Cloning License for Dolly's Doc

Rollie Hawk writes "Ian Wilmut, leader of Dolly the sheep's team and Professor at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, has been given the green light by the British government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to start further cloning research. As a matter of fact, he is now a licensed human cloner. The license has a duration of one year and is the second of its kind given by Britain, the first country to officially sanction human cloning research. Research will be focusing on motor neurone disease (MND). The team hopes to perform cell nuclear replacement on the skin cells of MND victims in order to create stem cells, the jack-of-all-trades of the cell family and the supposed magic bullets for ailments ranging from Alzheimer's to paralysis.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[lederhosen]

>...but I think with the current
>knowledge of this subject...

How can we gain knowledge if we don't do research?

So.....

[Meostro]

The license has a duration of one year and is the second of its kind given by Britain, the first country to officially sanction human cloning research.

So who got the first one?

sure whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

just cure my fucking diabetes already.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[Datasage]

How do we know if a thoery is valid if we are not allowed to test it? Expirments are a part of the scientifc process, without them, all your theories are just hypothesis.

Re:Thank you Bush!

[TheMeuge]

As much as the parent can be considered a troll, he/she is right. The pressure of religious ethics of the right wing Christians, along with this administration's spite towards science, will result in rapid elimination of the slim lead that the US has been maintaining in medical and basic research.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[lumpenprole]

I don't know. Why don't you ask those people with motor neuron disease he's trying to find a treatment for how they feel about the ethical implications.

Re:Not human cloning.

[Anonymous Coward]

so human embryos do not grow to become humans?

Are you living on this planet or another one?

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

ethical standards about what we want to achieve and how far we are willing to go

It is ethical to engage in research which may heal people suffering from horrible diseases. It is unethical to throw up roadblocks to such research based on vague fears about Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.

Any questions?

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[lederhosen]

I have big problem with people fiddle around with genetics. But you do have to think about what is good and what is bad. I have *no* problem whatsoever with
cloning though I have serious problem with modifying genes that are inherited.

Go ahead and clone cells for cancer treatment, and deseases, but wait with messing with genes that will
be left for all comming generations (at least untill we really know what we are doing.

Sadly, it seams to be the other way around, mix genes of fish with potatoes, modify corn etc, things that *may* cause severe problems in the
future people seams to accept. But when you
*clone* something, everyone screams, think about our children, when it is realy totaly harmless

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[tgibbs]

Ever heard of "theoretical" research?

Strangely, astronomy is a science, though we've never created a supernova of ourselves, or travelled for a lightyear to get a feel for the distance.

I think there is a lot that can simply be learnt by studying and observing and THEN we can start thinking about how to change things.

We've been studying and observing for decades. The research is really at a point where it is impossible to carry it appreciably further without experimental results to test the theories, which we finally have the technology to do. There's really no reason to imagine that at some future time we'd be in a better position to decide how to do these experiments. At some point, you just have to try it and see if it works.

Re:Genetic material question

[InternationalCow]

The egg contains mitochondria, and, indeed, some motor neuron diseases are indirectly linked to mitochondrial dysfunction. If bad mitochondria cause the disease, problem solved, as the mitochondria are not from the person with MND. However, most motor neuron diseases that we know of and are connected to mitochondrial dysfunction are actually caused by problems in nuclear genes - case in point being amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (aka Lou Gehrig's disease), which is related to mutations in superoxide dismutase. The dysfunctioning of this protein in turn affects mitochondrial function leading to increased apoptosis, etc.. Apart from that, tackling degenerative disease using stem cells is probably not going to work in many cases - many of those diseases may not be caused by cell-autonomous processes, which means that whatever is killing the motor neurons is going to kill the stem cells as well. Stem cells may however be very useful for repopulating purposes, if we can get them to differentiate in the right way in the right place.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[tgibbs]

But first you have to decide the ethical standards for doing the tests, which seems to have been long overlooked.

