Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans

Important to note.... by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 02:19 · Score: 5, Informative

...That they didn't claim to produce an entire embryo; just stem cells.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Re:Important to note.... by mirko · 2004-02-12 02:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, the story submitter would have been less error inducing by titling it "Scientists claimed they cloned human cells".
It is too "sensational" and biaised the way it is submitted.

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:Important to note.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 02:22 · Score: 5, Informative

They have produced full embrios up to 100 cells equivalent to a seven day old.
Re:Important to note.... by Tuxinatorium · 2004-02-12 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!
Re:Important to note.... by dustinbarbour · 2004-02-12 03:08 · Score: 4, Informative

In all fairness, I submitted the story with the article's actual title of Research team clones human embryos.

--
What is your penile percentile?
Re:Important to note.... by kfg · 2004-02-12 03:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Which, religious issues aside, is roughly equivalent to saying that your fingernails have grown some in the past hour.

Actual division of a cloned stem cell is certainly a technical achievement, and technically an embryo I suppose, but I'm not sure it's really proper to call it such until such time as it's shown that said embryo is actually capable of cellular differentiation if the division process is continued.

If all you end up with is a mass of "flesh" you have no embryo.

KFG
Re:Important to note.... by mirko · 2004-02-12 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Which says a lot about michael's editorial talent...

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:Important to note.... by kfg · 2004-02-12 20:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Hmm by 0x54524F4C4C · 2004-02-12 02:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Now the big question is: who to clone?
I, for one, can only think of people that should not exist.

Re:Hmm by Unregistered · 2004-02-12 09:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Now the big question is: who to clone?
natilie portman. this is /. after all.

There oughta be a law... by benlinkknilneb · 2004-02-12 02:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Can we pass a law that stupid people aren't allowed near this stuff? We've got too many of them already.

--
It must be Thursday... I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

Re:There oughta be a law... by magarity · 2004-02-12 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:There oughta be a law... by Tom · 2004-02-12 04:03 · Score: 2

As a matter of fact, if you've read the Memes book, you'd realize that stupid people already do multiply faster than smart people. There's a lot of links, enough to satisfy almost any definition of stupidity, with education, which leads to knowledge of and awareness about birth control being the obvious one.

So for the forseable future, it won't matter whether the stupid get another means of multiplication, as they are already doing well with those they have.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:There oughta be a law... by Scrameustache · 2004-02-12 04:11 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Well, if President Gamma would drop the war on Soma, they'd all be much happier.

--
You can't take the sky from me...

Not according to Coast the Coast Radio by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 02:20 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:Not according to Coast the Coast Radio by grammar+fascist · 2004-02-12 05:36 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Article title misleading by r00zky · 2004-02-12 02:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Human embryos != Humans

--
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path

Re:Article title misleading by CountBrass · 2004-02-12 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Article title misleading by Jagasian · 2004-02-12 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Article title misleading by r00zky · 2004-02-12 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:Article title misleading by Jsprat23 · 2004-02-12 03:08 · Score: 4, Informative

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).
Re:Article title misleading by Jagasian · 2004-02-12 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Article title misleading by cybermace5 · 2004-02-12 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
...
Re:Article title misleading by zerocool^ · 2004-02-12 03:28 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm a bit harsher in my view, far as I'm concerned if you can't be dropped alone into a forest and survive, good riddance.

So would you say you support abortion up to the 23rd trimester?

~Will

--
sig?
Re:Article title misleading by the_mad_poster · 2004-02-12 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
Re:Article title misleading by Zathrus · 2004-02-12 03:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Which is defined as... ? Honestly, we don't know when that is. Not to mention that it varies from child to child. There are a large number of research papers on this, and while there's some common agreement that there are definite, individual brain wave patterns at a certain point (24 weeks I think), it's not clear that they don't exist prior to that as well.

We use that as a measure to determine if already born people are dead or alive

The obvious difference is that someone already alive goes from a state of thinking to a state of being brain dead. In the case of an embryo the thinking may not have occurred yet, but -- unless there's a problem with the fetus -- it will. It's directly contrary to our experience with brain dead adults, who don't come back once brain dead. The embryo will gain brain activity unless otherwise interrupted.

