Scientists Move Closer to Human Therapeutic Cloning

"Human therapeutic cloning has moved a step closer after U.S. researchers said they had successfully created embryonic stem cells from monkey embryos. Scientists told a stem cell research conference in Cairns this week that they had successfully created two batches of embryonic stem cells from cloned rhesus monkey embryos."

Re:Which is worse

[JoshJ]

The only reason they oppose embryonic stem cells is because of the possibility of it affecting abortion case law.

Of course, they'll likely decide this is the work of satan because it could maybe lend credence to "evilution".

The *real* problem here is religion.

"There can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven."- Robert Green Ingersoll

No WONDER they were having trouble!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

A switch to using polarized light in labwork instead of dye and ultraviolet light traditionally used to identify cell chromosomes may have led to the breakthrough, ...

So for years the scientists have been finding the chromosomes to transplant by:

  - Flooding the donor cell with a fluorescent dye that bonds to DNA, then

  - Shining ultraviolet light (i.e. ionizing radiation) on the cell, causing the dye to fluoresce (and also dump enough energy into the DNA molecule to break molecular bonds and produce free radicals in the nearby area).

And then they wondered why, after they transplanted this DNA into the denucleated egg, the resulting cell didn't work right.

Good grief!

Re:Which is worse

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Right. One causes the other.

Re:Which is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite... There's a fundamental difference between religion and spiritualism.

Re:Just Wait till It Becomes Profitable

[ChrisMaple]

I hope I'm not making a mistake by taking your post seriously...

Cloning for parts will not be done by growing a whole new organism and hacking off whatever the originator wants. That would be an abomination that anyone of any political orientation could recognize. What will be done is that (non-embrionic) cells will be encouraged to grow the appropriate tissues or organs, without developing a nervous system. With this sort of technology, only some of the religious nut cases will still insist that a being with a soul is being destroyed. Liberals will scream about prices and want to provide the service free for everybody, but won't complain about the technology itself unless Genetic Modification is involved. Everybody but the loons will be basically happy.

Re:Therapeutic?

[MMC Monster]

The idea is that: You feel sad because you lost a leg. You have yourself cloned to create a new leg. You transplant the leg from the clone to yourself so you don't feel sad anymore. Providing, of course, that you can convince the clone to give up a leg for you.

In real life there are more issues (not withstanding the moral issues if the clone is allowed to develop a brain). For instance, we are not purely a product of our genes. Otherwise identical twins would look identical until the moment they both suffered a heart attack and died. If you need a solid organ, it needs to be grown in a viable host. It's likely impossible using current (or near-future) technology to create a viable host that does not have brain activity.

an even better current quote

[RMH101]

from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/21/politics_s tem_cells_veto/ [theregister.co.uk]

President Bush has used his veto to kill another bill that would have lifted some of the restrictions on research using human embryonic stem cells.
The news has been greeted with dismay, but not surprise, by the scientific community.
In announcing his use of the veto, Bush told reporters: "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."

Um, hello George...presumably it's OK if it's for oil?

Re:Oh Great

[mh1997]

Let's weaken the gene pool some more. We already have people living to reproductive age with characteristics that 50 years ago nature would have 'selected against'.

Posts like the one above always make me laugh because the poster always assumes they are part of the strong, smart, or whatever desired characteristic. Take your timeline back 1000 years, maybe your current traits would have been selected against.

Have you ever gotten sick and taken an antibiotic, required stitches, or maybe have a broken bone in childhood? Then no reproduction for you because you cheated. Those minor health problems today could have killed you if it were not for modern medicine

Did you ever catch the flu? In 1918 you'd be dead.

This is also the attitude that corrupts people in power, they think they are better and know more than everyone else.

Re:Which is worse

[Lady Jazzica]

No, you've got it backwards. The only reason some people support the use of embryonic stem cells is because of the possibility of it affecting abortion case law. Why not use adult stem cells, which have already been shown to be medically useful? The problem is that the pro-abortion lobby wants to use the issue of possible cures to get people to reject the humanity of human embryos. That's why you never hear embryonic stem cell research supporters talk about the benefits of adult stem cells: it doesn't further their political aims.

On the other hand, the reason anti-abortion people oppose the use of embryonic stem cells is that killing human embryos, for research purposes or any other reason, is abortion. It's the killing of a young human being.

Re:Which is worse

[Adult film producer]

It's the killing of a young human being.

Actually, that is not the case. It's the destruction of a blastocyst, which is a compilation of 70-150 cells. These are often thrown out/discarded in fertility clinics. They are definitely not human. Here's a picture of one,

http://www.iscr.ed.ac.uk/outreach/images/Human-bla stocyst.gif [ed.ac.uk]

Re:Which is worse

[XxtraLarGe]

GP should not be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait". They are giving a reasoned argument in response to somebody else on the other side of the issue. This shows a true lack of intellectual integrity on the part of some moderators here. In order to maintain internal consistency, pro-life people must be opposed to the destruction of humans in the earliest stages of development, and pro-choice people must be in favor of destruction of human life in the earliest stages. You may like to argue that a baby is just a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or whatever stage of development it is in, but the truth of the matter is that there is no point in time scientifically where you can say that a fertilized egg is not a human being.

GP is only partly correct though. There's another reason for embryonic stem cell research, and that's $MONEY$. Basically, all of this therapeutic cloning research is going to be patented (which can only be done with embryonic stem cell research, not adult), and will be used exclusively by a few companies. So basically, the Slashdot crowd is willing to support the destruction of human life all for the sake of enriching a few corporations which will only perform their therapeutic procedures on the wealthiest of individuals. Maybe Michael J. Fox will be able to afford it, but Joe Sixpack certainly isn't going to be able to afford it.

Re:The President says...

[Brad Eleven]

"Destroying human life in order to save human lives is immoral," said GWB yesterday. I guess he forgot about the present justification for, you know, war.

How do you ask a blastocyst to be the last one to die for stem cell research? Oh, wait, that's right--they can't hear you. Never mind.