Stanford Jumps Into Cloning Fray 316
smackthud writes "According to this article in the Minneapolis StarTribune website Stanford University is planning to clone human embryos. Story summary says it all: 'Stanford University announced today its intention to clone human embryos, becoming the first U.S. university to publicly embrace the politically charged procedure. The intent of the project is to produce stem cells for medical research.'" Stanford has released a statement distinguishing what Stanford is doing from reproductive cloning.
but will slashdot clone this story? (Score:2, Funny)
victory, you say? (Score:5, Funny)
Brave and Good (Score:5, Interesting)
"The intent of the project is to produce stem cells for medical research."
The benefits of this is to great to avoid doing it. If the cells are not cloned in the US, they will be bought from abroad, so the result will be the same anyway. Brave of Stanford to dare doing this in the US anyhow!
Re:Brave and Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Brave and Good (Score:2)
Unused IVF embryos collected before a nominal date would be available for medical use in australia, but not those after.
I think the nominal date was about the time they announced the proposed law, with the intention of preventing embryos beiong produced for harvesting, but allowing embryos already produced for IVF, that would ahve to be destroyed anyway, to be used for research.
Re:Brave and Good (Score:2)
Posting anonymously so I dont get modded down for being OT. So much for not giving a rats about karma =)
I find it rather ironic that this post ended up at -1 after all... Then again, I suppose there is no proof that the two posters are in fact the same...
Moderators - can we at least go a little easy on the -1 modding? Modding a post like this at +4 down to +1 or 0 seems like good sense. Modding it at 0 down to -1 seems a bit excessive. Maybe if you could give the moderation itself a +1 funny this behavior might make more sense...
Re:Brave and Good (Score:2)
Re:Brave and Good (Score:5, Informative)
I think the decision was that US govt funded research would only be allowed on existing cell lines. At the time of the decision, Sweden supposedly had the largest number of cell lines, and would therefore be the main provider. Consequently, research funding organisations in the US have already started funding some research in Sweden.
Note that if new cell lines are produced from new embryos, even in other countries, they would not be allowed in US govt funded research.
Since the decision, there have been some suggestions of obtaining human cell lines from other sources, but I don't think it has been shown to work yet.
Re:Brave and Good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Brave and Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I am cynical, but I really can't see the problem. Well, I can see why some people see it as a problem, but I can't really understand them.
My view on this is that as long as the blob of cells frow which the scientists "harvest" the stem cells isn't sentient, the problem doesn't exist. It is like picking a flower or using a beetle for the sake of science. A non sentient mass of cells beeing sacrificed for a better life with less suffering for an allready suffering human beeing is not much of a problem in my book.
I really don't care much for the viewpoint of the blob of cells beeing "a potential human life". If we walk down that path we might end upp where we want to condemn preventives and equals. Imho, resarch on embryonic stem cells is not even as bad as an abortion, since aborted featueses often (always?) are more developed than the ones used for stem cell resaerch (btw, I am not against abortions). Some might argue that the featuses do respond to stimuli and pain and therefore shouldn't be used. Well, so does beetles and flowers. We still wouldn't hesitate to use them for the sake of science.
Regarding bone marrow stem cells. Yes, there are studies showing that they might have the same potential as embryonic stem cells, but afaik no conclusions have still been drawn and embryonic cells still have the most potential, even though some drawbacks have recently been discovered there too.
Re:Brave and Good (Score:2)
I am not interested in any sort of flamewar about abortion. I do not think that it is reasonable to equate flora and fauna with a human fetus however... Even the pro-abortion faction distinguishes between the fetus and a wart - yet they can still frame arguments in favour of abortion rights despite that ackowledgement.
I agree but... (Score:2)
You seem to feel that killing something or experimenting with something that is a "non-sentient mass of cells" is ok. All humans (including you) are just a mass of cells so presumably your argument can be refined to be that we can experiment on anything that is not sentient.
It would be hard to argue that a newborn is sentient. Think about all of the great AIDS research that could be done by infecting infants with the disease and testing treatments. I hope this idea is appalling to you. What about experimenting on mentally retarded people. Someone with the intelegence of a three year old (or an octopus) is certainly not any more sentient than many of our animal research models.