It isn't based on religion or politics, but instead on science. Seems objective if you ask me.

Which is irrelevant when it comes to religion. It's not about objectivity -- it's about right and wrong. If objectivity came into it at any point then Galileo and Copernicus would never have been heretics and we wouldn't still be debating Evolution vs Creation.

And, for the record, I'm pro-choice... It'd be a nice world where no one ever had to make that choice, but that's a fantasy.
Re:Article title misleading by fudgefactor7 · 2004-02-12 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Article title misleading by rogabean · 2004-02-12 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!"
Re:Article title misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Re:Article title misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Article title misleading by japhmi · 2004-02-12 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:Article title misleading by tgibbs · 2004-02-12 04:39 · Score: 2

Are you suggesting that if you are knowlegable in CPR and a man starts choking in the room and you're the only person around that you have no moral obligation to help him?

No, I am suggesting that I have no legal obligation to do so. Fortunately, there are still some areas in which the law permits people to make their own moral choices without coercion.
Re:Article title misleading by Tikiman · 2004-02-19 11:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I really do not understand why people can't see a common sense middle ground to this whole abortion debate
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.

I for one... by holizz · 2004-02-12 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Am in support of using stem-cells to repair organs. It's not really unehical at all. I mean an embryo doesn't have a personality or a self so it's hardly going to miss being alive.

Re:I for one... by derphilipp · 2004-02-12 02:27 · Score: 2, Funny

That are the big questions of ethics:
After wich point of growing life is worth saving ?
After wich point is if unethical to commit abortion ?
Do we have something like a "soul" ?
Whats the meaning of life ?
No, its not 42 and not FP on /. either

--
Spelling mistakes: My is english spoken not tongue of mother.
Re:I for one... by queen+of+everything · 2004-02-12 02:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

They cloned stem cells, that's quite different than a whole embryo. I'm more for cloning stem cells than using the stems cells from babies aborted. It will benefit science by enabling scientists to be able to do research on stem cells, but it won't affect the abortion discussion.

--
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
Re:I for one... by theLastPossibleName · 2004-02-12 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Putting morality aside, could widespread use of stem cells to clone organs or other body parts eliminate using DNA as forensic evidence?
Re:I for one... by philbert26 · 2004-02-12 02:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Am in support of using stem-cells to repair organs. It's not really unehical at all. I mean an embryo doesn't have a personality or a self so it's hardly going to miss being alive.
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!
Re:I for one... by N4m0r · 2004-02-12 02:55 · Score: 5, Informative

It's a common misconception that stem cells are harvested from aborted fetuses. By making it look like there are these mad scientists harvesting cells from aborted fetuses the people against the research make it look more disturbing.

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:
Where do embryonic stem cells come from?

Human embryonic stem cells are derived from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Using 14 blastocysts obtained from donated, surplus embryos produced by in vitro fertilization, a group of UW-Madison developmental biologists led by James Thomson established five independent stem cell lines in November 1998. This was the first time human embryonic stem cells had been successfully isolated and cultured.

The cell lines were capable of prolonged, undifferentiated proliferation in culture and yet maintained the ability to develop into a variety of specific cell types, including neural, gut, muscle, bone and cartilage cells.

The embryos used in the work at UW-Madison were originally produced to treat infertility and were donated specially for this project with the informed consent of donor couples who no longer wanted the embryos for implantation.
Re:I for one... by NatasRevol · 2004-02-12 03:19 · Score: 2, Funny

I think his point is this: If I make a clone of myself, and one of us kills someone, how do you know which one did it? DNA is the same...

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:I for one... by OwnedByTwoCats · 2004-02-12 03:57 · Score: 2, Informative

We have the exact same problem, today, with identical twins. So this argument is nothing new.

Deja vu by GerritHoll · 2004-02-12 02:21 · Score: 5, Funny

How often did we hear this before?

They seem to be cloning the cloning messages.

How often did we hear this before?

They seem to be cloning the cloning messages.

How often did...