I disagree. People have been thinking about the ethical standards for a long time. All relevant issues have been extensively debated. I haven't heard anybody with anything new to say on the topic for many years. Since there are no plans for creating organisms with a functioning nervous system capable of suffering, the experiments clearly meet established standards of scientific ethics. And the basic manipulations of human embryos in vitro have long been carried out for in vitro fertilization, so we have already decided as a society that this sort of manipulation is ethically acceptable.

Of course there are some people with religious objections to this, just as there are some people with religious objections to eating beef or pork. They will at some point have to decide whether their personal ethics permit them to take advantage of the benefits of this research.

Rather than banning it

[KalvinB]

I really don't like the idea of harvesting stem cells from embryos (but I'm not going to fight tooth and nail to stop the inevitable, we don't reject what the Nazis learned simply because of their methods, but we certainly don't condon their actions either) so what I'd like to see is science looking for ways to get stem cells by other means. We used to scratch the scalps on people with headaches to let the blood out to make the headache go away. Now we use Aspirine.

Rather than trying to solve these problems by going directly for the (quite possibly misguided) "magic bullet" I'd like to see science spending more time trying to cure these things with "not so magic" bullets which I don't think anyone has a problem with. The problem is this idea that embyonic stem cells are an inevitable success. Which, it's not. But this idea is thrown out there and so less controversial sources of stem cells are quickly dismissed.

Like it or not, at least in the US, scientists need government funds to do these experiments and in the US we have a president and a large vocal population who isn't going to let government funds support these types of experiments. If private funds could do the job then there wouldn't be a problem. But even the wealthy private sector isn't too keen on this stuff either.

As a result, science needs to find ways to solve problems that stick to the ethical guidlines dictated by the people whether they happen to like them or not.

The UK rushing to this magic bullet without considering alternatives is a bad idea.

I'd be more inclinded to be happy about this if challenged, conclusive studies existed that alternate sources of stem cells were 100% unviable to cure various problems.

Those studies currently do not exist.

Not human cloning. Worse.

[zippthorne]

so.. if an embryo starts to become too much like a human is he obligated to kill it?

The problem i have with theraputic cloning is that it's exactly the kind of cloning we shouldn't allow, being the microscopic (or in a particularly ghoulish world, full-size) equilvalent of having a baby to harvest its heart.

I really don't understand why people opposed to reproductive cloning on some kind of moral argument can turn around and support theraputic cloning. I mean, so what if people want to have vanity babies that are nearly copies of themselves?

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[Xyanth]

I say let 'em do the cloning. We would probably be ages ahead of ourselves if it weren't for all of the people and lobbying groups against advancing science and technology in various fields. Weather manipulation, underwater climate control, cross-breeding of plants, unharmful pesticides, new forms of energy generators... You name it, there's a group of individuals somewhere trying to fight it. Even political and economical concepts get that same treatment. At the rate it's going, America will be far behind all of the other countries due to the fact that American opinions matter too much. Even the really stupid opinions. Freedom of speech is nice sometimes, but it's very often one of our own handicaps.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[Swamii]

Good point, I concede that it isn't the same. I still wonder whether a public forum, where the public is mostly uninformed and politically motivated, is a good place to consider the question.

I'd be pissed.

[Mao]

I don't care what ethical/philosophical arguments anyone employs regarding cloning.

I for one would be pissed if I realized that I am the cloned version of someone else.

(It's probably impossible to create an EXACT clone; but still, I'd kick my original's ass, for he would likely be older than I am, and I enjoy beating up old people. Ok that last part was a joke.)

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[metlin]

> but I don't think that most of them are
> doing this just because they can.

And even if they *did* do it just because they can, what's wrong with that?

Atleast it's something that has potential benefits to humanity.

Artists have "artistic liberty" to go ahead and do any damn thing they want and call it art. Why not scientists, too?

Even morals are relative - and where the lines are drawn is largely contingent upon one's upbringing and culture, rather than some universal moral code.

In the end, it is progress for humanity. That's what counts.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[Gauchito]

vague fears about Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.

