Human "Cloning" Makes Embryonic Stem Cells

Med-trump writes "Scientists at the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory have reprogrammed an adult human egg cell to an embryonic state using cloning technology and created a self-reproducing line of embryonic stem cells from the developing embryo. Lead researcher Dr Dieter Egli said: 'The cells we have made are not yet for therapeutic use. There is clearly more work to be done, this is early days. We see this as a step on that road, so now we do know that a human egg can turn an adult specialised cell, such as a skin cell, into a stem cell.'"

Comments

Excellent

[spazdor]

Maybe now we're one step closer to ending the ridiculous interaction between medical research and anti-choice politics.

Re:Excellent

[Squiddie]

Ha! Not in your life, bro. They'll hear the word cloning, and try to outlaw it. The anti-science people are very vocal.

Re:Excellent

[Penguinisto]

Not sure where you gents get your news, but the juvenile bias certainly shows ("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).

Nobody with any sense complains about adult stem cells. Each adult has billions, if not trillions of those to spare. Nobody has to die in order to procure them.

Now how about you tell us how successful embryonic cells are versus adult stem cells? I'll save the arguments - the adult cells tend to work far better for the intended purpose. Turning those same cells into 'embryonic' ones may lead somewhere, they may not. OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place), so I don't foresee any major (or credible) theological or moral opposition to the idea.

Now, where are those downmods from scores of angry people, most of whom cannot comprehend an opposition based on one honest moral concept?

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope we're one step closer the ending the ridiculous process known as aging,.

Re:Excellent

[Fned]

Nobody with any sense complains about adult stem cells.

But these aren't adult stem cells, anymore, they've been turned into embryonic stem cells, which means they're each and every one a tiny little baby oh my god someone stop them WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDR... ...er... Sorry, "...with any sense..." My mistake, carry on.

Re:Excellent

[Phyvo]

As a pro-lifer I'd just like to chime in that I didn't look at the word cloning and then make up my mind to outlaw it.

While I'm far more socially conservative.than most people here for sure I like doing research into how this kind of thing is done before I reach any kind of moral decision, especially in the complicated world of stem cells and stem cell research.

Re:Excellent

[Tenek]

Nobody with any sense complains about embryonic stem cells either, just the people who think humans can be single-celled organisms.

Re:Excellent

[spazdor]

("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).

I'd call them what they want to be called, "pro-life," if only there was any evidence that this were an accurate description of their stance - say, because it tended to coincide with other "pro-life" beliefs, such as opposition to war and capital punishment, or advocacy for healthcare for people who can't pay for it. Overwhelmingly, this hasn't been the case. If you are the exception to the rule, then wear your 'pro-life' badge with pride, I guess. But the vast majority of the kooks with giant fetuses on picket signs don't warrant such a generous phrase. And, mysteriously, the distinction between different kinds of stem cells is overwhelmingly lost on them - the very people to whom the difference should matter most.

I'm sure you know very well that the definition of "human being" is what the whole argument is about, so using that term as if it were just a universally agreed-upon fact, does you no favours.

Re:Excellent

[OakDragon]

I hope we're one step closer the ending the ridiculous process known as aging,.

It didn't use to be much of a problem... but here lately, it's bothering me more and more.

Re:Excellent

[Penguinisto]

because it tended to coincide with other "pro-life" beliefs, such as opposition to war and capital punishment, or advocacy for healthcare for people who can't pay for it.

Actually, if you look at basic Christian religious beliefs, you'll find that consistency in most of them. In any Catholic church, asking around will find all of that to be true.

So your point was what - a strawman argument?

Re:Excellent

[lessthan]

You got the wrong thing from the post. There was sarcasm. The stereotypical (USA) pro-lifer follows the Republican belief system. No abortion, but plenty of money for the military, and a strong death penalty. Like the rest of the Republican belief system, strongly contradictory stances presented together without blinking.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't like to call ourselves "anti-science" so much as "pro-ethics". We worry about the ethics of what is going on here, just as we would be "pro-ethics" bacxk in the day when the Nazis were making great scientific discoveries at the expense of other human beings.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the term that you use: Pro-life. I'd much prefer that you be honest. You're anti-choice.