Oh wow by wizarddc · 2004-02-12 02:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

What's with the sensatioanlistic headlines this morning? KAZAA'ers PAY TO USE VPN TO BYPASS RIAA on a story about a company who offers public vpn for $6, with no implicit mention of Kazaa or FileSharing. And now WE'VE CLONED A HUMAN about a korean company who has cloned only an embryo to only a very early stage to generate stem cells, not making Steve 2.0 from Steve. Let's not go overboard, or am I talking out of turn? This is Slashdot, of course. Overboard is the story d'jour.

--
Th

The topic here is rather misleading... by freerecords · 2004-02-12 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:The topic here is rather misleading... by Golias · 2004-02-12 02:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would say it's about time for Brave New World to be put on required High School reading lists, except it may already be too late, because it's often seen as terribly old-fashioned these days to be the least bit worried about the issues which that book fretted over, especially the fears of turning all phases of human development, from womb to college, into a manufacturing process.
Damn, I let my sentences run on when I'm ranting...

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

also in the BBC by tuxette · 2004-02-12 02:21 · Score: 5, Informative

article here

--
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...

In related news..... by AtariAmarok · 2004-02-12 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

"In related news, delegates to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention have attempted to introduce a "yes, you can marry your own clone" clause into the gay marriage debate."

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:In related news..... by radja · 2004-02-12 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny

after realizing that a clone is essentially a twin brother or sister to you, Texas has allowed it too, citing that men and women should be equal for the law...

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re:In related news..... by kfg · 2004-02-12 03:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With a Y chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
My very own clone
Will be of the opposite sex

Clone, clone of my own
With a Y chromosome changed to X
And since she is my clone
Her mind is my own
And we'll both think of nothing but sex

Isaac Asimov

Stem cells important but by Gr8Apes · 2004-02-12 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Stem cells important but by Gr8Apes · 2004-02-12 04:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

ethics and religion are not one and the same, fortunately. Currently, people who shouldn't have babies still have them: think immature teen-agers that don't understand what happened, rapists and their victims, female crack addicts, etc.

From an ethics standpoint, none of these should have children (teen-agers described above didn't want or even know about children, aren't able to take care of them even if they do have them, rapists certainly don't deserve children, female crack addicts are certainly not providing a good environment for the baby to be...)

Due to religion, however, people think babies are a divine gift, or something for <insert religious diety here> to be the sole decider of, and therefore there are few, if any, laws regulating this.
I know this isn't exactly a popular topic...but at some risk, I post this anyways. I'm surely not advocating anything here, for those that like to read too much in between the lines. Merely stating some facts and observances.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Stem cells important but by tgibbs · 2004-02-12 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

The ethical questions are bigger than that. Making babies without the usual mother and father will allow people who shouldn't have babies (think Massacuhusts here) to have them.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Huge numbers of people who shouldn't have babies are having them already by the old fashioned method. Cloning would make an insignificant contribution to this. Gay and lesbian couples already have kids by a variety of methods, and numerous studies show that those kids turn out just fine.

There's only 6 billion people! by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-12 02:30 · Score: 3, Funny

We need more! Make more people! Quick! There's just not enough baby factories in the world. Look at China, for example. There's hardly anyone there! It's an unpopulated wasteland! More clones now! Rah rah rah sis boom bah!

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:There's only 6 billion people! by cozziewozzie · 2004-02-12 02:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, but cloning people in a white lab under sterile conditions is MUCH more exciting than doing it the old-fashioned way! I mean you get cool instruments and get to work with all these geeks! It's Slashdot, after all :)

Why bother? by SimianOverlord · 2004-02-12 02:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Your stem cells can be collected and stored at birth, from the cord blood that is thrown away anyway when they tie the knot to make your belly button. It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.

When I was at Uni, they told us 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. Don't know how true that is.

Nevertheless, this bypasses peoples squemishness on the use of embryos for this type of thing, though I don't have a problem with it myself. 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.

--
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche

Re:Why bother? by Zathrus · 2004-02-12 03:12 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Re:Why bother? by totatis · 2004-02-12 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Worry about (a) clones, (b) nuclear destruction by revscat · 2004-02-12 02:32 · Score: 3, Troll

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.

