Slashdot Mirror


First Genetically Modified Human Embryo Under Review

Wired is reporting that Cornell University researchers genetically modified a human embryo in 2007, but have only recently been gaining publicity as their work is being reviewed. "The research raises a number of thorny ethical questions. Though adding a fluorescent protein was merely a proof-of-principle step, scientists say that modified embryos could be used to research human diseases. They say embryos wouldn't be allowed to develop for more than a few weeks, much less implanted in a woman and brought to term."

4 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. Could Be Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Children are born to parents who don't want them, they neglect them, abuse them, and even kill them.

    There are parents who know they have medical problems related to their genetics, and yet are still selfish enough to "try for one" instead of adopting one of the 50,000+ or so that die of starvation somewhere in the world.

    There are people out there who believe that having a baby can help save their relationship / marriage, and so create a whole human being just so they don't have to face up to the fact that they don't belong with somebody.

    There are a host of ethical issues about this genetically modified human embryo, but nothing worse than already exists in the world today.

  2. Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? by kc8apf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are presenting one side of an issue as the only side. You've chosen the side that embryos are human and alive and thus this is murder. From the other side, these are not humans and/or not alive. Religion seems to come in on this since one of the most vocal religious groups (christians) tend to side with you. It isn't really a religious debate, but many people view it as one due to that.

    --
    kc8apf
  3. Re:wouldn't be allowed to develop? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You had me until the last sentence.

    They are a mass of cells that one day could become human. My sperm one day could also become human, does that make masturbation a crime if I don't make every attempt possible to fertilize an egg?? Is a woman committing murder because she doesn't attempt to get pregnant every period??

    Oh .. I know. Some chose an arbitrary point when an egg and sperm meet to decide what is human.

    OK .. I chose the arbitrary point when a fetus emerges from a woman as the point a fetus becomes human. I have just as much basis for that statement as anyone who chooses fertilization. It's all arbitrary depending on your beliefs, since there are no scientific or legal definitions for a soul. Religious definitions don't count, as you just said. As far as the law is concerned, a soul doesn't exist.

    I've noticed it also depends on whether or not the person arguing is the one that has to support it. Seems that people are more than willing to argue against abortion when they don't have to support the child in the end. I agree with the semi-serious argument that all anti-abortion advocates should have to sign up to adopt all the children that their cause prevents being aborted.

    That flimsy argument aside, the US recognizes 90 days of development as to when an abortion can occur, so any embryo that is not developed past that point should be able to be terminated in the US without receiving any permission from a legal authority. The US does not define what methods are acceptable for creating embryos, both natural and artificial means are accepted. So whether or not an embryo is in a placenta or a petri dish should also be irrelevant. Since embryos can be frozen for years, it should be based on physical development, not length of time.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  4. Re:What is "human" to you? by Epistax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the parent was suggesting that humans aren't hypocritical dumbasses. That said, I do like my steak medium-rare.

    We make the decision every day as to what deserves to live and die in the animal kingdom. Being a part of the animal kingdom means that we are not above that, unless there is really no logic behind it. If the argument is intelligence, I submit that a one-year-old pig is more sentient than a one-year-old baby (humans develop more slowly), and would therefore have a stronger "right" to live. If the argument is potential intelligence, then what of mentally handicapped?

    Not making an argument, this is just what goes through my head. Again, I like my steak medium rare.