I am a "genetic experimenter". I've put genes from mice, humans, and frogs into chick embryos. I've even assembled genes from pieces of mouse and human genes, even creating some sequence myself. I've created 7 different retroviruses. All of this has been done to gain a deeper understanding of developmental biology so that some day people who've gotten into an accident and lost the ability to walk can do so again. Go ahead, experiment on me.
I don't know why you think that any research falling under this bill is for rare diseases only. It seems extremely likely to me, as a developmental neurobiologist, that any successful attempt at regenerative medicine will require such experimentation. Human regeneration is limited to specific tissues (e.g., liver) or at specific timepoints (e.g., losing a fingertip as a kid). Lots of people lose body parts, are in accidents and have their spinal cord severed. We might want to try to create adult human stem cells that impart regeneration. We might need to slightly modify a few genes in those stem cells, perhaps with some guidance from animal cells that are capable of regeneration. We might want to test the regenerative human cells in animal models, before trying them in people. It's not as if there is no oversight, if you read TFA:
The revised Bill does more than even the committee asked for. It effectively removes the barriers completely, permitting the creation of all four currently envisaged types of hybrid embryo, subject to a licence being granted by the relevant regulatory authority - in this case the HFEA. Besides, morality is relative.
The human has almost evolved naturally to what it can be
You base that statement on what? Human 'evolution' over the past one or two hundred years? I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that humans have stopped genetically evolving. Compared to even 100 years ago we have better nutrition, a better understanding of medicine, and we have better shelter and clothing. Those things have afforded us longer, healthier lives. But they are not evidence of the rate of genetic evolution. Remember, evolution takes place over a long period of time. As in 'geologic' time. Sure, punctuated equilibrium acts as a turbo boost every now and then, but it averages out to a very slow process.
But is the human race ready to abandon morality?
I don't think 'changing one's morals' is the same as 'abandoning one's morals', but someone feel free to educate me on that.
If you had some basic biology, have an interest in learning more, and aren't afraid of a little chemistry, then I recommend "Molecular Cell Biology" by Harvey Lodish et al. (This was one of my college textbooks.) A new edition is pricey (~US$120), but you can buy the old edition (1999) on Amazon.com for cheap (as low as US$2.20!), which should suffice.
The book starts off describing cells, their components, and some chemistry involved. It goes on to discuss genetics, cell energetics, and cell-cell communication. The authors use and explain the scientific terminology (unlike the NYT), but don't get bogged down in detail that will confuse someone 'new' to biology, IMO.
If you read and understand a book like this, then you will be able to read and understand any science article in a newspaper or lay magazine easily. You'll probably be able to understand the original scientific articles, to some degree.
Call me skeptical, but a scientific summary from Fox News? Never mind that probably all fears are learned rather than inherited behavior (I'm not even going to start to argue about that), this summary contains gems such as:
-Humans are descended from those same primates.
Another poster mentioned the unscientific nature of this sentence; "might be" would be better language than "are."
-Today, the only other threats faced by primates are raptors, such as eagles and hawks, and large carnivores, such as bears, large cats and wolves, but these animals evolved long after snakes did.
Can anyone name an area in the world where wolves and monkeys coexist? Jungles are full of large cats, and thanks to a foolish Barbary macaque in a Dutch zoo I now know that bears and primates coexist in parts of Asia. But wolves? Perhaps millions of years ago. But then let's hypothesize that it was giant carnivorous pigs that drove the evolution.
Well, I clearly misread the superscript; I must've confused '1' and '2'. Yes, attaching the name 'Rakic' will get your paper published in a better journal. And I did (needlessly) assume the embryos were kept in Russia because I imagine it would be a nightmare to ship them. Perhaps not. (Incidentally, the last reference cited is the UK regulations for using human fetal tissue. Whether the Oxford scientists work under the stipulation that any foreign colleagues obey those regulations as well is anyone's guess, but they could've been shipped to the UK.)