Once they find the Heorot burial yard. by AtariAmarok · 2004-02-12 02:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Once they find the Heorot burial yard, and can dig up the appropriate genetic material, this research brings us closer to the possibility of a Beowulf cluster of real Beowulves.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re: Big deal by Black+Parrot · 2004-02-12 02:34 · Score: 3, Funny

> Did they clone Paris Hilton? If not, I don't care.

Yeah, but the clone turned out to be short, fat, and prudish.

We'll send her right over. How many do you want?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

The question by Alioth · 2004-02-12 02:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

On this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, this very thing was discussed. One of the interesting arguments: at what point to we determine an embryo a human being?

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.

On an unrelated note, I find it ironic that the same people who claim that abortion at day 3 is criminal are often pro-death penalty.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:The question by Rich0 · 2004-02-12 04:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

It ain't cell count. It is brain activity.

While some might choose to debate you on where you set the dividing line, let's assume that brain activity is in fact what makes somebody human.

So, is it OK to euthanize the mentally retarded? How much brain activity is enough - the formation of the first neural stem cell?

The argument of those who are pro-choice is that a 1-week-old blastula is not a human entitled to civil-rights, and a 1-week-old child is. In most democracies we don't have various levels of human rights (you can harvest organs without consent if they're less than 6 years old, from 6-10 you can only harvest non-essential organs like a single kidney, and above 10 you need consent for anything). In most civilized societies we recognize that if somebody is human there are just some things you can't do to them - such as killing them without due process (and in many countries you can't even do that).

So, at what point does a non-rights-bearing embryo transition into a full-rights-bearing child? When the toe pokes out of the birth canal? When the head pops out? When the umbilical cord is cut? If the doctor drops a baby before the cord is cut and breaks its neck is he guilty of assault or manslaughter? In societies of 100 million people these cases come up, and there needs to be an agreed-upon definition that makes some sense.

The child-from-conception argument suggests that we heavily should monitor women whenever they do conceive to ensure that if they're about to have a miscarriage that we are able to jump in there and do everything we can do to save the life of a child. Mothers who do things that increase the likelihood that an embryo won't implant are being negligent parents (just like parents who don't put fences around their swimming pools when they have a toddler). Obviously anyone would admit that this is going overboard, so we are apparently willing to accept frequent deaths of devleoping embryonic children when we wouldn't just let those children die after birth. So there is some wiggle-room to say that there is some point between conception and birth when a child becomes "alive". But, when is it?

In my opinion, the debate has become so polarized by zealots on both size that reasonable people can't talk about it without being branded a baby-killer or being branded insensitive to women's needs.
Re:The question by pavon · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Back to the Forefront by Evil+Schmoo · 2004-02-12 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

... 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.

Re:Back to the Forefront by Jagasian · 2004-02-12 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most people do not understand the science, nor do they understand anything other than what they were told to think by their religious dogma. What would they have to contribute to the debate? They most likely will never understand because they refuse to understand.

I say we move on without them.

Life-saving potential by Durandal64 · 2004-02-12 02:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stem cell technology has the potential to save millions of lives. Clearly, we need to issue bans on it.

But seriously by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-12 02:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

What are the chances that when I get older I'll need to go overseas for a one of these new transplants (Now rejection free! Two kidneys for price of one!) because the US has banned all stem cell research and related items.

--
--- Ban humanity.

Pretty girls for geeks by kyknos.org · 2004-02-12 02:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Can we clone some pretty girls to make supply so high to make them available for geeks too?

--

SHE does throw dice.

0.4% success rate by peter303 · 2004-02-12 02:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Worse than the first livestock cloning rates. Thats probably why success hasnt been reported before.
US labs suffer from high human egg costs. The going rate is about $4,000 per donor. It would cost a megabuck just for the egg cells.

They didn't clone a human but... by Zakabog · 2004-02-12 02:41 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Clone chicks for all of us!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 02:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Please! It's the only way a guy like me will ever get laid.

