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.
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
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.
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.
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...
... 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.
Stem cell technology has the potential to save millions of lives. Clearly, we need to issue bans on it.
Putting morality aside, could widespread use of stem cells to clone organs or other body parts eliminate using DNA as forensic evidence?
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
I don't agree with this, but is it really flamebait? According to an ABC poll four out of ten Americans think that therapeutic cloning is OK. In order to support cloning you pretty much have to agree with the parent post.
For my 2c, I don't know if an embryo is a person or not. Since we define the death of a human as the end of brain function, my hunch is that life begins at the start of brain function. This is a can of worms too (what constitutes brain function?), but then so is the parent poster's position (what constitutes a personality or a "self"?). It seems wise to err on the side of not killing humans (or things that might be human). We were all once embryos too!
Tell me - *exactly* when does a "human embryo" become a "human"?
Late-term abortions are regularly performed on "human embryos", which are exactly the same age as "premature babies" which, with care, grow into "infants" then "children" then "adults".
I'd *really* be interested to hear how you distinguish between them.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
I really do not understand why people can't see a common sense middle ground to this whole abortion debate.
Sure an exact demarcation of when an embryo is a baby will never be agreed upon by everyone, but why isn't it an acceptable demarcation to check if the embryo has brain activity?
We use that as a measure to determine if already born people are dead or alive... so why not use it to determine if something is no longer an embryo? "I think therefore I am", so if an embryo thinks, it has to be a living human.
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.
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?
Tell me - *exactly* when does a "human embryo" become a "human"?
When it has developed a brain.
When it's sensitive.
Performing _only_ cellular division is not what defines a human.
Does your late-term abortion subject had a brain? yes? then it's a human.
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Until it develops *some* kind of nervous system, it is physically impossible for the ball of flesh to feel or think anything whatsoever. A ball of flesh that never felt or thought anything whatsoever is farther from personhood than a cat. Pro-life activists are foolish.
The protection that should be exteded embryos is just that either they should be nourished to full potential, or their development be stopped entirely. There is no middle ground because birth defects lead to real suffering.
Repeal the DMCA!
"On another note, a lot of women regret them later and have bad dreams, suicidal thoughts, etc."
Probably just as many women who didn't have abortions have bad dreams, suicidal thoughts, etc. So?
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
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.
How is it a living human if it does not have brain activity? I agree that abortion should not be used as the main means of birth control, but if it comes down to it and the embryo/fetus hasn't formed a brain yet... then it seems just as bad to destroy that as it is to destroy the separate egg and sperm used to create it, which is what you recommend. A brainless embryo, a brainless egg, a brainless sperm... none of them are human.
Actually I don't see this as a religious debate, but an ethical. We don't know what impacts this will have on society. That's why we put it on hold until we understand more what negative effects it could have.
One negative effect could be that (rich?) people get to perfect their kids by cloning or genetic modifications. Creating kids that are geneticly better adapted, and in doing so creates a class society where normal people will not get good jobs and so on.
They didn't kill an embryo, they stopped it's multiplication and took a fraction of its cells. At day six, they were up to what? A hundred cells?
Please don't suggest that you seriously think that a chemical treated skin cell had the potential to grow into a healthy baby.
And since a subset of the cells are a) still alive and b) flourish and multiple, they haven't killed anything any more than losing cells to the outer layers of your Epidermis kills you.
Try not to let the word embryo drum up your emotions.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Tell me - *exactly* when does a "human embryo" become a "human"?
It's the simplest question in the world. You want the truth? You want to know exactly when an embryo or fetus becomes a human?
It becomes a human the moment that the woman carrying it decides she wants it, and it is a tragedy if something goes wrong. She'll sing to it, look at the sonographs, eat right, and buy baby supplies.
If she doesn't want it, it's a simply a piece of extra tissue and can be terminated and disposed of.
Got it? Good.
By the way, the father's view on the issue either way happens to be irrelevant.
...
Which says a lot about michael's editorial talent...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
On another note, a lot of women regret them later and have bad dreams, suicidal thoughts, etc.
On another note, a lot of people have bad dreams, suicidal thoughts, etc. whether they've decided on an abortion or not.
Ergo, it's just pathetic human laziness and lack of consideration for the consequences of our actions that causes the issue in the first place.