Is the paper hyped in the media? Probably. However, we can't say right now. We won't really know until more is learned about this population of cells. It just so happens that this discovery can be easily related to the public, and a pseudoscience newspaper article written up. I personally would rather see more cutting edge science fed to the public than kept away from them. Unfortunately, most of that science will go over the heads of the untrained, which is almost everyone. Therefore the only thing to do is give them the easy to digest stuff. Just my two cents.
Since you know where the embryos came from, then you too looked at the article. It is in Nature Neuroscience, not some shabby journal, but a fairly well-respected one in the field. Sure, finding this cell population in humans adds to the novelty, but finding a totally new neuronal population is novel in and of its own.
Also, you should have noted that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Russian Institute. All of the research was probably done there, with only photographs ever leaving the country. (Given the process used to analyze the tissue, it would be pointless to fly/ship the slides to England or the U.S., and I can't imagine the nightmare of trying to ship a human embryo.)
Of course, that again points to the marketing departments of Yale and Oxford. But that does not diminish the value of the science.
A generic name for such a potentially interesting cell population. What is cool about these neurons is that their equivalent has never been seen in any model organisms (animals that research scientists study as 'models' of human development - rats, mice, fruit flies, nematodes, chick embryos, etc). The authors hint that they may not even exist in model organisms.
Of course, that will make studying them all the more difficult if they are a uniquely human cell population, as currently there have been no public attempts to surgically or genetically modify human embryos in the name of science.
I also found it interesting that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Institute of Experimental Medicine in Russia, yet TFA mentions 'Yale' and 'Oxford' only.
i dont' know how you acquired your knowledge of what it's like to work in academic science and earn a phd, but if it was first hand i am sorry that the situation apparently jaded you. i am earning my phd in biology (7th year baby), and have never heard of an advisor taking credit for a students work. in fact, i only know 3 faculty members who even touch benchwork (out of maybe 70 whom i am familiar with).
but it's refreshing to see the stipulations set forth to the researchers, given that the academic/research environment is very competitive and rife with 'secrets'. however, i think the submitter was a bit of a flamebait for suggesting open source anything.
if you read the seattle times article, you would see that only some of the money goes towards companies (most towards research institutes and centers which are more like academic institutions), and there are goals that must be met. so, they don't achieve the goals, they don't get more money. end of story.
what i find interesting is that the amount of money from the gates foundation will be only 10% of all money towards HIV vaccine research - never mind the amount spent on other drugs for HIV, etc.
There is no reason to believe that 'tooth stem cells' wouldn't 'know' how to regrow the tooth. In fact, there is sufficient evidence that hypothetical 'tooth stem cells' would 'know' exactly how to regrow the tooth. Research in animals with regenerative capacity in certain tissues/organs has shown that the process of regeneration very closely mimics the process of the initial growth and development of that tissue during embryonic/larval stages. We're talking the same profile of gene expression and protein synthesis.
Therefore, if your tooth 'knew' how to grow once, it 'knows' how to grow again, given that there are 'tooth stem cells' and that there aren't factors which impede regeneration. (Which there are, in humans and most mammals. The slashdot story from a week or so ago about repairing damaged spinal cords in rats - the researchers used certain reagents which inhibit the inhibitors of regeneration, that's why it worked.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the blood is not as efficient as it could be in transferring oxygen, but I would think that it is still pretty damn useful.
I am a "genetic experimenter". I've put genes from mice, humans, and frogs into chick embryos. I've even assembled genes from pieces of mouse and human genes, even creating some sequence myself. I've created 7 different retroviruses. All of this has been done to gain a deeper understanding of developmental biology so that some day people who've gotten into an accident and lost the ability to walk can do so again. Go ahead, experiment on me.