Re:Excellent

[rrohbeck]

That argument doesn't get any more lucid by repeating it.
The excess embryos used to harvest stem cells will die anyway. If they're not used to harvest cells they'll go in the bio trash bin.
And if a bunch of a couple dozen to hundred cells is worth calling a human being is highly debatable. Remember you shed way more living cells when you take a dump or blow your nose, and each and every one is viable as we know since Dolly the sheep.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

That also makes you anti-life.

Re:Excellent

[ranton]

("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).

Yes really. Pro-life is the more emotionally charged term because it casts the other side as anti-life, which is inaccurate. One side cares more for the life and well-being of the fetus, while the other cares more for the life, well-being, and freedom of the parent (you could argue for the freedom of the fetus too, but you aren't really taking control away from something that has no control over the situation in the first place).

On the other hand, pro-choice and anti-choice are both very accurate terms for portraying each side. If you think the term anti-choice is too negative, perhaps you should rethink your position.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe he's pro-death penalty, pro-euthanasia, or even pro-eugenics, so just maybe that's not so much the slur you imagine it to be.

Re:Excellent

[rgbatduke]

OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place), so I don't foresee any major (or credible) theological or moral opposition to the idea.

But you see, the whole point is that every single cell in your body that has a full complement of your DNA is, potentially, a separate and distinct human being. A zygote is, potentially, a separate and distinct human being. The difference between the one and the other is purely theological, doubly so when the DNA from one of your cells is turned into an "embryonic clone", a.k.a. "a zygote". Look at it through the microscope, and there it is, an egg cell with a full complement of DNA. Did it get the full complement from sexual fertilization? Sure -- the only question is when the fertilization occurred. Will it grow if properly implanted on a receptive uterus? To be sure. Will it grow into a separate and distinct human being (in both cases)? Of course. The only difference would only be visible to a cellular biologist, the length of the telomeres in the clone would likely be reduced according to the life of the original adult source and hence one of the separate and distinct humans might die younger than one might expect. But which one? One out of two "naturally" fertilized eggs fail to implant, plenty of "naturally" produced separate and distinct humans have genetic flaws.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Humans are not single celled animals. Humans are not embryos. Humans are not fetuses. Humans are not stem cells. There is no single place one can point to and say -- "Now this is human, before it was not". That is just as true on the trailing side of human existence, as life wanes, as it is on the leading side, where life waxes. What one can do (in both cases) is say things about the brain and its capacity for sentience, true self-awareness, the one thing (perhaps) that separates humans at some point from animals that otherwise follow the same process of development. When your brain is dead, "you" are dead whatever the condition of your body. When your brain is reduced to the level of functionality observed in a fetus on the downhill side of life, "you" are dead.

On the leading side there is no possible way that a zygote (created by any means whatsoever) can think. A cell is not a brain and cannot function as one. Even a fully developed fetus has no real brain, or rather, it has a brain that might one day be able to think and might support real self-awareness, but it has nothing to think about. The earliest states that can conceivably be called "thinking" almost certainly occur well after birth, but birth itself is a very reasonable time to think about conferring formal and legal human status on a pile of cells that has the "right" genetic complement and the potential to one day become properly human. That is a single point which separates that pile of cells from being something that is deeply incapable of independent existence and insulated from any possibility of developing a mind to a new state, where it can breathe, eat, and grow apart, separate and distinct from all others. That's the day that every government in the world, for all of recorded history, has in fact granted human status to fetuses, the day that yes, you get to legally deduct them on your income taxes, the day where killing them is formalized as murder, the day the clock starts for them to be able to attend school, learn to drive, vote. That would be the birthday of the little human, and not before. If it is really before, the government owes me thousands of dollars in dependent deductions... but I don't think that they will pay;-)

Regardless, stem cells are going to be, quite literally, the stuff of miracles. With them in a decade or two humans will be able to do something that God and prayer have never managed -- heal amputees, regrowing complet

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's not quite true. The Catholic Church doctrine does preach in favor "just" wars, such as the Crusades, but does preach against "unjust" wars, like the current US-Iraq war. You're mostly correct, but the Catholic Church has very nuanced and complicated answers to many simple questions, which is probably a good thing.

I will disagree with you that "basic Christian beliefs" are consistent, because the term "basic Christian belief" changes depending on to whom you are posing the question, and some/most of those people (IMHO) do not have consistent "basic Christian beliefs".

