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)
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.
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:
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?
This is called the fallacy of drawing the line. It's defined as:
Line Drawing Fallacy: This fallacy uses false dilemmas in dealing with vague concepts: If your cannot draw a line to demarcate the edge of the concept, it is dismissed as hopelessly unclear.
In this case we can distinguish the extremes. Asking when it becomes a human only clouds the issue. I like the idea one of the other posters posited about checking for brain activity, as that's the socially accepted standard for killing/allowing someone to die (depending if you want to use an euphmism).
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'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.
Percentage of abortions performed due to life or health threat to the mother: 1%
Percentage of abortions performed due to rape or incest: 2%
Percentage of abortions performed due to health of the baby: 4%
Percentage of abortions performed for social reasons: 93%
Source: "Why Do Women Have Abortions?"
A. Torres & J.D. Forrest, Family Planning Perspectives, Jul/Aug 1988
Full Table of that article.
2001 data from Minnesota Planned Parenthood:
Population of Minnesota - 4,919,479
Number of births in Minnesota - 66,620
Number of patient visits to Planned Parenthood for family planning, cancer screening and treatment, annual exams, and screening and treatment for STI (sexually transmitted infection) - 132,728
Number of abortions performed in Minnesota - 14,833
Number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood - 2, 789 (18%)
Percentage of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood as compared to patient visits - 2%
Number of abortions performed for minors (under 18) in Minnesota - 838 (6%)
Number of abortions performed for adult women in Minnesota - 13, 995 (94%)
Number of abortions performed at under 9 weeks estimated gestational age in Minnesota - 9,008 (61%)
Number of abortions performed at 15 weeks or under - 14, 008 (94%)
Percentage of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood at 16 weeks or under - 100%
Number of abortions performed at over 16 weeks in Minnesota - 816 (6%)
Number of abortions performed in Minnesota due to severe fetal anomalies, rape, incest, or to protect woman's health - 1,792 (12%)
Number of women who reported using contraceptives at time of conception in Minnesota - 3,915 (24%)
Post-operative complication rate for abortion in Minnesota - 1%
Inter-operation complication rate for abortion in Minnesota - 0.2%
Sources: Induced Abortions in Minnesota January - December 2001: Report to the Legislature. Center for Health Statistics, Minnesota Department of Health. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota Annual Report 2001.
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.