That's not the reason people object to this kind of research. The main question in this whole argument is the one that neither side can agree on: at what point do we start being a living human being, and the killing of that human being becomes murder? At conception or some arbitrary point later (e.g., brain is fully formed, a neuron grows, all fingers are there, etc.)? Every other point in this discussion stems from that one question, for which there seems to be no objective answer, because we don't have a clear, unanimous idea of what it actually means to be human.

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[Omestes]

This is to say that you beleive that some concrete ethical standard can be developed. I doubt that this is the case, especailly in todays "intellectual" climate (especially in the US).

What we have is science vs. religion. Science coming from a rational direction. Religion screaming "God doesn't like it!" Same as in all the big ticket ethical questions, such as abortion. Compromise is impossible, both sides are fixed and dogmatic, even if their might be a silent minority with median views.

Science seems to lack some of the possible humanistic issues, while religion fails to take in account that some people really don't give a rats ass what their interpretation of their mythology tells them. I think the atheistic side might be capable of compromise, while the religious will never. Sadly the religious side is in control in the US.

I think what is needed is to censor the religious people. Only allow logical/scientific arguements, and resort to real ethiks, being that all issues are inevitable, and pointless to ban.

I personally can't only think of a handful of pragmatic ethical considerations against any form of cloning, and a plethera of positive humanistic benefits.

On the down side we have the fact that only the wealthy could afford genetic treatments. The unforseen effects of germ line therapies, and the fact that decendants have no choice. The trite sci-fi full human cloning, which would go under my first condition. And then the whole fetus issue, which is pretty much mute in a world without souls.

Perhaps banning certain aspects might be in the best interest, but not the full genetic horse.

Re:Just a friendly reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason embryonic stem-cell research hasn't yet been as successful as adult stem-cell research is because it's controversial and thus hasn't been pursued nearly as aggressively by the world's research community in general. Embryonic stem-cells are far more flexible than adult stem-cells and, in my opinion, show far more promise. Every avenue of research should be pursued. If you close yourself off to a particular area of research, then it's likely that you're only prolonging a breakthrough.

Re:Just a friendly reminder

[arkhan_jg]

You are aware that new embryonic stem cell lines in the US cannot be researched by any organisation receiving federal funding right? (which is virtually all of them in this field)

Since the existing lines are contaminated [bbc.co.uk] embryonic stem cell research has slowed badly in the US.

Embyronic stem cells are far simpler to manipulate than adult stem cells into the type of cells you want, but effective research into them has slowed to a trickle in many countries, including the US, because of religious and political reasons, not scientific ones.

Also, adult stem cells theoretically age faster than embryonic ones. That's not to say adult cells aren't useful; they're easier to create without culturing and have many useful applications that embryonic cells may not be suitable for.

In the end, one is a hammer, the other is a screwdriver. Since the US government has effectively outlawed screwdrivers, it's not surprising that more uses have been found for hammers.

Personally, I'm glad my government is funding investigation into both types of stem cells, rather than letting uninformed moral police dictate science.

BINGO!!!

[the_skywise]

"And then the whole fetus issue, which is pretty much mute in a world without souls."

Ergo, fetuses don't have souls so killing them for medical experimentation isn't a problem.

Yeah, that's a real "humanistic" attitude right there.

It's not a "God doesn't like it argument" Your statement right there is a perfect example as to why people have ethical problems about the whole issue.

Soylent Green anyone? I mean, c'mon it's only dead human flesh... It's not like you're eating someone's soul!

Re:Is this a good idea AT THIS TIME?

[tgibbs]

Not out in the open. Unfortunately, I think our present news system prevents a priori the possibility of open, public debates. The closest you get are shouting matches, or just summaries which completely miss the major points made by both sides.

I've read and heard extensive debate on the ethics of this issue, from politicians and private citizens to professional ethicists. And I'm not privy to any secret, private debates. Everything has been out in the open. In this single, very public, forum, it has been debated dozens of times.