Re:Excellent

[Squiddie]

No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge. The techniques that we use my be ethical or unethical, but I've yet to see any proper argument against any kind of stem cell research. Let's be honest with each other here for a moment, a group of cells cannot think and has no rights, cannot survive without the host, and those that do go to this kind of research would be thrown away anyway. So what "ethical" questions would any of this research raise?

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.

Wow, you and Mengele would get along almost as well as Godwin and I.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA, apparently scientists are trying to create a race of soul-less babies that will never get into heaven and are therefore free to do evil. We truly are living in the End of Days.

Or at least that's how i interpreted it. I admit some of the technical language was a little over my head.

Re:Excellent

[drsmithy]

Nobody with any sense complains about embryonic stem cells either, just the people who think humans can be single-celled organisms.

I thought it was the people who thought it was preferable to flush all those potential humans down the drain rather than use them productively ?

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess you're for gun control too?

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more like a materialist, but i think what you say is untrue. If there is an empirical research is about how populations of whole towns respond to nerve gas i guess, the research is out of question.
Now you can say, that a computer simulation into this topic should be completely fair. We agree. Just do your cloning research with simulation as well.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I am certain that Dr. Josef Mengele would totally agree with you.

Re:Excellent

[repapetilto]

hes pro-outlaw abortion

Re:Excellent

[Ginger Unicorn]

if you look at basic Christian religious beliefs, you'll find that consistency in most of them.

you need to define the terms "basic" and "christian", and the inclusion of the qualifier "most" renders the strawman accusation toothless. It seems like a setup for the no true scotsman fallacy.

Re:Excellent

[camperdave]

Given that unalienable rights are endowed by the Creator, it is awfully presumptuous of you to decide at what point in time that happens. Granted, the cluster of cells cannot think, but does that matter? Neither can a coma victim, or a person who's a mental vegetable, or a politician. Granted, the cluster of cells cannot survive without the host, but apart from a few live-off-the-land survivalist types, neither can most of the population survive without each other. These are excuses. That cluster of cells is a cluster of genetically distinct human cells.

At some point, the Creator endows that cluster of cells with unalienable rights. When does that happen? When he or she is born? When he or she first has a heartbeat? When he or she first responds to external stimulus? Until we know for sure, I think we need to err on the side of caution, and decide that it occurs at the moment of conception. Before conception, that is the mother's egg. Before conception, that is the father's sperm. After conception, there is a distinct human cell unlike any other.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you think it is appropriate to berate people for their valid word choice: Pull your head out of your ass you condescending bastard and realize that there are two viewpoints to the issue. Some people call themselves 'pro-life' and other people call themselves 'pro-choice', and of the things they call each other, 'anti-choice' and 'anti-life' are probably amongst the least derogatory.

Re:Excellent

[uigrad_2000]

Maybe now we're one step closer to ending the ridiculous interaction between medical research and anti-choice politics.

And maybe the anti-life people will finally realize that adult stem cells are "where it's at".

Let's all hold hands and make a circle!

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

When you said, "prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge." Does that include the work once done by Josef Mengele?

Re:Excellent

[Squiddie]

It's again, just a cell. Also bringing "The Creator" into the discussion does you no good. This is a discussion about science and ethics, and your religion isn't any more valid than mine, whatever it may be. You will never find a point at which the cell becomes distinctly human, since it happens in slow progressions. That being said, you ignore the fact that these embryonic stem cells would just be thrown away anyway. Then again, I ask you, what is the problem? Until it can live outside the woman's body, that group of cells is just a parasite with human genes.

Re:Excellent

[tofarr]

No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.

Would that include the Nazi experiments on the Jews in concentration camps? I know that is an extreme example, but I raise it to underscore that there are some things which we should not do, even for science. (Which to me is the highest of all goals.)

Re:Excellent

[Squiddie]

Certain techniques can be unethical, but in the end, the research has to be done one way or another. Saying that we should not study something is just wrong and does deprive society of knowledge.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you bringing Richard M. Stallman on this??

Re:Excellent

[camperdave]

Also bringing "The Creator" into the discussion does you no good.

Might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence then, meaning you're still a British Colony. That means a heave-ho to the Constitution as well (or what's left of it). You can't have it both ways. Either you have God give rights, or you don't.