I am ready to make a down payment RIGHT NOW!

Cloning . . . good. by aynrandfan · 2004-02-12 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Could someone please tell me what the hell gets people so damn scared about the issue of cloning?

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

Um, what? Yes they did. by Draxinusom · 2004-02-12 02:47 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

For crying out loud RTFA! by CountBrass · 2004-02-12 02:49 · Score: 2, Informative

"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.

Re:For crying out loud RTFA! by AnonymousNoMore · 2004-02-12 03:10 · Score: 3, Funny

You can kill anything that is alive. For instance, you can kill a plant. You can kill a single cell. If you want to kill a party, just bring up this topic.

The issue is more along the lines of "is an embryo a Human?" Certain religious people would say yes.
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! by zerocool^ · 2004-02-12 03:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Pretty clear - they DID clone embryos, then killed them.

Let's not get into a killing-an-embryo-is-killing-humans discussion. 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.

~Will

--
sig?
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! by 955301 · 2004-02-12 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! by Galvatron · 2004-02-12 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's not get into a killing-an-embryo-is-killing-humans discussion.
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
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! by TwinkieStix · 2004-02-12 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Human development definitions. by AtariAmarok · 2004-02-12 02:50 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Where's the Debate? by Bruha · 2004-02-12 02:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Group A: Primarily Christians and other Religious groups. Are against Cloning for the above reasons. Becuase God's against it.

Group B: Us heathens who believe otherwise, those who hope to benefit medically from the research and sadly those who want to make a profit.

So for some reason in America Group A can get laws passed to ban the research. However isnt religious oppression illegal in the US? So why dont the lawyers that represent those companies fight it on grounds of religious oppression?

Re:Where's the Debate? by TEB_78 · 2004-02-12 03:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Where's the Debate? by BigBadBri · 2004-02-12 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, I'm an atheist, and you'd have to make a Group C - 'it's fucking stupid and dangerous' for me.
If it were possible to grow single organs from stem cells, or to inject stem cells where they were needed and effect a cure, then I might be persuaded that the sacrifice of an egg to be injected with my DNA and then grown on for a few generations is justified.
But it isn't - and this research adds little if anything to the sum of human knowledge.
But then, I'm against abortion and fertility treatment on purely irrational grounds, too.
Now research into making my own cells turn into stem cells - that's where I'd like to see the money spent. No ethical issues, no religious objections (at least, none associated with foetuses), anda reasonable chance of success, since genetic identity is guaranteed.

--
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Re:Where's the Debate? by GenSolo · 2004-02-24 20:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Scientific, but arbitrary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:Scientific, but arbitrary by Jagasian · 2004-02-12 03:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ok, but after self reflection, I confirm my existence because I am aware of my self. I do not confirm my existence because I am white.

Also, as far as we know, and yes it is a "logical jump", thinking can be measured by measuring brain activity. So this seems like it is a far more objective measure of life/no-life than any other currently purposed measure.

The "when it is born" measure is obviously flawed because it is largely based on the location of one's body (inside vs outside the womb).

But the "when it was conceived" measure is also flawed as we could claim that sperm and eggs are living humans because they have the "potential" for life. So a menstrating women is committing manslaughter and so is a man, who lets a sperm go to waste. We could even go back further and say that the materials used to create a sperm have "potential" for life...
Re:Scientific, but arbitrary by Danny+Rathjens · 2004-02-12 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Scientific, but arbitrary by GenSolo · 2004-02-24 20:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm just curious, but would you agree to the killing of a person in the midst of a stroke? Their brain functions cease (in some cases), but they haven't ceased permanently (well, not always). An embryo who has yet to have brain functions but will someday is therefore, by your definition, not "dead" because the cessation of brain function is again not permanent. Just food for thought, so to speak.

Re:Another reason to cheer by Squidbait · 2004-02-12 02:57 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Clone sex by Killjoy_NL · 2004-02-12 03:02 · Score: 3, Funny

What if you clone yourself and genetically modify the DNA to make it a member of the opposite sex, apply some rapid growth and then have sex with it, does that count as masturbation or incest ??

