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
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.
... 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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Roaches have brain activity, and yet most of us have no qualms about killing them. We like to think we are being rational about the issue of life, but we are really just following our instincts for the most part. It seems to mostly boil down to similarity.
If something is similar to us then we admire it(dog), if it is disimilar we dislike it(roach). Whether it is 'alive' does not enter the picture. Some people have in their heads a simplistic picture of embryos at this stage as miniature humans and others see them as a clump of 100 undifferentiated cells. So the real debate is 'how similar to us are they?' because similarity is what we base our 'decisions' of mortality against.
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.