Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans 607
dustinbarbour writes "A South Korean-led research team has cloned human embryos to produce embryonic stem cells, a scientific first that promises to reignite public debate over cloning. Medical researchers hope to use cloned embryonic stem cells to someday treat diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's. The cells potentially could create rejection-free transplant organ tissues." There's another story in the NYT.
Important to note.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not according to Coast the Coast Radio (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not according to Coast the Coast Radio (Score:3, Informative)
And all this time I thought it was the gay Martians.
Ahem. Anyway, you'll need to update your jokes. It's George Noory who does Coast to Coast AM now.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
Re:Important to note.... (Score:5, Informative)
It is too "sensational" and biaised the way it is submitted.
Re:Important to note.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Important to note.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
This: When I read it (the headline) I assumed it was just another bunch of wack-jobs like the Ralians again, but in fact this really has nothing to do with actual human cloning except in the eyes of crazy fundies like Bush.
And:
I agree that many people on the right have an obstinate and uneducated viewpoint about stem cell research, but Bush has not made any statements about this, so you're just putting words in his mouth. I l
Re:Important to note.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Important to note.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actual division of a cloned stem cell is certainly a technical achievement, and technically an embryo I suppose, but I'm not sure it's really proper to call it such until such time as it's shown that said embryo is actually capable of cellular differentiation if the division process is continued.
If all you end up with is a mass of "flesh" you have no embryo.
KFG
Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but unless they have also conquered the problem with Telomeres, the resulting human would at best have a greatly shortened lifespan, and may have all sorts of other problems.
I have mixed feelings on this one. The method they have used provides a viable alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells and at the same time looks like an answer to the problem of rejection. Aside from the "we shouldn't clone" argument, I think the only other complaint is the use (and destruction) of the egg cell. While this may seem trivial to many, there are some people who will still be very upset by it.
Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue? I would think this would solve both the rejection AND Telomeres problems, as presumably these cells would have lain dormant and not used up their life cycle like other cells in the body.
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
That's an interesting point regarding the fat cells - I hadn't heard anything about using them for cloning. Thanks for the info!
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:3, Informative)
It is an alternative. No abortion needed. Also, because they demonstrated cloning, it opens up the possibility of transplanting into seriously ill people tissues that are genetically their own. No rejection. No lifetime of immuno-suppressant drugs.
No, it is not an aborted embryo, as it never implanted in a
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not quite the same thing, although some of the same arguments are valid. In this case, there was no "conception" that took place, not even in vitro. In vitro fertilization involves the introduction of sperm to egg outside of the woman's body. However, for this project, they took an egg, removed the nucleus, and replaced it with the genetic material of skin cells (presumably from an adult, but that wasn't clear). Although this could presumably grown into a functional human, I think there would be longevity problems because the amino acid sequences that control cell division (Telomeres) would be greatly shortened and cell arrest would take place much sooner.
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
Good point. The difference is that the cells destroyed monthly would be considered "natural" whereas the cloning process is "unnatural". For many, this is probably unimportant, but there are some who possess religious or philosophical beliefs that would greatly oppose this. It's something we have to at least be sensitive to, even if we don't agree with their viewpoint.
That's an interesting point regarding the fat cells - I hadn't heard anything about using them for cloning. Thanks for the info!
Glad I could provide some information. If you're interested, here's an article [cnn.com] about it.
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Funny)
From fat tissue? At last, jobs will go back to Americans!
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Interesting)
I attended a lecture by a big-wig stem cell researcher (sorry, don't recall his name) at my University a few months back, and he addressed the topic of getting stem cells from adult tissues.
He said that the stem cell research community was initially very excited about this line of research when it first made headlines, because it could allow the same research without the ethical issues connected to embryo's.
Unfortunately, though early results looked promising, subsequent investigations cast doubt on how useful adult-derived stem cells would be compared to the unlimited pluripotential of embryonic stem cells to turn into other cell therapeutic cell types.
Also unfortunately, the prospect of using adult stem cells in place of embryonic stem cells is still ceased upon by opponents of embryonic stem research to win over those who don't know the science, and to cast the scientists as being unethical in the face of perfect alternatives. But the science doesn't back this position up.
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Now the big question is: who to clone?
I, for one, can only think of people that should not exist.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
natilie portman. this is
There oughta be a law... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There oughta be a law... (Score:2)
I think they made an outer limits episode out of this where the new humans could "stream"....