You base that statement on what? Human 'evolution' over the past one or two hundred years? I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that humans have stopped genetically evolving. Compared to even 100 years ago we have better nutrition, a better understanding of medicine, and we have better shelter and clothing. Those things have afforded us longer, healthier lives. But they are not evidence of the rate of genetic evolution. Remember, evolution takes place over a long period of time. As in 'geologic' time. Sure, punctuated equilibrium acts as a turbo boost every now and then, but it averages out to a very slow process.
But is the human race ready to abandon morality?I don't think 'changing one's morals' is the same as 'abandoning one's morals', but someone feel free to educate me on that.
But you didn't count on John Spartan being released from suspended animation to save us!
The book starts off describing cells, their components, and some chemistry involved. It goes on to discuss genetics, cell energetics, and cell-cell communication. The authors use and explain the scientific terminology (unlike the NYT), but don't get bogged down in detail that will confuse someone 'new' to biology, IMO.
If you read and understand a book like this, then you will be able to read and understand any science article in a newspaper or lay magazine easily. You'll probably be able to understand the original scientific articles, to some degree.
-Humans are descended from those same primates.
Another poster mentioned the unscientific nature of this sentence; "might be" would be better language than "are."
-Today, the only other threats faced by primates are raptors, such as eagles and hawks, and large carnivores, such as bears, large cats and wolves, but these animals evolved long after snakes did.
Can anyone name an area in the world where wolves and monkeys coexist? Jungles are full of large cats, and thanks to a foolish Barbary macaque in a Dutch zoo I now know that bears and primates coexist in parts of Asia. But wolves? Perhaps millions of years ago. But then let's hypothesize that it was giant carnivorous pigs that drove the evolution.
Is the paper hyped in the media? Probably. However, we can't say right now. We won't really know until more is learned about this population of cells. It just so happens that this discovery can be easily related to the public, and a pseudoscience newspaper article written up. I personally would rather see more cutting edge science fed to the public than kept away from them. Unfortunately, most of that science will go over the heads of the untrained, which is almost everyone. Therefore the only thing to do is give them the easy to digest stuff. Just my two cents.
Also, you should have noted that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Russian Institute. All of the research was probably done there, with only photographs ever leaving the country. (Given the process used to analyze the tissue, it would be pointless to fly/ship the slides to England or the U.S., and I can't imagine the nightmare of trying to ship a human embryo.)
Of course, that again points to the marketing departments of Yale and Oxford. But that does not diminish the value of the science.
Of course, that will make studying them all the more difficult if they are a uniquely human cell population, as currently there have been no public attempts to surgically or genetically modify human embryos in the name of science.
I also found it interesting that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Institute of Experimental Medicine in Russia, yet TFA mentions 'Yale' and 'Oxford' only.
i dont' know how you acquired your knowledge of what it's like to work in academic science and earn a phd, but if it was first hand i am sorry that the situation apparently jaded you. i am earning my phd in biology (7th year baby), and have never heard of an advisor taking credit for a students work. in fact, i only know 3 faculty members who even touch benchwork (out of maybe 70 whom i am familiar with).
but it's refreshing to see the stipulations set forth to the researchers, given that the academic/research environment is very competitive and rife with 'secrets'. however, i think the submitter was a bit of a flamebait for suggesting open source anything.
if you read the seattle times article, you would see that only some of the money goes towards companies (most towards research institutes and centers which are more like academic institutions), and there are goals that must be met. so, they don't achieve the goals, they don't get more money. end of story. what i find interesting is that the amount of money from the gates foundation will be only 10% of all money towards HIV vaccine research - never mind the amount spent on other drugs for HIV, etc.
Therefore, if your tooth 'knew' how to grow once, it 'knows' how to grow again, given that there are 'tooth stem cells' and that there aren't factors which impede regeneration. (Which there are, in humans and most mammals. The slashdot story from a week or so ago about repairing damaged spinal cords in rats - the researchers used certain reagents which inhibit the inhibitors of regeneration, that's why it worked.)