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)

Leon Kass is a Fallacious fool by cookie_cutter · 2004-02-12 03:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Dr. Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics: "The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today, cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for babymaking,"

Slipper slope fallacy - actually, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Therapeutic cloning can be done without us having to do reproductive cloning.

"In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning."

False Dillema fallacy. Kass is saying that we either completely ban all cloning, or we'd have to deal with and accept all types of cloning. In actuality, we can allow cloning for therapeutic purposes(you know, to save lives), while disallowing, or greatly limiting it for reproductive purposes(eg allow it for people who have no other way to reproduce, but disallow it for people who want to clone a legion of duplicates to satisfy their vanity/megalomaniacal ambitions).

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by GreyPoopon · 2004-02-12 03:05 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

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?

Very funny, but a completely invalid comparison by blorg · 2004-02-12 03:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Very true, but birth rates in first world countries are dropping, often below replacement levels, and this will cause serious problems for those countries with ageing populations. Some countries (Italy) have gone as far as offering cash payments to parents who have a second child.

Cloning, when promoted, is generally seen as a technology that could have research or medical therepeutic value, more rarely as one could allow infertile parents to have children that are genetically their own. That's not to say that I agree with human cloning (I'm not sure, and would lean towards against), but 'there are enough people in the world' is not all there is to the argument by a long shot. Look at IVF - it's not exactly producing people by the billions, but rather helping a small percentage of infertile couples.

Re:Stem cells from fat by cozziewozzie · 2004-02-12 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Can't you get stem cells from liposuction...

Yeah, but the result would look a bit like this..

I'm not a Christian by CountBrass · 2004-02-12 03:11 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Re:I'm not a Christian by GenSolo · 2004-02-24 19:59 · Score: 2, Informative

100 human embryo cells together each have human DNA. 100 chicken embryo cells together each have chicken DNA. Therefore, a human embryo is human and a chicken embryo is poultry. What's so damn complicated about this?

The reason cloning is so touchy... by Squidbait · 2004-02-12 03:12 · Score: 5, Funny

is that a story like this immediately transforms itself in the minds of some very ignorant people, into: Scientists are now able to create fully adult genetic and mental duplicates of me, who will look, talk, and act just like me, sleep with my wife and take over my life just like in The Sixth Day, and furthermore they will all be abominations in the eyes of God!! The reality of what's possible with cloning is far more mundane than our sci-fi nightmares, but the general public rarely concerns itself with the differences. Lets see:
Sci-Fi | Real Life
Genetic duplicate | Check
Adult | Baby
Same memories | No memories
Same personality | Somewhat similar personality
Steals my identity | WTF?
JC wouldn't like it | You are an idiot

And for other the six billion of us ... by cookie_cutter · 2004-02-12 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

... that didn't have there cord cells placed in a reserve?

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.

movie plot by ch-chuck · 2004-02-12 03:35 · Score: 2, Funny

An unhappy clone hunts down with intent to kill the scientist that created him. See the dramatic conclusion in tonights episode of "Clone Stalker".

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by wurp · 2004-02-12 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!

Governments cannot legislate knowledge or morality by TerraFORM · 2004-02-12 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is all. Discuss.

Again, no matter what they say... by Jay9333 · 2004-02-12 03:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

... they didn't clone an embryo. The issue here isn't the modern religious debate over whether or not an embryo is human. The only thing they did was harvest stem cells from an egg. That is a far cry from cloning an embryo, much less a human.

Note that the definition of "embryo" is a fertilized egg after it has implanted in the womb. That is after weeks of development. These scientists did not create an embryo. Even if they call it an embryo (or the article cited above does), the fact is they admit they let it develop for only 5 or 6 days. At best that could be called a zygote or a blastocyst. And even if they let it develop for weeks (about the same amount of time before implantation would normally occur and it would be called an "embryo") it still wouldn't technically be an embryo since it wasn't implanted in the womb.