You will never find a point at which the cell becomes distinctly human, since it happens in slow progressions.

Exactly! Since there's no discernible point differentiating the two, the cell has just as much rights as you do, or to put it another way, you have just as few rights as that cell.

Until it can live outside the woman's body, that group of cells is just a parasite with human genes.

Um... these cells ARE living outside the woman's body.

Re:Excellent

[spazdor]

Precisely right. Well played.

Re:Excellent

[benhattman]

Now how about you tell us how successful embryonic cells are versus adult stem cells? I'll save the arguments - the adult cells tend to work far better for the intended purpose. Turning those same cells into 'embryonic' ones may lead somewhere, they may not.

Except, that's exactly not doing science. Your argument is that, you understand how one thing works a little, and you don't see proof yet that something else may be better, ergo you assume it's not worth pursuing. What if, embryonic stem cell research (and only embryonic) required the sacrifice of 1 million IVF embryos (all of which were in the process of being discarded), but the resulting research would cure 100 million people a year of disease? What if it's 1 billion people a year, or 1000 people a year? The ethics, in light of our limited foreknowledge is not nearly as cut and dried as you seem think.

OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place), so I don't foresee any major (or credible) theological or moral opposition to the idea.

This is absurd. If you clone someone to produce embryonic stem cells, you have an embryo. It just happens to be a cloned embryo, but it's still an embryo. You are splitting metaphorical hairs because your position is inherently inconsistent.

Also, the people who consistently oppose all embryonic research based on their own interpretation of what is moral will continue to do so. That cloning is introduced is more likely to increase their opposition than decrease it.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.

Viva Mengele! Viva Auschwitz! Let's start transplanting limbs between twins! Let's start pouring acid on people to see how the skin reacts. No point in doing drug testing on monkeys. Do it on Jews instead. After all, prohibiting research is immoral.

Re:Excellent

[interkin3tic]

If you think that ESC are completely redundant with adult stem cells, why do you think researchers are still pushing for ESC research? Even if you presume to be an expert in the field, it's awfully arrogant to assume you know better than the rest of the field.

The track record for ESC is quite good. We discovered a lot about adult stem cells and biology by doing studies on embryonic stem cells. We even discovered induced pluripotent stem cells via studying ESC, which are going to be far more useful for treatment than adult stem cells.

OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place)

Don't fool yourself. Theological arguments are not a significant factor impediment to using ESC right now. They're already being used for what they're useful for, which is research. Theological arguments are also not a significant factor impeding ESC therapy, what's stopping that is immune rejection and the fact that they're hard to control. If you take an ESC, it's not going to be your cells, and so your immune system is going to reject it. If it doesn't, the ESC would still either die, or produce tumors, not cure you.

If neither of those were issues, and ESC worked like magic, do you actually think the rest of us who don't share your opinions on when life begins would forgo treatment? Hell, do you think people who DO share your opinions would? At most, we'd see ESC treatments effectively outlawed in poor conservative areas, some legislation might be introduced to ban insurance from covering it, but when push comes to shove, the rich would get the effective treatment they needed while the poor would have your morality forced on them, much as is the situation with abortion today. Some of the rich, cured people would feel guilty for it, maybe they'd have to fly overseas to countries where religious fundamentalists were a little less in control, but the ethical dilemma would not stop treatment for everyone.

Re:Excellent

[Trogre]

Pro-choice more accurately describes one side than pro-life?

Tell me, do you then propose we also apply the pro-choice label for depressed mothers who want to kill their 5 year old children, because it's EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

All this "telling women what to do with their bodies" mantra is extremely one-sided and a stellar example of a strawman argument.

Re:Excellent

[sjames]

I agree that the religion itself deserves the term pro-life and it may well be that most of it's members do as well, but the vocal and political "religious right" does not. They apparently need to spend more time listening to their clergy and reading the Bible.

This is like a splash of cold water

[Synerg1y]

Makes it feel a little less like Bush America

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-07-19/politics/stemcells.veto_1_embryonic-stem-cell-destruction-of-human-embryos-moral-boundary?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/obamastemcells2/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/24906.php

I for one believe that this along with nano technology can bring about a whole new age of medicine.

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Dyinobal]

Better hope you have insurance then. Otherwise you won't be able to get life saving treatments.