Since the above types of research are unaceptable, there must be some criterion other than sentience that makes reseach on infants bad. The most common answer is that it is the potential of sentience that makes infanticide worse than killing a cow. That said, when you do what they are doing at Stanford you create life that has the potential for sentience and then destroy it before it reaches sentience.
Re:I agree but... (Score:2, Interesting)
In regards to killing a infant or killing a cow, I guess neither would really know what is going on, maybe the cow would be a little more aware.
The big difference there, would be that an infant creates relations with other people (or rather the other way around), which makes infanticide worse than slaying a cow. On the other hand, people can create relations with animals too. A little girl (or an adult farmer) will probably be very sad when they have to put a cow to sleep.
Also, I still think a infant have vastly more feelings and emotions than the mass of cells from which they take stem cells.
Re:I agree but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are YOU sentient? Can't you see how ridiculous this example is: comparing the sentience of a new born to something that doesn't even have a NERVOUS SYSTEM? While I think the parent goes overboard in his definition of sentience, you go overboard in the opposite direction.
---That said, when you do what they are doing at Stanford you create life that has the potential for sentience---
A pile dog crap has the potential for sentience: a mother eats it, digests it, and the nutrients become part of the baby she's growing inside her. Same difference. It's _existing_ sentience that's the problem, not potential. Everything all the way back to the beginning of time might as well be potential.
Sentience is irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes childbirth a defining moment between being a human being and not a human being? If that's not the moment at which to protect a human against death, then when does it happen? Is it in the 3rd trimester? Is it at two years old? Is it when they pass some formal IQ test?
What I don't like about both abortion and fetal stem cell research is that someone is arbitrarily deciding that a human lifeform doesn't have a right to live based on their own or someone else's selfish needs. It's ethically no different from killing someone for food because you're poor and you need it to live. Sure, you can argue about the sentience of an embryo, but then do you advocate allowing people to kill and harvest life-saving organs from severely retarded people or people in comas? What about people in cryogenic suspension? Should we treat them as "corpsicles" and take their organs for living people too? At what point does a human's right to live end (or never begin) without connection to any actions that they have done? These arguments over the worth of a human life and human dignity aren't any different from those who advocated slavery and forced sterilization on the basis of the inferiority of the victims in comparison to enfranchised society. If you place any value on human life beyond that of your immediate friends and family, then you should object to an arbitrarily drawn line on human worth.
That is why many of us object to fetal stem cell research. There are so many possibilities for bone marrow research that could save lives without creating and killing them. We explore them fully before less ethically sound path just because it's easier.
Re:Sentience is irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It is completely well-defined, which is useful for legal-purposes.
2. It is the point at which the infant ceases to be parasitic on the mother's body. One can reasonably suppose that there should be limits on how much a being--even a sentient one--is entitled to impose upon somebody else's body.
These concerns vanish when you are dealing with an early embryo such as is used for stem cell production. There is no debate about whether or not it is sentient, because it doesn't have the neural equipment. All it possesses it the potential to develop sentience in the future, maybe (a large fraction of embryos are defective, and will not go to term regardless)--a property that it shares with the sperm and the ovum (and potentially, as cloning technology improves, with every cell in the body).
Even a retarded person is sentient, so no. Perhaps there are some people so profoundly retarded that it could be argued that they lack sentience, but even if it is ethically acceptable, it does not seem good legal policy to allow such exceptions to be made, especially when the value of making such an exception is very slight. As far as people in irreversible comas, this is already done, and seems ethically quite reasonable.Re:Sentience is irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Brave and Good (Score:2)
Re:A delicate matter.. (Score:2)
sole less minion of orthodoxy? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:sole less minion of orthodoxy? (Score:2)
cloning (Score:4, Funny)
Re:cloning (Score:2)
Eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww!
Ranting and Ravings (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ranting and Ravings (Score:2)
Re:Ranting and Ravings (Score:3, Flamebait)
I really hate that school.
I really don't want ethical education from a church that started the Crusades becuase their imaginary friend was "better" than another imaginary friend.
How about a church that is afraid to go into bankruptcy because "secret papers" may be exposed to a court appointed trustee? What the heck kind of "benevolent" church needs to keep SECRETS from its members and the public?
Theism and BAD ethics go hand in hand.
