Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Bill Clears Australian Senate
jaunty writes "A private members bill has passed the Australian senate which paves the way for the cloning of embryos to gather stem cells. While it only passed by a narrow margin it is expected to gain support in the House. From the article: 'The final shape of the bill is now subject to further debate on amendments including measures to toughen penalties for breaches of cloning regulations, and possibly a move to stop the use of animal tissue in the cloning process.'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6121280.stm
Quite a good way of getting round the shortage in eggs.
Deleted
These are authorative sources.
Well, I guess if that depends upon whether you think a bunch of celibate men that think an invisible supernatural being is listening to them are "authorative".
I've looked at the bishops document and it contains nothing to do with the science of stem cell research.
Simply muddies the issue.
The fact that it's a rabbit's egg is really irrelevant, all of the rabbit DNA is removed (apart from the mitochondrial) so it's basically just a shell. It isn't as if they're going to make an animal which is a cross between a humand and a rabbit, the DNA codes for a human being, that's what you'd get.
I don't see any moral issues here, it isn't a human being, it's a collection of cells without nervous system, the DNA wouldn't even come from a human egg or even something which could possibly have developed into a human.
Deleted
Personally, I'm happy as hell that the law has been passed; ignorance has lost out for once.
I can't believe the submitter used the words "private members" in his summary, thus sending hordes of virgin Slashdotters into a never-ending giggle fit. How utterly irresponsible.
You do realize that the U.S. Senate and House approved a stem cell funding bill, right? It was vetoed by Bush (the only veto of his entire tenure in the White House). It was simply that the houses didnt have enough votes to override the veto. That may change today.
I disagree. While I believe in God, that is not my reason for disagreeing.
See, there was this Darwin fellow... And his theory is that nature and environment shape the improvement of species. No cloning was necessary, and no genetic experimentation in laboratories was ever needed.
I used to worry that because we formed societies, and protect the weak, that evolution was being crippled and Humanity was harmed by it. But I finally got to REALLY looking around, and humans even LOOK different than we did 50 years ago. The average IQ has increased. And in general, evolution continues.
Life still tends to destroy the most useless genes for survival, even while we are doing our best to protect them.
I no longer worry about evolution doing its job.
So the human race IS still improving at the normal rate. No 'religious BS' is preventing it.
As for the abnormal progress you are looking for, yes... I'll admit that religion is hampering that. But maybe that's for the best... By the time it IS legal, the problems will have been discussed and prepared for as best as possible. If we simply rush in, who knows what could happen? Weird viruses, whole generations of gene-gineered babies that have odd defects that no drug can fix, since it was a genetic issue, etc.
In the end, the zealots are helping us... Just not in the way they intended.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
"the plan is to insert human DNA into a rabbit's egg. That really is a significant step to be making..." playboy bunnies!!!
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
my personal feelings are that the Australian parliament has fallen into the trap of allowing the end to justify the means
No, they allowed their decision to be based on science rather than what the church says. You'd be crying foul if it was Islamists trying to influence the law, so stop pushing for Christian law.
There's a lot of people who could be saved by this research, and if a few frog biological cells (that don't even have brains) have to die in the process, then so be it.
you know, the idea isn't to grow these stem cells into actual beings. they grow into a group of cells called the blastocyst. consisting of 36 omnipotent cells. these cells can then form into any cell needed, given the proper guidance. thusly creating nerve cells to help victims of paralysis and such. so no there wont be any manbearpigs running around. besides our DNA isn't compatible, because if it was don't you think some lonely farmer somewhere would have goat-boys?
IQ is no indicator of evolution. It's a meaningless number.
Besides, evolution does not occur over the span of 50 years (for humans, anyway). We do not "look different" than we did 50 years ago. Styles and fashion have changed, and people in the spotlight are a whole lot thinner, but that's about it.
We simply do not have the longevity or the records currently to determine whether we still evolving and a "normal" rate. My guess is that we as a people are going to get "dumber", since "dumber" people tend to have more babies than others. However there is no evidence to make such a claim either way; it's just opinion.
"The average IQ has increased."
Uh, not to be nit picky, but average IQ can't increase. The IQ score is always relative to a bell curve, with 'average' alwaysbeing smack-dab at the 50th percentile (the mean). 200==100th percentile, and 0==0th percentile (both more or less immeasurable).
Now, you could say that the bell-curve's getting humpy at the high end (which it is), and you could say that an IQ of 100 is smarter than it used to be (also true, though most people with higher intelligence but less education never notice), but the 'average IQ' is always 100.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
The only thing catholic bishops could claim to be authoritative about are ancient religious tracts and the bizarre labyrinthine philosophy they've developed from them.
Evolution, the way Darwin described it, does not continue in the human race. Darwin's model of evolution is a science of "Natural Selection." This is otherwise known as "survival of the fittest".
Humans are not a people who promote this concept. We put our sick in hospitals, we extend the lives of the terminally ill, we allow people with disease to live, we pay taxes to aid the disabled.