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[OakDragon]

Makes it feel a little less like Bush America

That, and all this unemployment!

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[geekoid]

Rally? While unemployment peak a few months after Obama took office, it start in 06, and seclated sharply.

Only an idiot, or a person with an agenda, believe Obama casue this unemployment rate. Also, it's getting better. Slowly, but better.
Tarp(Bush) and the auto bailout(Obama) stopped it. look at the trend, it was rising like crazy.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate

I realize you were probably joking, but in the environment we have right now, facts need to be listed, not punditry Bullshit.

Please to fall prey to the anti-Obama redrick and lies. Remember, the pubs stated that their number one priority that needs to be done at all cost, was make Obama a 1 term president. Before Jobs, before tyhe economy, before 99% of the people in this nation.

froma retired republican staffer:
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

yeah, they've gone insane.

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Artifakt]

While I naturally considered suggesting a spell checker for your posts, I must admit you've got me. Seclated? Not only do I have absolutely no idea what word that was supposed to be, but it sounds like it should be a real word. In fact, please come up with a real definition for 'seclated' and try to get it widely adopted.

However, please don' t try that with "casue", "redrick", "tyhe"or "froma".

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably meant "escalated". But geekoid does that a lot; he'll go into these typing frenzies where he just pounds the keyboard with his balled-up fists as hard and fast as he can. It reflects his thinking, actually - he thinks that passion is an acceptable substitute for logic, and can't handle being challenged or contradicted.

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Attila Dimedici]

The thing is, in all previous post-WWII recessions the economy was going gangbusters this long after the start of the recession. The reason the Republicans made it a priority to make Obama a one-term President is because nothing can be done on any of the other issues until Obama is replaced in office. Obama is firmly committed to centrally planning the economy. As long as he is in office using the power of his office to strangle businesses he doesn't like (suing Boeing for the workers at its South Carolina plant rejecting the union, implementing CO2 regulations--the EPA says it needs 230,000 new workers in order to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act).

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Muad'Dave]

And I think "redrick" is supposed to be "rhetoric", although it may be a "The Shining"-esque reference to "kcirder".

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Synerg1y]

The point of my parent was to discuss Bush's throttle on stem cell research in relation to the article rofl, way to read the links slashdot. On that note, I'd take a monkey in office over Bush any day, no progress would be progress towards something better in that theoretical scenario.

Bush was a shining figure in opposing stem cell research to the point of banning it and making it illegal, why? Because of his Christian values and beliefs or something. So to recap, we had a president who put his beliefs over what could be the salvation of the human race (remember we just don't know the full extent of stem cells, they ALREADY are used in cancer therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Cancer ).

All in all this isn't about unemployment, or the recession, Obama walked into a shit storm, shame some of you can't respect that, imagine taking over a job from an incompetent sys admin, the kind who don't encrypt backup tapes. Your not going to have a chance to shine until you've fixed all the muck, on that note Obama was a bit slow since the republicans appear to hate the ground he walks on and opposed him on everything, legit or not. The fact that he cleared up the state of stem cell research to allow this article to be posted on slashdot nets him a +1 in my book.

Re:This is like a splash of cold water

[Attila Dimedici]

Bush was a shining figure in opposing stem cell research to the point of banning it and making it illegal, why?

Except that Bush did not ban it or make it illegal. All he did was become the first President to allow any federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell treatments listed in the article that you linked to use adult stem cells. President Bush in no way can be considered to have negatively impacted research into the use of adult stem cells.

Obama was a bit slow since the republicans appear to hate the ground he walks on and opposed him on everything, legit or not.

You mean during his first two years, while he had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? When the Republicans could do nothing to stop him from passing anything he wanted?
I was responding to you implying that the economy is getting better. In all previous economic cycles, things were going much better by this point. I guess it is good that Obama got his stimulus bill passed, otherwise unemployment might be 8% today.

Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[RobinEggs]

They turned an egg, a cell with only half the DNA of a regular cell, into a survivable cell line!

That's like turning Linux into Windows 7 using only BASIC. Or something. I just thought I'd toss out an analogy for those of you who understand computers but not biology to point out how fricking insane that is.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like replacing Linux with FreeBSD in Debian.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[sexconker]

They turned an egg, a cell with only half the DNA of a regular cell, into a survivable cell line!