Title is a little misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
SU researchers probably will have to clone stem cells of human embryos, which is something different (in my opinion) than cloning human embryos.
Still an interesting question remains. If they will clone stem cells, will that be a next step to the cloning of human beings? Usually having a technique means it will be used...
Cloning stem cells.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And why isn't everyone doing this? Oh right, it's against the presidents religious beliefs. Is it really suprising that people would rather pursue research that might aid in a cure for cancer, rather than follow a law set by Bush that stem cell research is against his religious beliefs?
Re:Cloning stem cells..irreligious questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-life reasoning is that human life deserves protection all the way back to conception. Pro-abortion reasoning is that human life deserves protection only after some period of development (varying according to who's talking). Pro-life groups advocate protection all the way back to conception because they see no rational reason to draw the line anywhere else.
It is therefore not necessarily a religious motivation under which Bush limited stem cell research. Not that it wasn't a religious motivation. But an experienced politician at the top of the game knows better than to try to legislate his religious ideas without a separate rational argument.
If you don't want to protect human life as an embryo, why should your human life be protected now? What is your argument that your life is intrinsically more valuable than a human embryo to be used in stem cell research, or the Jews experimented on by the Nazis? Where and how do you draw the line at where the value of human life begins?
The question of when to begin protection of human life, embryo, fetus, child or adult must precede any argument for other uses of potentially adult human embryos, no matter how useful or convenient any use or disuse of the embyo may be. If a human life is deserving of the same rights as any adult or child then no one else has any right to determine how that life is to be spent.
Here's a hint (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer your question, you are not a human being until you have a functioning brain. An embryo is not a human but rather human tissue with the potential to become a human. Potential is not actual. I have a penis therefor I am potentially a rapist. I am not a rapist, however.
The difference is not as subtle as you believe.
Re:Here's a hint (Score:2, Insightful)
(i.e. a penis is not a prerequisite for being a potential rapist, breathing will suffice).
Re:Here's a hint (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a hint (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's address the exact issue at hand. Try "anti-prohibition". The choice to abort a pregnancy always exists, wether it's a (relatively) safe and legal medical proceedure, a coat hanger or jumping in front of a truck. We will never 'stop abortion.' The distinction is wether people want to impose their religious beliefs on others by means of our government through a legal prohibition. Remember that a legal prohibition will be as effective as our legal prohibition on certain drugs.
I think that the solution to the abortion 'problem' is for all of us to make the changes necessary to make the need for abortions as rare as possible.
Re:Here's a hint (Score:2)
I agree. I'd much rather see abortions never be needed in the first place, especially as a pro-lifer. I hope that one day when medicine and society advances to the point that unwanted children are extremely rare and nigh impossible that we look back on these days with as much horror as we looked back on forced eugenics and slavery. When reproduction is fully a matter of responsible choice instead of an accident that can be "fixed" we'll be a much more mature society all around.
Re:Here's a hint (Score:4, Insightful)
If "pro-choice" is inappropriate, then "pro-abortion" is even more so. As an example, take my stance. I believe that with regards to an issue that deeply divides so many people and has no real scientific consensus either way, it is not the job of the government to step in and make a decision for everybody. Rather, it is up to individuals (with the help of their families, medical professionals, etc.) to exercise a bit of personal responsibility and make their own choice.
Personally, if I were ever in a situation involving an unwanted pregnancy, I can tell you that abortion would not be a consideration
Re:Here's a hint (Score:2)
And for that matter, scientific conclusions have no bearing on government until values (moral judgement) are applied to them. For instance, science may produce studies showing that taking drugs or not wearing a seatbelt are bad for you. But does that mean these things should be illegal?
I don't think there is any way to avoid moral issues in government. Even the choice to do nothing is full of consequence.
Re:Here's a hint (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-choice & Anti-choice = Pro-abortion bias
Pro-life & pro-abortion = Anti-abortion bias
Pro-abortion & anti-abortion = Reasonable Individual
Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are marketing euphemisms that try to make a political opinion more positive. Both have to be "pro-" something because "pro-" is an inherently positive, reaffirming prefix and both try to connect a simple idea ("I'm for the right to abort!" or "I'm against the right to abort!") with a word that sounds very positive and politically correct, thus the "pro-" is added to "choice" or "life". Put simply, it's total fucking bullshit.