The womb is so important here, because we can't replicate it in a lab. And the womb is necessary for an embryo to exist and develop further into the child that will be born, breath air (instead of fluid), etc. That is why the womb is such an amazing creation, and why Christians emphasize the Bible's references to life existing in the womb in their quest against abortion. If scientists can ever replicate the womb (and they are *very, very* far from being able to do that) we'll need to have this debate in reference to cloning over whether or not embryo's are human.

For now... all they've done is harvest some stem cells.

Weak argument by boatboy · 2004-02-12 03:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Weak argument by zymurgy_cat · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Where, exactly, is the beginning? Even the "moment" of conception is not an actual moment. It takes a non-insignificant amount of time for chromosomes to match up.

You also need to address the flip side of the "beginning" argument. Over half of all pregnancies end through natural abortion/failure to implant. If we assume "life has started at the very beginning" then why do we let all those people die simply because they fail to implant in their mother's wombs? That number is far greater than abortions, murders, car accidents, etc. Why are those lives valued less or treated with less care than others? If we say it's "nature", then why do we interfere with nature by making antibiotics, developing vaccines, or outlawing murder?

My point is not to start an abortion/when does life begin argument here. Rather it's to point out that you cannot simply solve an ethical issue such as this by taking one extreme viewpoint or another (or any inbetween, for that matter) and implying it logically solves all our ethical problems.

--
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Re:Weak argument by boatboy · 2004-02-12 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good points. As for the exact "moment" being itself a process, I'd think that if one were looking to nail down a nano-second it would be when the new entity becomes something distinct from it's parent. The resolution to which that exact moment is measurable today may be limited, but for practical purposes, it is enough to say that it begins at conception. Preventing it from happening is a technically different thing from halting it once it's occured.

Which brings up your next good point- it happens it nature all the time, so why is it worse if we make it happen? You actually answer this yourself. People die naturally, but we outlaw murder. We do this because most people have moral objections to killing another human being. Some base this on social frameworks (social relativism), some on personal frameworks (individual relativism), some on a theological basis. It is, in my mind, the exact same issue here. If the being is human and alive, then to intentionally end its life is murder. The fact that some die naturally or accidentally does not have a direct impact on the issue, just as the fact that some people die in car accidents does not make vehicular homicide OK.

Thus, the only real question is when does one become a live human being. Personally, I think the extremes are to say it begins before conception or that it begins with self-awareness. I can understand why some would say it begins with brain activity, but this still has illogical conslusions. To me the most logically defensible position is to say it begins at conception.

Does this solve all our ethical problems? Of course not. But my main point was to show the weakness of the argument that "it could save lives", that the real issue is "when does a human life begin?", and to present what I think is the answer to that question.
Re:Weak argument by tumbaumba · 2004-02-12 09:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

The human research conducted by Nazi Germany could "save lives"...

Actually some results of Nazi's experimentation on humans are used in modern medicine. For example hypothermia data collected while freezing people to death. I don't think we should discard such knowledge, but neither should we pursue this path.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by OwnedByTwoCats · 2004-02-12 03:48 · Score: 2, Informative

How is this an alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells?

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.

This _is_ an aborted embryo (albeit in vitro, but the adults from in vitro embryos seem perfectly normal).

No, it is not an aborted embryo, as it never implanted in a uterus.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by Fear+the+Clam · 2004-02-12 03:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue?

From fat tissue? At last, jobs will go back to Americans!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by GreyPoopon · 2004-02-12 04:05 · Score: 4, Informative

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).

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?

That will spell . . . by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-02-12 04:15 · Score: 2, Funny

The end of the human race. Let's assume that the plan works and there are nothing but pretty girls in the world. What happens next is that all of the pretty girls (being clones of pre existing ones) will do what pre existing "beautiful people" do - associate with other "beautiful people".

now we have a situation where instead of the jocks, actors, musicians, etc. will have there pick of 200 instead of 100, and since there are no "average girls", geeks will have a choice of ZERO. This will overwhelm the gene pool with humans of less than stellar intelligence, and whom are only interested in there popularity. In turn the Average IQ of the human race will start to decline to a point where Apes rule the world and humans can no longer speak.