That's like turning Linux into Windows 7 using only BASIC. Or something. I just thought I'd toss out an analogy for those of you who understand computers but not biology to point out how fricking insane that is.

It's more like turning a broken installation of Windows 7 32-bit Home Premium into whatever installation of Windows 7 you want by wiping the hard drive and then using one of those multi-installer DVDs that have a custom config page that lets you select between versions.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Bucky24]

Well that's not so hard... Science is easy! (and since I know half the people reading this won't get it, this was meant to be sarcastic)

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[blair1q]

It's more like they turned an egg into an embryo. Ever had sex?* Turns out if you do that, it's really hard not to turn an egg into an embryo.

* - this must always be asked as a serious question on /.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in dire need of a biology refresher.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Fned]

Ever had sex?* Turns out if you do that, it's really hard not to turn an egg into an embryo.

...Unless it's not really hard, then it's really hard.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[RobinEggs]

Uh...I think that's you. Since you're clearly implying that what I said is dramatically, pathetically wrong, why don't you refresh the class on what I missed?

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Sarten-X]

They took an egg. They inserted a full copy of the DNA, and the egg did what eggs normally do when they have a full copy of DNA: it started growing. The difference from previous attempts is that the single chromosome set that originally was in the egg was left in, when usually, it's removed. That difference led to different results. Previous attempts to clone humans have failed after a few cell divisions, but now the cells are able to continually divide! There's an extra set of chromosomes, which means the produced cells aren't really useful for clinical use, but it's a step in the right direction.

Your analogy describes turning one kind of fully-grown and mature cell into something completely and utterly different, like turning a skin cell into a neuron. A more apt analogy for this process is turning a half-installed Debian system into a booting Red Hat system by just reinstalling over the half-installed copy. It boots and seems functional enough, but you know it's not quite right.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[harley78]

It's only really easy for a couple days during a woman's cycle. Otherwise, it's really hard! haha!!! They probably copied the haploid DNA and recombined it somehow inside the egg(DRTFA), new technique to "prove" recessiveness?. voila, embryo.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Sarten-X]

An engine comes out of the factory, but it's only half complete. It's installed into a car, and the car goes nowhere. Usually in cases like this, the manufacturer would put in a new engine, and the car would run fine for a bit, then stop for no known reason. Now a bunch of researchers have come along, and put a complete engine into the car, and it can suddenly drive! Now, those researchers didn't remove the old engine, so the car's slower than it should be and doesn't really run well, but it runs and, for still-unknown reasons, keeps running.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's NOT how cloning works. Look it up on Wikipedia, in short you take the FULL DNA of a regular cell and make it THINK it's an egg cell. You GET RID of the original egg's DNA in the process.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the entire point about half the genetic material being missing.

Whoooooooosh!

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's like turning Linux into Windows 7..."

Ah, you mean like creating GNU/Linux from just Linux, using only BASH... ...Actually, I think I could do this with enough time and funding -- Though performance would suck, and it would be quite a re-invention of many wheels.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an egg cell.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Sarten-X]

Except these guys didn't get rid of the original DNA. That's what made this attempt work, and also what makes it clinically useless.

The good news is that now we know what to look for next: Ways to remove the original DNA from the egg, without making it stop dividing after a few rounds.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[MistrX]

I prefer a car analogy actually.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[camperdave]

They welded two motorcycles together and called it a car?

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[sexconker]

No one called me on it (because no one RTFA), but I left the word "not" out by mistake and obviously can't edit it to fix it.
They did not wipe the hard drive, they did a dirty install and it worked.

(But it's still unsuitable for using as a base image because of the extra junk. Their goal is to get it working when wiping the hard drive first, but the problem is their multi-installer dvd doesn't contain the drivers needed for the target machine to see the RAID array. The donor egg machine is a newer Dell, and the install disk is RTM.)

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[blair1q]

You don't know why sex is necessary, do you...

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good attempt at a troll comeback. 10/10, would read again.

Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ!

[sjames]

Actually, they left the egg DNA in and added a full set from the donor cell as well, so the resulting stem cells have excess genetic material. They are not viable in the sense that they could develop into a human being.