The exact wording may be changed slightly, but I think you get the idea. The person that strays from "life" and "choice" and into something more reasonable like "abortion", "abortion rights", "the right to abort", etc. is the only one worth listening to, because they're the most likely to view the discussion in a reasonable manner.
Use of word "rights" not neutral (Score:2)
I would disagree that use of the terms "abortion rights" and "the right to abort" implies an open-minded person. Any time you describe something as a "right" you are already presuming that the "pro" side is the correct one. The opposition in such cases always vehemently denies that the debated topic is a right and does not use that term.
The right to bear arms vs. gun-control
Civil rights vs. integration
Gay rights vs. "special privileges for gays"
Along those lines, I think that "legalized abortion" is a much more neutral term, much like "legalized drugs" or "legalized gambling." It's a much more balanced term that talks simply about the matter at hand -- whether or not the activity in question should be legal.
Re:Here's a hint (Score:2)
Anti abortion and Pro abortion. Using childish euphamisms may make you feel better, but pro-choice is still a buzzword that doesn't mean anything. The choice is: abortion acceptable or abortion unacceptable.
People use euphamisms because they want to change the perspective on the agruement without adding any relevant logic or arguments, not unlike you tried to do. His choice of "Pro-abortion" doesn't invalidate his arguement. What other choices are encompassed by the 'pro-choice' movement? Is it defending woman's right to choose between a snowcone or a slurpy? I doubt it.
It's like saying you are "Pro-gun control." Well no shit. Everyone in the entire world is "pro-gun control" with a few psycopathic exceptions. Who believes people should leave guns laying around on the streets or in kid's desks at school? EVERYONE wants some measure of gun control.
Just like everyone wants some measure of choice, the DEBATE is whether the choice should be a legal one, based on other laws regarding property, murder, and the state's accepted definition of life. In other words, Anti-abortion or Pro-abortion.
It takes more than a penis to rape someone. It takes an action. If you can identify the exact moment it becomes legal to kill an invalid, or the exact moment a lump of flesh becomes human, you are a better man that I.
At what point do you consider it a functioning brain? Does it have to be FULLY functioning?
A link for you: Human Sentience Before Birth [care.org.uk]
After 5.5 weeks of growth (7.5 weeks from the woman's last period) the unborn baby responds to touch and brain development is underway.
If it responds to touch is it a baby or a lump of flesh?
Re:Here's a hint (Score:2)
Don't be a twit. I'm pro-abortion! I think EVERYONE should have been aborted!
Pro-choice is the logical term here, since it is in the middle of the 2 binary states (all or none).
Since Stem cells are extracted at 1-3 weeks (Score:2)
Embryonic Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are not part of the abortion debate.
So why is the Religious Right hijacking this issue to use as a weapon in their war on abortion?
Re:And responding to touch proves what? (Score:2)
Re:Here's a hint (Score:3, Interesting)
In one word... (Score:2)
Why the hell would you classify a human body (a corpse really) as a human if it is brain dead?
It's just a piece of meat.
If your brain is shut down, and there is no hope of rebooting it, you are dead. period.
What good is it to you, or anyone else if your body is still breathing?
Angainst abortion but pro-choice (Score:2)
Similarly, I'm against smoking, but also favor people having the choice whether to smoke or not.
In other words, it's best not to allow the Govt. to make everything that someone doesn't like illegal, from our past experience making doctors who perform abortions and women who receive them into criminals isn't a good idea.
But many folks who feeel that the woman should ultimately decide about something that will take over her body for 9 months and may well kill her in the process, will still advise against abortion unless the woman feels she has no other option...
With Pro-Choice you are allowing the mother (Score:2)
To make "this decision for someone else (i.e. the fetus).".
Since the mother risks her life carrying the fetus, this seems only fair.
Regardless, the point is that one can be in favor of letting the mother choose whether to risk her life while also being in favor of her choosing to risk it.
When deciding when to harvest organs (Score:2)
presence or absense of brainwave activity is generally used. When there is no brainwave activity, the family is given the choice whether to turn off life support and donate the organs or not.
