - his administration denies federal funding for research like this. When biotech worldwide has left the US in the dust, at least you'll have faith based charities.
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?
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.
It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.
In most major metropolitan areas you can donate cord blood at no cost. As long as you're donating it, that is. If you want to store it for future usage by your child alone then be prepared to pay a good bit of money -- the one price I've seen is $39/mo. When you donate it the universities and research centers will happily pay the fees on your behalf, since they can then use the resulting stem cells for research and what not.
Read more about cord blood donation here (nice FAQ). It's important to note that a barrier to adoption is the cost of the equipment itself.
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
A quick Google search appears to show that PharmaStem Theraputics, Inc. holds a patent on this in the US. It was, however, overturned in Europe. If you want more details, feel free to google.
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
I think the issue is that not all stem cells are created equal. IIRC, the stem cells found in cord blood have already specialized to a certain degree and cannot be used as truely universal cells. Those taken from embryos at an early stage of development, however, can.
Gotta say, this has me all squeemish. I've been pro-choice for a long time now, but my wife is due today (the kiddo, however, seems to have other plans... sigh), and we had a miscarraige before this pregnancy. I can't imagine doing anything like this (the harvesting; we're planning to donate cord blood AFAIK) at the moment.
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.
We have the exact same problem, today, with identical twins. So this argument is nothing new.
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?
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.
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.
And all this time I thought it was the gay Martians.
Ahem. Anyway, you'll need to update your jokes. It's George Noory who does Coast to Coast AM now.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
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.
In fact, if I remember correctly, some species' telomeres actually lengthen after cloning.
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.
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.