Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Better hope you have insurance then. Otherwise you won't be able to get life saving treatments.
You can see why us Big Picture people don't contribute much to News sites.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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?
I know you're right, but can't you let me have my optimistic delusions for a few minutes first?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Will this help us leave this rock and get mass off this mud ball?
You'll never find out, mortal!
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?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
One step closer to making another Steve Jobs, so we can have another tech company with vision.
Too soon.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
("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.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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.
Dark Reflection
Makes it feel a little less like Bush America
That, and all this unemployment!
Dark Reflection
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?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
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.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
("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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
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".
Who is John Cabal?
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?
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.
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.
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.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
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 ?
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.
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.
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).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And I think "redrick" is supposed to be "rhetoric", although it may be a "The Shining"-esque reference to "kcirder".
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
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.
hes pro-outlaw abortion
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.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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!
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Great, just in time for cloning to be complete... soon, Steve jobs is born again :)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
"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:
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:
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.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
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.
Gah! I can't believe I just wrote "should of" instead of "should have".
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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.)
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.
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Precisely right. Well played.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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.
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.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.