Tom
Re:There oughta be a law... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that there are too many of them, it's just that they aren't as happy as they should be to be gammas.
Re:There oughta be a law... (Score:5, Funny)
It's not that there are too many of them, it's just that they aren't as happy as they should be to be gammas.
Well, if President Gamma would drop the war on Soma, they'd all be much happier.
Re:There oughta be a law... (Score:3)
So for the forseable future, it won't matter whether the stupid get another means of multiplication, as they are already doing well with those they have.
Article title misleading (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Article title misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me - *exactly* when does a "human embryo" become a "human"?
Late-term abortions are regularly performed on "human embryos", which are exactly the same age as "premature babies" which, with care, grow into "infants" then "children" then "adults".
I'd *really* be interested to hear how you distinguish between them.
Human development definitions. (Score:4, Informative)
Late term abortions are performed on the fetus, and are not done in the first 8 weeks.
That is why they are called "late term".
Re:Article title misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure an exact demarcation of when an embryo is a baby will never be agreed upon by everyone, but why isn't it an acceptable demarcation to check if the embryo has brain activity?
We use that as a measure to determine if already born people are dead or alive... so why not use it to determine if something is no longer an embryo? "I think therefore I am", so if an embryo thinks, it has to be a living human.
Is such a measurement not a good comprimise? It isn't based on religion or politics, but instead on science. Seems objective if you ask me.
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is defined as... ? Honestly, we don't know when that is. Not to mention that it varies from child to child. There are a large number of research papers on this, and while there's some common agreement that there are definite, individual brain wave patterns at a certain point (24 weeks I think), it's not clear that they don't
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
There are really two debates... most people spend time on "is a fetus alive". However, the more pressing debate is "should the states be allowed to criminalize abortion". As it stands, the SCOTUS has declared abortion to be a right protected by the Constitution. Even if science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins at conception, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Re:Scientific, but arbitrary (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, as far as we know, and yes it is a "logical jump", thinking can be measured by measuring brain activity. So this seems like it is a far more objective measure of life/no-life than any other currently purposed measure.
The "when it is born" measure is obviously flawed because it is largely based on the location of one's body (inside vs outside the womb).
But the "when it was conceived" measure is also flawed as we could claim that sperm and eggs are living humans because they have the "potential" for life. So a menstrating women is committing manslaughter and so is a man, who lets a sperm go to waste. We could even go back further and say that the materials used to create a sperm have "potential" for life...
Re:Scientific, but arbitrary (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is similar to us then we admire it(dog), if it is disimilar we dislike it(roach). Whether it is 'alive' does not enter the picture. Some people have in their heads a simplistic picture of embryos at this stage as miniature humans and others see them as a clump of 100 undifferentiated cells. So the real debate is 'how similar to us are they?' because similarity is what we base our 'decisions' of mortality against.
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article title misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, a lot of women regret them later and have bad dreams, suicidal thoughts, etc.
On another note, a lot of people have bad dreams, suicidal thoughts, etc. whether they've decided on an abortion or not.
Ergo, it's just pathetic human laziness and lack of consideration for the consequences of our actions that causes the issue in the first place.
I'm so comforted by the thought that rape victims are just lazy. It eases a great burden on my mind to think that anyone who gets raped is just a "victim" of pathetic human laziness and that they didn't consider the consequences of the rapist's actions.
Just a bit of friendly advice.... you either need to start picking your words more carefully to actually say what you think that you are saying, or you just need to not talk altogether. I know you're not really meaning to say such idiotic things, but you keep doing so anyway, presumably because you don't take the time to think about how your're wording your thoughts.
I do not agree that there is not some point where the living lump of senseless flesh ceases to become a mound of organic material and begins being a human being. No capability for thought equates to a non-functional human mind which is, in effect, a vegetable. Once there is discernible brain activity, the being becomes a living human, and abortion becomes an option only for the prevention of serious medical complications.
Of course, you have a few idiots who abuse it and use it as birth control because they really are stupid and careless, but I have a hard time believing they're in the majority. Stupid people tend not to have that kind of money lying around.
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Percentage of abortions performed due to rape or incest: 2%
Percentage of abortions performed due to health of the baby: 4%
Percentage of abortions performed for social reasons: 93%
Source: "Why Do Women Have Abortions?"
