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.

Comments

Worry about (a) clones, (b) nuclear destruction

[revscat]

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.

How exactly is this supposed to be controversial?

[Empyrean9]

I clone human cells all the time, my body does it for me, its called cell mitosis!

Re:Scientific, but arbitrary

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see:
Does it has brain activity? yes/no alive/not_alive
What is it's skin colour? yellow/brown/whatever alive/alive/alive

Where do you see the arbitrariety?

Yes, it is...

[gillbates]

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.

Re:Article title misleading

[applerules]

Everybody's point of view seems objective to one's self. The fact is that the anti-abortion christian right isn't basing their argument on science, they're basing it on nonsence. Their attempt to define the argument in scientific terms is just a front. They don't want a compromise. They see the world in black and white. It wouldn't fly with them.

I agree man. Say, old people for insatance. They are defenseless, crippled, and don't really help me at all. They're a burden, as a matter of fact. I think they are sub human. Let's kill them. Same with Jews and colored peoples. They aren't really human, and they steal our jobs and money. Let's kill them too. Or babies. Ya know, I got my GF pregnant a couple years ago, and the damn thing is so expensive. So I think I should just take him out back and get rid of him with my machetie. I mean, he isn't really a person. He can hardly even talk. He deficates on himself. Obviously I can just get rid of him, because he isn't human.

Or maybe life is a sacred thing. One that man cannot rightfully take. Just my $.02,

-philip.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did.

[PantsWearer]

Actually, the egg itself is just a cell. In fact, it has just more ability to become a human being than any given sperm, which is to say, not much at all.

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.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did.

[Cujo]

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.

Euphemistic Title

[jeffclough]

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:

The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
-Martin Luther King, Jr., civil-rights leader (1929-1968)

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.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did.

[BillyBlaze]

This [egg] cell is a person. If it is placed in the right environment, it will survive and develop into a man or woman.

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.