The point of that was simply to determine if the removal of DNA from the egg was the point where human cloning was failing. This research says yes, the step of removing the existing DNA from the egg is the step that caused human clones to fail.

They must now either find a way to remove the egg DNA without damaging the cell to the point it fails or figure out how to get the embryonic stem cells to reliably shed the chromosomes from the egg and become true clone cells.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You can see why us Big Picture people don't contribute much to News sites.

Cloning or insemination?

[Ragun]

I am unclear on if what happened here was anything more than skipping the sperm to introduce DNA into the egg. It sounds like removing the old DNA from the egg was breaking the reproduction method, so they just left it in. Is this any different from normal reproduction other than method of DNA delivery?

Re:Cloning or insemination?

[blair1q]

It's little to do with how they did it, and a lot to do with what it does for us.

Having stem-cell factories means having cell factories, organ factories, body factories, etc.

Re:Cloning or insemination?

[Ragun]

But the tissue isn't comparable with the donor because it still has the old egg DNA. That is why they are describing it as only a step in the right direction, but it seems precariously close what you would accomplish in sex.

Re:Cloning or insemination?

[gurps_npc]

Normal human cells have two complete sets of DNA on how to build a human being.

Eggs have 1 complete set - (sperm has another - when you combine them you get two sets)

What they did was add 2 full complete set of DNA from an adult source.

End result has 3 sets of DNA on how to build a human being.

Two of the sets come from an adult.

So say I have have kidney disease. OUCH.

And my kidneys are now running at 10%.

I could get grow a kidney from that embroy that has 1 set of DNA from say my younger sister's egg and 2 sets of DNA from say my own personal DNA.

The chances are pretty good that I could transplant that kidney and not need to to worry about rejecting it. No need to take anti-rejection drugs. No need to suppress my immune system. In fact, that kidney would probably last till the day I day as opposed to the normal 10 -12 years that they typically last.

Re:Cloning or insemination?

[sjames]

Yes, the resulting cells have 3 of each chromosome rather than two. They leave the egg's half set and add a full set from a donor cell.

Re:Cloning or insemination?

[Ragun]

Ah, thank you for the explanation. Makes me wonder, if they can inject, but not remove chromosomes well, could they just insert an enzyme or something to disable existing DNA?

sigh

[spazdor]

I know you're right, but can't you let me have my optimistic delusions for a few minutes first?

Re:sigh

[geekoid]

No. If you slack of for even a second, then make another yard of headway in promoting the anti-science BS.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[Fned]

Will this help us leave this rock and get mass off this mud ball?

You'll never find out, mortal!

it's Bush's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

always is

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[Anonymous Coward]

One step closer to making another Steve Jobs, so we can have another tech company with vision.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[ArcherB]

One step closer to making another Steve Jobs, so we can have another tech company with vision.

Too soon.

Maybe This Can Help Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, before he kicks it..

Re:Maybe This Can Help Steve Jobs

[MightyMartian]

Which he just has...

Man, is Slashdot is slow or what? There was a time when it would have scooped pretty much all the major press on something like this.

Steve Jobs Passed away

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.apple.com/ http://www.msnbc.com/

Re:Steve Jobs Passed away

[youn]

Great, just in time for cloning to be complete... soon, Steve jobs is born again :)

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. It is pro Jobs and acknowledges his contributions. Expect me to repost something similar in the eulogy thread that will probably show up next week.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the spirit! Science and technology changed everything, but let's not extend our lifespans, that's unnatural!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Well this should piss off the left and the right

[NotSoHeavyD3]

The right because they're against cloning. Of course the left will get pissed because it's using genetic engineering so it might be awhile before the rest of us can have something nice from this tech. Why yes, I am a little jaded. Why do you ask?

Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

U jelly, conservafags? Yeah, u jelly. *trollface*

Not *one* result... ever.

[scottbomb]

So far, adult stem cell research has proven to be very fruitful. Embryonic stem cell research has yielded NOTHING. Absolutely zilch. But just like "man-made global warming", pseudo-science will always have a home as long as we continue to pay attention to those who mix politics with science.

Re:Well this should piss off the left and the righ

[tragedy]

I think the left only gets annoyed at genetic engineering when the results are released haphazardly into the environment to propagate and potentially ruin our food supply.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Steve jobs is obviously a bad design.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[yourdeadin]

May be we can use this tech to clone Steve Jobs ? Who is with me?