I'm so comforted by the thought that rape victims are just lazy. It eases a great burden on my mind to think that anyone who gets raped is just a "victim" of pathetic human laziness and that they didn't consider the consequences of the rapist's actions.
Just a bit of friendly advice.... you either need to start picking your words more carefully to actually say what you think that you are saying, or you just need to not talk altogether. I know you're not really meaning to say such idiotic things, but you keep doing so anyway, presumably because you don't take the time to think about how your're wording your thoughts.
I do not agree that there is not some point where the living lump of senseless flesh ceases to become a mound of organic material and begins being a human being. No capability for thought equates to a non-functional human mind which is, in effect, a vegetable. Once there is discernible brain activity, the being becomes a living human, and abortion becomes an option only for the prevention of serious medical complications.
Of course, you have a few idiots who abuse it and use it as birth control because they really are stupid and careless, but I have a hard time believing they're in the majority. Stupid people tend not to have that kind of money lying around.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.
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.
Human embryos != Humans
My take on this is that a fetus is unborn, and the unborn aren't among us, kind of like the undead, but less creepy (I know that sounds weird, but bear with me). So, rights of status (such as "human") come into play only once the fetus is viable outside a womb without extreme assistance (I'm not talking about a simple incubator, but more drastic measures). Although the DNA and the tissue is undoubtedly human, it's not a person until certain things take place--such as brain function development normally attributed to a human infant, autonomous function control, etc. Before the third trimester, really, it's just some flesh (assuming it's viable). To me, before that time, it's just a "thing" and not a "person."
That's my take at any rate. Take it as you like.
We've got too many of them already
It's not that there are too many of them, it's just that they aren't as happy as they should be to be gammas.
Let me tell you why your solution is in no way interchangeable with this advancement.
My mother has Parkinson's. When she was born, nobody took some stem cells. With this advance, she has some real hope to get healthier. And, believe me, this hope is so rare with such disease.
And it's not just Parkinson. There are millions of people that are ill (of neurone-dying desease), from which nobody took stem cells at birth, and who can now hope to get healthier.
This is really great news.
The father's view on the issue IS relevant!
It take two people to conceive a life. It should also take two people to decide to not go through with bringing that life to full term in this world. With that said, the mother in this case has more power to pull the plug, but in a normal relationship, this should be a mutual decision, and not something in which he has no input at all.
Either way though it has nothing to do with this article. This article is *NOT* about abortion or terminating or not terminating a life.
I for one support this research, the benefits we can gain from it far outweight the negative implications.
And if we do along the way create a fully developed human being out of it? So what? This is science. I'd kindly ask you to keep your religous view out of it and remain scientifically objective on the issue.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
I agree.
A 7-day old human embryo is indistinguishable from most other embryos at that percentage through fetal developemnt (~1/39th). At 1/39th development, it is identical to all mamals and almost identical to all vertebrates. Mathematically and biologically, this is no different than doing it with sheep or fish.
I thought you just said you didn't want to get into it? Anyway, the grandparent didn't say it was killing humans, he said it was killing embryos, which it is. You don't think a 7 day old embryo is a person, which I agree with, but that doesn't invalidate the original phrasing. You're the first one here who mentioned killing humans.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
It becomes a human the moment that the woman carrying it decides she wants it
So the epistimological fact of it's essence is dependant upon the opinion of another? Can that mother change her mind? I've heard of women wanting their child, and then because of some external issue (i.e. break up with the father) she changes her mind. Was the child human, and then not human once she changes her mind? What is it about birth that changes this process? Can a mother of a 5-year-old changer her mind, and say that her child is no longer human?
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
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.
I don't think it is extreme - if one was to draw a line as to when to call something a human being this is really the only black and white place to do it. Conception marks the first time in my personal history where the entire genetic material for me existed. Before that there was no certainty that this particular genetic combination would happen. Afterwards, all (physical) development was simply the working out of the DNA which was created during conception (of course influenced by the environment).
Furthermore, it takes a deliberate action for conception to happen. People need not worry about embryos simple popping into existence inside of a woman's womb. It does not however take a deliberate action for a baby grow inside you, or be born. These things simply happen as a natural course once conception has taken place. (Of couse not all conceptions natually result in child birth, and there are things the mother can do to increase the likelyhood of a successful pregnancy).