The IVF embryo debate seems to have a similar ethic to me: the embryos are frozen and will either be stored indefinitly or discarded when the money for storing them runs out. So it should be fine for folks to donate embryos they don't use in the process: the realistic options are similar to a person without brainwave activity: donate the organs (stem cells) or keep them on life support (frozen in liquid nitrogen) untill they completely die, at which point the organs (stem cells) are useless.
Re:Cloning stem cells..irreligious questions (Score:2)
Re:Wars in the name of 'no God' (Score:2)
Excuse me. Just like "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation (murder is more accurate), so is "thou shalt not charge interest." Usury is _excessive_ interest, not interest itself. Of course, that's the English meaning -- the Hebrew meaning is completely unclear.
-Billy
Re:Cloning stem cells.. (Score:2)
They're dependents.
Proud of them, you should be. (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel rather ecstatic about this, someone is finally making a point.
I was rather angry at Bush when he decided to limit stem cell research. I felt that his decision was affected directly by his religious beliefs.
Science and religion don't mix. Looks like someone is finally trying to seperate them.
Re:Proud of them, you should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush's decision was based on his own moral standard, which does happen to have a biblical base. Others may have a moral system based on other religions, or a professional standard such as the Hippocratic Oath, or some amorphous PC nonstandard that changes from day to day, depending on which special interest group wants justification for their "lifestyle".
As we move closer to the end of the age, look for more decisions to be made based on the "common good", "world order", and "tolerance" rather than individual rights and dignity.
The commonweal (Score:2)
Precisely what do "individual rights" and "dignity" have to do with a cluster of cells that, I quote (from the official Stanford press release), "cannot on their own develop into a human"? Please. This is not reproductive cloning. This is actually about the same, in terms of "dignity" or "individual rights" as a pacemaker.
Just because it comes from human tissue doesn't make it human, or do you give your toenail clippings funerals? Ever done that experiment in science class using epithelial cells? Did you feel like a murderer after you scraped the inside of your cheek?
Anyway, I don't know where your perspective is coming from, but you ought to at least RTFA before you rant.
Re:Proud of them, you should be. (Score:2)
I have often found it to be the case that people who dislike the words "pc" and "tolerance" only have respect for some individual rights -- the ones they recognize -- but not others. (abortion, for instance?) It is unfair to demand dignity for one way of life while rejecting that dignity for others.
Tolerance is about treating everyone with respect. It's the golden rule -- treat everyone as you would like to be treated. Is that such a bad guideline?
Is Bush a hypocrite? (Score:2, Offtopic)
GWB's religious beliefs do not seem to be slowing him down from a pointless war against Iraq in which a number of non-combatants will become "colateral damage"...
I guess he is able to choose when his beliefs come into play and when they can be cast aside...
Re:Is Bush a hypocrite? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Simple, really.
Re:Is Bush a hypocrite? (Score:2)
Away with you, AC, and bother me no more. :P
And yes, GW makes a lot of dosh from big oil. A war is a great excuse to hike gas prices here. You do the math, genius.
Re:Is Bush a hypocrite? (Score:2)
We're the USA, we have the finest politicians that money can buy!
Re:Is Bush a hypocrite? (Score:2)
A war would be a great excuse to hike prices at the pump. There are a lot of corollary ideas to this as well, such as making sure that OPEC stats "cooperative" out of fear that the US military will come calling for a made up reason.
Personally, I think we need to go in and wipe that particular regime out. I also think that if there's money to be made in the process, it will be.
Re:Proud of them, you should be. (Score:2)
Seriously, I think the lack of growth of human ethics is because the values and ethics we are being taught are a bit outdated for much of the current world. The world we live in is changing rapidly, and the church doesn't fit into it as well as it fit into the lives of people in the past.
I hope I said that right...
Inevitable (Score:2, Funny)
It's this or immigration
Dave returns from a 3 month holiday (Score:3, Funny)
[snip]This is the same first step as in reproductive cloning. However in creating a stem cell line, cells are removed from the developing cluster.[/snip]
Dave returns from a 3 month holiday:
"So how many cells did you harvest while I was away?"