A. Torres & J.D. Forrest, Family Planning Perspectives, Jul/Aug 1988
Re:Article title misleading (Score:4, Informative)
2001 data from Minnesota Planned Parenthood [ppmsd.org]:
Population of Minnesota - 4,919,479
Number of births in Minnesota - 66,620
Number of patient visits to Planned Parenthood for family planning, cancer screening and treatment, annual exams, and screening and treatment for STI (sexually transmitted infection) - 132,728
Number of abortions performed in Minnesota - 14,833
Number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood - 2, 789 (18%)
Percentage of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood as compared to patient visits - 2%
Number of abortions performed for minors (under 18) in Minnesota - 838 (6%)
Number of abortions performed for adult women in Minnesota - 13, 995 (94%)
Number of abortions performed at under 9 weeks estimated gestational age in Minnesota - 9,008 (61%)
Number of abortions performed at 15 weeks or under - 14, 008 (94%)
Percentage of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood at 16 weeks or under - 100%
Number of abortions performed at over 16 weeks in Minnesota - 816 (6%)
Number of abortions performed in Minnesota due to severe fetal anomalies, rape, incest, or to protect woman's health - 1,792 (12%)
Number of women who reported using contraceptives at time of conception in Minnesota - 3,915 (24%)
Post-operative complication rate for abortion in Minnesota - 1%
Inter-operation complication rate for abortion in Minnesota - 0.2%
Sources: Induced Abortions in Minnesota January - December 2001: Report to the Legislature. Center for Health Statistics, Minnesota Department of Health. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota Annual Report 2001.
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Funny)
So would you say you support abortion up to the 23rd trimester?
~Will
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3)
No, I am suggesting that I have no legal obligation to do so. Fortunately, there are still some areas in which the law permits people to make their own moral choices without coercion.
Re:Article title misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Line Drawing Fallacy: This fallacy uses false dilemmas in dealing with vague concepts: If your cannot draw a line to demarcate the edge of the concept, it is dismissed as hopelessly unclear.
In this case we can distinguish the extremes. Asking when it becomes a human only clouds the issue. I like the idea one of the other posters posited about checking for brain activity, as that's the socially accepted standard for killing/allowing someone to die (depending if you want to use an euphmism).
Re:Article title misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the simplest question in the world. You want the truth? You want to know exactly when an embryo or fetus becomes a human?
It becomes a human the moment that the woman carrying it decides she wants it, and it is a tragedy if something goes wrong. She'll sing to it, look at the sonographs, eat right, and buy baby supplies.
If she doesn't want it, it's a simply a piece of extra tissue and can be terminated and disposed of.
Got it? Good.
By the way, the father's view on the issue either way happens to be irrelevant.
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
So the epistimological fact of it's essence is dependant upon the opinion of another? Can that mother change her mind? I've heard of women wanting their child, and then because of some external issue (i.e. break up with the father) she changes her mind. Was the child human, and then not human once she changes her mind? What is it about birth that changes this process? Can a mother of a 5-year-old changer her mind, and say th
Re:Article title misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
My take on this is that a fetus is unborn, and the unborn aren't among us, kind of like the undead, but less creepy (I know that sounds weird, but bear with me). So, rights of status (such as "human") come into play only once the fetus is viable outside a womb without extreme assistance (I'm not talking about a simple incubator, but more drastic measures). Although the DNA and the tissue is undoubtedly human, it's not a person until certain things take place--such as brain function
I for one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I for one... (Score:2, Funny)
After wich point of growing life is worth saving ?
After wich point is if unethical to commit abortion ?
Do we have something like a "soul" ?
Whats the meaning of life ?
No, its not 42 and not FP on
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Interesting)
They cloned stem cells, that's quite different than a whole embryo. I'm more for cloning stem cells than using the stems cells from babies aborted. It will benefit science by enabling scientists to be able to do research on stem cells, but it won't affect the abortion discussion.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Informative)
Go here [wisc.edu] for more info on how we really get stem cells. For those who do not want to read here's a little blurb:
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not get into a killing-an-embryo-is-killing-humans discussion. A 7-day old human embryo is indistinguishable from most other embryos at that percentage through fetal developemnt (~1/39th). At 1/39th development, it is identical to all mamals and almost identical to all vertebrates. Mathematically and biologically, this is no different than doing it with sheep or fish.
