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.'"
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?
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.
("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!
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
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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
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!
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.)
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!