Bob the student:
"oh, shit, I just left that experiment in the incubator"
Dave:
"So, just how many months is it before a foetus is considered a human being?!"
press release and semantics (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating human stem cell lines is not equivalent to reproductive cloning. The first step in the process of creating a stem cell line involves transferring the nucleus from a cell to an egg and allowing the egg to divide. This is the same first step as in reproductive cloning. However in creating a stem cell line, cells (parts of the fetus) are removed (dismembered) from the developing cluster (fetus). These cells can go on to form many types of tissues, but cannot on their own develop into a human (because they are just pieces of dismembered human tissue).
How is this procedure different from whats going on in the rest of the world? I guess the Christian right wingers can sleep well at night now.
Cloning? Cloning? (Score:3, Funny)
What is the world coming to?
What is the world coming to?
Obligatory Red Dwarf Quote (Score:2, Funny)
Rimmer: "Can you imagine a society composed entirely of me?"
CAT: I'm trying not to, last time I did that it took me a week to dry the matress!
We have invented PROTOCULTURE!! (Score:2)
I'm glad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature. Human nature might not be perfect, but I don't trust anyone to try and make it better. This is where genetic engineering gets risky in my opinion, when it gives people with an agenda for who and what mankind should be the tools to warp human beings into their twisted model of human behavior. Just imagine if the looney left or the religious right were to become the keepers of the technology. How many bolsheviks and bible thumpers could they create? There are already enough idiots and brainwashed buffoons in the world without a breeding program to manufacture them.
Anyway I'm glad this is being done by Stanford. Of course you'll hear nothing but screaming from the idiots of the world, but such is the burden of scientific progress. At least nowadays you don't have to worry about the inquisition murdering you for daring to contradict the codified superstition that passes for mankind's understanding of the divine.
Lee
Re:I'm glad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps idiot is the wrong word. I could call them gullible, or sheep, or easily led. I could call them brainwashed or buffaloed too. But since actions speak louder than the thoughts that create them, I think I'll just call them idiots.
Lee
Re:I'm glad. (Score:2)
Good intentions always lead to good results, right? I'm sorry, but eugenics is a repugnant concept. Diversity is a powerful means to survival. Take a look at what is happening to purebred dogs right now. In order to enhance the characteristics that are desirable for a given breed, the dogs are being interbred too much and the results have been unpredictable. Sure, we get the characteristics we are looking for, but with undesired and unintended consequences. Most purebred dogs simply do not have the lifespan they used to, and they develop more and more complicated health issues than your average mutt.
Why? - because the gene pool is getting too shallow. I don't think that is the fate we want for humanity, regardless of how noble the original intentions.
Re:I'm glad. (Score:2)
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature.
How many people have you really met like that? REALLY?
I've found zero. Including myself.
People are short sighted, limited, and selfish. Technology that CAN be used for personal gain, will be. Besides, even if you find one of the hypothetical people to use the technology in this fashion, I will personally bet you $100 that there will be at LEAST 100 who use the technology for one of the following reasons:
1. Decide the gender of the child (They want a boy child.)
2. Decide appearance only attributes of a child (Blue eyes, blond hair, etc)
3. They want someone who looks exactly like them.
Human nature is to act like animals, only more-so.
Stem Cell/Cloning Research (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course that's not to say I wouldn't mind seeing some public funds go to it! But in the US, public funds are supposed to go where the people want it. If the majority of citizens don't want it, then that's what the government should do.
That brings up the question... what does the majority want?
I know 2 people with MS (not microsoft)... if this can help them, then why not?
Re:Stem Cell/Cloning Research (Score:2)
The voting public apparently agrees that federal money should be restricted; if there really was any strong opposition, then the results of November's election would have shown otherwise.
W.Post: Private funding protects Stanford research (Score:5, Informative)
Private Funding Soon to be a Federal Crime (Score:2)
Meanwhile, 12 million is the size of a single grant of hundreds that NIH and NSF fund for promising research in other areas, and this years version of the Brownback bill, barely stopped by the Democrats last year, will make the doctors working at this Stanford Center federal criminals [camradvocacy.org] in a few months.
Heck, the US Congress is set to make patients who travel to other countries for therapeutic cloning related therapies into federal criminals.
I think the term is: "Woo Hoo".
THIS IS NOT CLONING (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, there's some 19-ish (bio majors correct me) cell limit before it becomes and embryo. It's not getting something that resembles a human and tearing it apart for cells, as it never gets past a very small ball of [stem] cells!