I am not against any of these things. They are the morally right thing to do.
However, they inhibit evolution. By allowing people with genetic disorders or family histories of genetic disorders to procreate and pass on their traits we are destroying Natural Selection.
People who are blind recieve disability pay. Animals who are blind (and normally aren't) get killed and eaten.
People who can't walk get special privileges to help make their daily lives more manageable. Animals who can't travel under there own power get killed and eaten.
People who have genetic disabilites such as Parkinsons, Epilepsy, and Cerberal Palsy, or family histories of disease e.g. Diabetes, High Cholestorol, Heart Problems get taken care of in medical treatment facilities largely funded by tax money.
Animals with genetic disabilities or disease get... you guessed it... killed and eaten.
Animals follow the path of Survival of the Fittest evolution, humans do everything we can to hinder that process. We do not evolve the way Darwin explained it. We evolve emotionally, culturally, and technologically, but not physically. This may be the ultimate downfall of mankind as diseases like the Avian Flu and Cancer are simply too much for our weak bodies to handle. Diseases and Viruses continue to evolve physically leaving us in the dust.
Stem Cell research needs to make up for our lack of physical evolution by finding cures to diseases that will otherwise cause the extinction of our race.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes, etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.
However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.
"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With proper limitations in place, there simply is no reason not to proceed with this type of research. There are many advances that have occurred over time that were fought for what appear now to be "silly" reasons (mostly ignorant fear).
Proceed!
Actually bush was the first president to approve federal funding for human stem cell research. He did veto one but it was for a change of a Clinton law,The Dickey Amendment, that would of allowed the destruction of huamn embryoinic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells does not equal stem cells in discussion they are different both politics and in science.
You're looking at changes over a span of 2 generations and invoking evolution? That's ridiculous. These changes are purely environmental. If you take two groups of people with similar genes, feed one group well from birth and give them education, while starving the other group and keeping them stupid and oppressed - guess what? You end up with two groups that don't look very similar (example: North Koreans vs. South Koreans).
This has zero to do with evolution.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
The first sentence is debatable. I'm not sure when a biologist would begin to define something as "a human", but it would probably not be at this stage. Yes, we were all blastocysts once. We were also each an unfertilized egg at some stage as well. It is not usually considered a tragedy that an egg goes unfertilized and dies at the end of a woman's cycle. Some of the greatest people have indeed had genetic problems, however this research does not concern denying life to enbryos with such problems. Stem cell therapy is concerned with treating disorders in living people. It is distinct from selecting embryos based on desirable qualities.
Fetal stem cell research is at an early stage. There was a time only a few centuries ago when the same could have been said of electrical science (and there were people killed in the process). Science tends to be concerned with pure research first, and often a later time will arrive when that research can be translated into useful developments. It is unreasonable to expect stem cell research to have produced cures at this stage.
Adult stem cell therapies do indeed have potential to cure certain disorders, and I am all for research in this area. However fetal stem cells are far more versatile, and offer the possibilities of cures for a far greater number of such disorders. In response to you last sentence about "potential babies" I would refer you to what I said earlier. Every possible sperm-egg combination is a potential baby. By your definition, every unfertilized egg is a potential baby killed.
There are currently proposals that would dramatically reduce the number of human eggs required for such research by removing all the DNA (except mitochondrial) from an egg of another animal, for instance cows, and replacing it with human DNA. Whilst there are issues with whether this will be sufficiently safe to use in treatments, it certainly avoids some ethical problems during the reseach stages.
Hehe. Still, even a perfect test can be skewed by a population that isn't as balanced as the test is. It helps if the population being tested is honest - and average.
Meanwhile, now I know why the IQ tests I took as a child had spelling errors. Seriously, you kiss your mom with that spell check?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
This kind of research is essential for the improvement of the human race, and all of this religious BS preventing it from happening makes me sick.
It's not religion, it's ethics. Look at the medical "experiments" the Nazi's performed without regard to either.
Today we are cloning embryos for scientific research. Why not clone zygotes? How about cloning babies? Why not use the retarded for research? How about the unemployed and homeless? Where do you draw the line? Why should I let your lack of ethics dictate how I feel about the subject?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Parent has interesting comments, and those are certainly specialized behaviors that are more or less unique to Humans.
However, make no mistake about evolution and roughly Natural Selection not applying to us. I know of no evidence that suggests humans will not be judged by time and our ability to thrive. All of our specialized behaviors such as caring for the sick, accomodating people outside the average ability (disabled people), etc. give us big advantages by keeping brain and body power available, but dependence on those same behaviors could most certainly turn out to be a weakness if our circumstances change (ice age, meteors falling, aliens arriving, plague, whatever).
Our behaviors are just that. From a removed perspective, there is nothing special about human behavior compared to other animals on earth except that we are currently very successful in thriving in this environment.
-John