After Millenia of Fighting, Apes and humans will unleash a scourge of death and destruction upon the earth, using remnants of nuclear and biological weapons left over from the 20th - 22nd centuries. Resulting in the Total Annihilation of life as we know it (Except cockroaches).

HAVE A NICE DAY.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by d3am0n · 2004-02-12 04:17 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Pig-human chimeras contain cell surprise... by alchemist68 · 2004-02-12 04:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Pig-human chimeras contain cell surprise...at New Scientist...here:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 94558

Pigs grown from fetuses into which human stem cells were injected have surprised scientists by having cells in which the DNA from the two species is mixed at the most intimate level.

It is the first time such fused cells have been seen in living creatures. The discovery could have serious implications for xenotransplantation - the use of animal tissue and organs in humans - and even the origin of diseases such as HIV.

The adult pigs that had received human stem cells as fetuses were found to have pig cells, human cells and the hybrid cells in their blood and organs.

"What we found was completely unexpected. We found that the human and pig cells had totally fused in the animals' bodies," said Jeffrey Platt, director of the Mayo Clinic Transplantation Biology Program.

The hybrid cells had both human and pig surface markers. But, most surprisingly, the hybrid cell nuclei were found to have chromosomal DNA that contained both human and pig genes. The researchers found that about 60 per cent of the animals' non-pig cells were hybrids, with the remainder being fully human.

...The injections must be given after the body plan of the fetus has developed, but before the immune system is active. The former ensures the animals look like normal pigs and sheep....

I CANNOT believe that these animals looked like "normal" pigs. If the Pig and Human nuclear DNA mixed, and the animal was 60% percent human, one would think that the animals were more human than pig.

Cloning isn't so bad when compared to an experiment like this gone awry.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by cookie_cutter · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue?

I attended a lecture by a big-wig stem cell researcher (sorry, don't recall his name) at my University a few months back, and he addressed the topic of getting stem cells from adult tissues.

He said that the stem cell research community was initially very excited about this line of research when it first made headlines, because it could allow the same research without the ethical issues connected to embryo's.

Unfortunately, though early results looked promising, subsequent investigations cast doubt on how useful adult-derived stem cells would be compared to the unlimited pluripotential of embryonic stem cells to turn into other cell therapeutic cell types.

Also unfortunately, the prospect of using adult stem cells in place of embryonic stem cells is still ceased upon by opponents of embryonic stem research to win over those who don't know the science, and to cast the scientists as being unethical in the face of perfect alternatives. But the science doesn't back this position up.

Re:Oh, that makes sense by GreyWolf3000 · 2004-02-12 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:

/. Has so many intelligent posters, and the site does nothing but ignore them.

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.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by naasking · 2004-02-12 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Aidtopia · 2004-02-12 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Alternative source for stem cells by FreakyControl · 2004-02-12 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Slim by johnjay · 2004-02-12 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by b-baggins · 2004-02-12 07:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by scaryfish · 2004-02-12 08:27 · Score: 2, Informative

The telomere problem may, in fact, not exist. It was found that Dolly did have shortened telomeres, but there's not really any evidence that this caused her any problems. On the other hand, cloning cattle seems to reset the telomere length, much like happens during normal fertalisation. Have a look here.

In fact, if I remember correctly, some species' telomeres actually lengthen after cloning.

No. People already get donor organs. Its blood etc by rufusdufus · 2004-02-12 09:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

First off, DNA evidence is based on bodily fluids which will still have the persons real DNA. Secondly, DNA evidence can only be legitimately used to clear the innocent, not prove guilt. DNA tests are not 100% identifying, but can be used to say that a particular sample does not match. This is a very important distinction when the population is large, which, in fact, it is.
Thus even if part of your cloned kidney somehow ended up at a crime scene, it would only fail to remove you from the pool of suspects. Other correlating evidence would be needed to establish guilt.

Re:Which beginning? by suchire · 2004-02-12 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Humans are a higher form of life."

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

Re:Um, what? Yes they did. by devbiowonk · 2004-02-12 09:41 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Its not that simple. by mulescent · 2004-02-12 10:06 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans

124 of 607 comments (clear)