This should be promising (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't quite remember at what point biologists declare a zygote to be an actual embryo; the last time I touched Developmental Biology was 2 years ago. However, if I remember techniques correctly, we can stop division when the zygote is at the 8-cell stage, possibly sooner. I believe the blastula stage (hollow ball of cells) is generally considered to be the real "start" of an embryo, but again, my recollection is a tad hazy.
I think a lot of the misconceptions being tossed around related to cloning are quite interesting. I only hope that people will realize one day that the concept of the "mad scientist" is more than a little ludicrous, and that cloning human beings is quite a ways off, as is the concept of producing genetic "supermen". Of course, the media, being sensationalist to begin with, will continue to misrepresent the facts, and the general populace will continue to be misinformed.
That's not to say that when I'm done with my Biology degree (and probably my Ph.D. too) that I'm not going to attempt to take over the world with an army of cloned gorilla-men, but that's a different story altogether.
Stem Cells Can Cure 1000's of Sickle Cell Babies (Score:2, Interesting)
What governments? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting. Now, tell me, what governments (except the US) has closed those doors, to begin with?
You know, there are several lines of stem cells being researched upon within a 10km radius of me even as I write this.
The only effect of US religious rights conniption over stem cells is that the US get harder to keep up in this area of science (and, to be fair, this might slow the progression of the science somewhat).
But still, in the long run, it doesn't change a thing.
An Approach Better Than Stanford's, Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
The therapeutic cloning approach of the Stanford researchers also has great potential, but the process of creating and destroying embryos to harvest stem cells seems to be more complicated than using adult stem cells. Further, some experiments in which embryonic stem cells were reimplanted ominously gave rise to carcinomas. Many research scientists think both approaches should be pursued.
Bone marrow vs. embryonic stem cells (Score:2)
What if it was you? (Score:2)
Benefits? I'll tell you about the benefits. (Score:2)
This is pretty close to a troll, but no one else is suggesting this side. Look at social security. Most people don't seem to care how my generation is going to have to break their backs working for our old man. Do we want the old guard: Bush, Clinton, Blair, and Jiang Xemin squabbling forever on OUR STEM CELLS? HECK NO!!
THAT'S THE TRUE DANGER!!!!
Prove to me that Stem Cell research is better than having a whole lot more kids, one of whom might make stem cell research irrelevant.
human-rabbit stem clones in China (Score:2)
Outside of China, human embryo stem cells are grown intermixed with mouse cells. That is because the nourishment techniques were developed with mouse biotechnology and haven't fully migrated to pure human yet. These clones would have a taste for cheeses and squeak while talking.
Very inaccurate... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Very inaccurate... (Score:2)
Very nice... (Score:2)
Think. (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is not a new concept [washington.edu], but is one that is growing in feasability and global support.
What does this have to do with cloning and stem cell research? Well they all have the same amoral drive: creating a "better" human race through science without any moral guidelines. As we see on this board, many people ridicule those of us with moral presuppositions as "non-scientific", "ignorant", etc. Above, though, we see an extreme example of this.
Fast-forward now 10 or 20 years. Science has guaranteed a "perfect" child to anybody who can afford one. A minority of rich people get smarter, stronger, better-looking, and richer, in contrast to those who still suffer with gross things like blindness and the worst- mental inferiority. It wasn't enough to genetically engineer perfect children. The question now is "Why hold on to that last moral presupposition that we shouldn't kill scientifically inferior people?" You may think me an extremist, but it's happened before. [ushmm.org]
That is the question that should be answered today. If you truely believe in removing morals from science, be logically consistent with it: advocate a super-human race and the death of all inferior people. If you believe in moral presuppositions, though, realize what unchecked research in cloning, embryionic stem cells, and science in general will lead to [amazon.com]. Either way, the question is: what criteria do you use to value human life? You may have about a year to decide [thescotsman.co.uk].
There are alternatives, such as adult stem cells [21stcentur...cetech.com], which have potential as well and sidestep ethical concerns.
Bring in the Taliban! (Score:2)
(This is sarcastic, for those with sarcasm sensory imparement)
Reproductive cloning bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, wonderful. (Score:2)
Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
Stem Cell Research Abortion (Score:2, Informative)
Corrections (Score:3, Insightful)
"If these ppl do this they should be jailed and bared from science. I hope they are stopped but if its to late and they do it before the feds can stop them, they need to be severly punished. This is life we are talking about we can't allow ppl to just play with it."