All other meters of life for which I have heard are really gradients not hard lines. In particular, some mention that a baby is reliant on the mother until after birth. But often premature babies can survive without their mother. But you say they are dependant on doctors and technology - so are all the diabetics, and cronically ill. In fact every person on this planet is dependant on other people to some extent - how many people do you think could survive if complete isolated from society? So birth is just one point (admitedly, an import one) in the gradient of self-reliability. The best we can do is draw some line that says this fetus has 0.0x% chance of surviving - and therefore, what? I don't think this is a good metric for determining whether something is a human being, but could be usefull in how much value we should place in it relative to other concerns.
There are also definate stages in the growth from an embryo to a fetus to a baby, but the boundies between these are also fuzzy. There is no point at which I can say that yesterday it was an embryo but today it is a fetus. Furthermore the development each day is just as significant as the day before it. So picking some point in the middle of development and saying that is when it becomes human is not possible.
Lastly, the other two determinations of a human - when it becomes sentiant, or when it gains a soul are too far beyond our understanding to make any reasonable judgement.
In conclusion, conception is the most logical place to declare something a human being. What sort of rights a human being should have at that point, however, is a different 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.....
If that's true, then why aren't we able to do similar stem cell research for humans using sheep or fish instead of dead human embryos?
This: 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.
And:
I agree that many people on the right have an obstinate and uneducated viewpoint about stem cell research, but Bush has not made any statements about this, so you're just putting words in his mouth. I like intelligent discussion too, and that means I think we should stop name-calling.
Which really sucks, since it seems that those people mostly fall into about the bottom 1/3rd intelligence/knowlageablility bracket of posters on here.
Again with name-calling and issues with intelligence. If you want /. to be a better site, I say fill it with comments that don't put yourself on a pedestal. This isn't a comment directed at you, per se, but it's an attitude I perceive commonly among /. complaint posts.
I'm not going to get into how that influences political debate (you know, "I'm on the Correct Side and those idiots on the Other Side are just too stupid to 'get it;'" or, "they're more power hungry than the people on My Side"), but remember even if we don't have the power to edit stories that get posted, we can point out the factual errors in the comments section, which is just as good, if you evaluate the quality of a story with both the content and the comments. Just because we don't vote for submissions doesn't mean this isn't a community driven site.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"This is why we have to make decisions about what research to do BEFORE it is researched." But the fact is that we can't make such decisions. Even if most of us agree that X shouldn't be researched, someone will research X, and develop X, and beat the world to the punch. This is why we need as many people as possible looking in X so that we generate a heterogenious set of ideas about X, rather than a single group with a single set of homogenious, and probibly flawed ideas about X. In this way, we'll be much better suited to control X and use it for our benefit, and protect ourselves from any potential harms that X has for us. More knowledge is better than less knowlege.
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.
In what way? You just argued yourself that brain-wave abilities should not be defined as a prerequisite for life, but then do you take it as a quality to define the value of life? That is, something that is smarter is a "higher form"? Would you then take this down to a meritocracy, where people who are smarter are, in general, more valuable members of society? How do you draw this arbitrary distinction that humans deserve something more than the rest of the universe?
Such irE
You will, however, have an excellent source of cells for yourself when your extra weight toasts your pancreas.
No, we have a reasonable expectation that embryos differentiate cells. It's an observable phenomenon.
What we don't know here is whether that phenomenon is being reproduced or not. When it is, then we'll know.
If you see a pile of steel going into a Ford factory it's reasonable to consider that steel a Ford "embryo," even though it may not turn out that way in fact.
If you see that same pile of steel going into my basement it is not reasonable to assume a car is going to come out until you at least see some formed parts.
And I might point out that the accepted definition of human embryo extends to eight weeks, well into cell differentiation. Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells has been produced in graftings with embryonic cells of other species, but nothing even like development that shows viability to the stage of a fetus.
That's another issue entirely.
KFG
There are really two debates... most people spend time on "is a fetus alive". However, the more pressing debate is "should the states be allowed to criminalize abortion". As it stands, the SCOTUS has declared abortion to be a right protected by the Constitution. Even if science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins at conception, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
If we draw the line for life further down the cycle, then those cells aren't any different than the skin we shed everday.
The primary difference being that the skin we shed every day is dead before we shed it.