Re:Well this should piss off the left and the righ

[Phrogman]

Or when its used to ensure all farmers *near* a field with the genetically modified plants growing in it are required to pay a fee if those plants should happen to cross pollinate with any of their plants (looks at Monsanto). Or when companies claim ownership of a living person's body because it contains a patented gene as a result of therapy (can't find the reference)

I do not believe it should be legal to patent a living organism, or a strand of DNA, or a gene or anything else that might somehow occur naturally given time etc.

Re:Will this help with a space elevator?

[ZankerH]

Will this help us leave this rock and get mass off this mud ball? I don't care if my lifespan is only 0.00000001% of the life of the universe, I feel the species must colonize the galaxy, even if in 100000 years humans will have diverged so much we'll be different species.

I'd much rather prolong my lifespan so I can see whether we do.

Yes, I'm aware radical life extension is a very sensitive topic. I hope to spend many centuries to properly think it over.

Agenda != Science

[Gimbal]

I'm afraid that the previous presidential administration did not allow for such cultural discourse about the matter as it must naturally merit, given the specialized concerns on all sides of the arguments, with regards to stem cell research. Hopefully this administration will find an opportunity to begin a culturally, socially beneficial discussion about the matters, though it must ultimately be a matter decided by the people.

Re:Agenda != Science

[operagost]

I'm afraid that the previous presidential administration did not allow for such cultural discourse about the matter as it must naturally merit

Please cite the law that disallowed research or even, as you claim, "cultural discourse" regarding stem cell (I'll assume embryonic stem cell) research.

Re:Excellent (Islamic angle)

[mapkinase]

"the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place), so I don't foresee any major (or credible) theological or moral opposition to the idea."

The conjection is wrong because moral objection to destroying a human being or potential human being is not the only foreseeble moral theological opposition to this idea. Since there is quite general views among my Muslim brothers on this subject, I need to clarify this here from the point of view of the companions of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam.

An objection to it from Islamic point of view is usually based on the following Ayah of the Holy Qur'an:

They call upon instead of Him none but female [deities], and they [actually] call upon none but a rebellious Satan whom Allah has cursed. For he had said, "I will surely take from among Your servants a specific portion. And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah." And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.

As you can see it's quite generic if taken out of context. Let's see what a study based on the opinion of the companions, radhi Allahu anhum, of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, says on this matter. One of the most authoritative exegeses of Qur'an, by Sh. ibn Katheer:

(And indeed I will order them to change the nature created by Allah.) means tattooing, according to Al-Hasan bin Abi Al-Hasan Al-Basri. In his Sahih, Muslim recorded the prohibition of tattooing the face, which in one of its wordings states: "May Allah curse whoever does this.'' It is also recorded in the Sahih that Ibn Mas`ud said, "May Allah curse those who have tattoos and those who do it, who pluck their (facial) hairs and the one who does it for them, and those who make spaces between their teeth for the purpose of beauty, changing what Allah has created.''

May be there are other Ahadith on this subject, may be there is not, but at least one of very valid opinions interprets this Ayah as quite specific and refers to modification of woman's appearance for the purposes of attraction of men.

The latter prohibition actually makes sense even for atheists: appearance of a woman is a selection factor reflecting her health, and wide spread post-birth modification of woman's appearance leads to messing up of that factor and genetic weakening of the offspring.

Re:Well this should piss off the left and the righ

[tragedy]

Yes. Should of thought of those examples as well. The point is that it's not stupid to worry about some of the issues involved in genetic engineering. That doesn't mean that anyone with some concerns is an irrationally scared kneejerk idiot who thinks that any genetic engineering is going to end up like _I am Legend_ like the Great Grandparent poster seems to think. Also, I don't see why only more liberal leaning people should be the only ones concerned about some of these genetic engineering issues. Some of the problems seem like they should be valid concerns for conservatives as well. Those labels don't define most people's views properly in any case.

Re:Well this should piss off the left and the righ

[tragedy]

Gah! I can't believe I just wrote "should of" instead of "should have".

Re:Well this should piss off the left and the righ

[Anonymous Coward]

Or when companies claim ownership of a living person's body because it contains a patented gene as a result of therapy (can't find the reference)

There's a very good reason for that.