Repaired post:
"If these people do this, they should be jailed and barred from science. I hope they are stopped, but if it's too late, and they do it before the feds can stop them, they need to be severely punished. This is life we are talking about. We can't allow people to just play with it."
Why does there seem to be a proportional relationship between the extremity of a fundamentalist and poor grammar?
Intelligence level, maybe? Nah, couldn't be that...
Knunov
Re:That makes them criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
Lee
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Lee
Re:Just a hazard or ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have some questions for those who freak out about the prospect of human reproductive cloning. What's wrong with human reproductive cloning? I always hear about the nebulous heavy ethical problems but the problems are never articulated or discussed. I do understand that 95% of the people in the US say they wouldn never use reproductive cloning. If that is so, then what do they have to fear from the 5% who would? It reminds me very much of the controversy surrounding in vitro fertilization. Most people were freaking out about "test tube babies!". Funny how reality is much less sensational than the fears of the uneducated masses. Human reproductive cloning can be a valuable, helpful procedure for some people, just as in vitro fertilization is.
Re:Just a hazard or ... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there have been a number of scientists who have chosen to conduct research that would not be considered ethical today. When the potential for money is involved, some people might turn a blind eye to the odd ethical lapse because the stakes are so high. Can you be certain that all of the research taking place is done for the sake of pure research and not potential financial gain?
I have some questions for those who freak out about the prospect of human reproductive cloning. What's wrong with human reproductive cloning?
I cannot claim to have the answer to any of the questions surrounding this debate. A number of people have been able to articulate clear and salient points that we as a society need to consider before enbarking down this path. For example, it might be possible to clone non-sentient human bodies that we can use for organ harvesting. Do you have an issue with that? Personally, I do, regardless of the potential benefits to society.
As we brutalize others, so do we brutalize ourselves...
Re:I think it funny (Score:3, Flamebait)
Nowadays I'm much more convinced that religious zeal fulfills a psychological need in those who don't want to think in the first place. They tune in, turn on, and drop out. This is all done without drugs because for them religion is a drug.
It is commonly known to psychologists that there is a strong correlation between drug abuse and religion. If you look at families that have a history of drug or alcohol abuse you'll find that the ones who don't end up on drugs tend to end up being religious freaks. Some even start out as one and later become the other. For them religion truly is an opiate.
Now I'm not saying the everyone who believes in God or has religious beliefs is a religion junkie. Religion is not inherently evil. I myself believe in God, but don't make any claims to understand what God is. Religion is a human invention and as such relfects human weaknesses and imperfections.
The problems I have with religion are with those who refuse to accept its shortcomings, who want to pretend that their religious beliefs somehow supercede reality itself. This is the classic battle between science and superstition. Religious factions that want to choose superstition are going to lose out in the long run because within a few generations they won't have any more followers, or will become extreme fringe groups. I don't want to see this happen because the only thing worse than religion is its abscence. Nature abhors a vacuum. Just imagine the BS and nonesense that would fill in the place that religion currently holds in areas such as ethics and morals. We've already got enough permeation of political correctness and the ideologies from which it is created without such nonsense becoming the univeral norm.
Lee
Edward Teller (Score:2)
You sound like Edward Teller, mooning over an advance of science without one whit of concern for the fallout (excuse the pun) it has on society. If never ceases to amaze me how some people think that if it's possible to do something, then it's the inevitable march of progress and that we must do it at all costs. This is the sort of thinking that led Teller to advocate using nukes to alter the weather and to dig mines and canals.
Of course, the dangers are far greater if the moral side is the one not to embrace its power.
Have you ever considered that like chemical weapons there may be no way to embrace its power and still retain the moral high-ground? "Lives sitting in the palm of our hand" are not generally the kind of thing that most reasonable people think are something that should be "played with." Fetal stem cell research results in the exploitation and death of a human lifeform. It's senseless when there are alternatives that do not. Sure, it can save lives, but we can save lives now by cutting up retarded and insane people for organs. Should we deny our prerogative as "the moral side" to "embrace the power" there?
science is public (Score:2)