~Will
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree.
A 7-day old human embryo is indistinguishable from most other embryos at that percentage through fetal developemnt (~1/39th). At 1/39th development, it is identical to all mamals and almost identical to all vertebrates. Mathematically and biologically, this is no different than doing it with sheep or fish.
I thought you just said you didn't want to get into it? Anyway, the grandparent didn't say it was killing humans, he said i
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't suggest that you seriously think that a chemical treated skin cell had the potential to grow into a healthy baby.
And since a subset of the cells are a) still alive and b) flourish and multiple, they haven't killed anything any more than losing cells to the outer layers of your Epidermis kills you.
Try not to let the word embryo drum up your emotions.
Re:For crying out loud RTFA! (Score:3, Funny)
The issue is more along the lines of "is an embryo a Human?" Certain religious people would say yes.
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. People already get donor organs. Its blood etc (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus even if part of your cloned kidney somehow ended up at a crime scene, it would only fail to remove you from the pool of suspects.
Re:I for one... (Score:3, Informative)
Deja vu (Score:5, Funny)
They seem to be cloning the cloning messages.
How often did we hear this before?
They seem to be cloning the cloning messages.
How often did...
Re:Deja vu (Score:2)
Oh, wait, they're already doing that.
Oh wow (Score:5, Interesting)
The topic here is rather misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
also in the BBC (Score:5, Informative)
In related news..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In related news..... (Score:5, Funny)
Of my own flesh and bone
With a Y chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
My very own clone
Will be of the opposite sex
Clone, clone of my own
With a Y chromosome changed to X
And since she is my clone
Her mind is my own
And we'll both think of nothing but sex
Isaac Asimov
Stem cells important but (Score:5, Insightful)
it's only a matter of time before someone does clone a human. There's nothing mysterious or exceptionally difficult about it as compared to cloning sheep, cows, horses, etc.
The ethical questions are something else entirely, due to the fact that at this time, there's no way to relibaly bring forth healthy clones (most have some sort of genetic defect).
There's also a general misconception that a clone will be just like the clonee. Something that's extremely unlikely, just look at identical twins.
Re:Stem cells important but (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure what you are getting at here. Huge numbers of people who shouldn't have babies are having them already by the old fashioned method. Cloning would make an insignificant contribution to this. Gay and lesbian couples already have kids by a variety of methods, and numerous studies show that those kids turn out just fine.
There's only 6 billion people! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There's only 6 billion people! (Score:5, Funny)
Very funny, but a completely invalid comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
Cloning, when promoted, is generally seen as a technology that could have research or medical therepeutic value, more rarely as one could allow infertile parents to have children that are genetically their own. That's not to say
Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was at Uni, they told us a US company held a patent on the harvesting(?) of cord blood stem cells, and demanded a license fee which is hampering the introduction of this. Don't know how true that is.
Nevertheless, this bypasses peoples squemishness on the use of embryos for this type of thing, though I don't have a problem with it myself. I can see why this work has been done, but there are a number of ways to generate this material that isn't morally suspect.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Informative)
In most major metropolitan areas you can donate cord blood at no cost. As long as you're donating it, that is. If you want to store it for future usage by your child alone then be prepared to pay a good bit of money -- the one price I've seen is $39/mo. When you donate it the universities and research centers will happily pay the fees on your behalf, since they can then use the resulting stem
And for other the six billion of us ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we supposed to just wait around diseased and dying contently?
Also, it's still rather uncertain how versatile cord stem cells are compared to embryonic stem cells.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
My mother has Parkinson's. When she was born, nobody took some stem cells. With this advance, she has some real hope to get healthier. And, believe me, this hope is so rare with such disease.
And it's not just Parkinson. There are millions of people that are ill (of neurone-dying desease), from which nobody took stem cells at birth, and who can now hope to get healthier.
This is really great news.
Worry about (a) clones, (b) nuclear destruction (Score:3, Troll)
So let me get this right: Some guys in BFE clone human stem cells. Ok, fine. Gotcha. Meanwhile, the head of the IAEA is warning that the "World May Be Headed for Nuclear Destruction" [reuters.com] because of the proliferation of nukes by Pakistan and North Korea.
Someone remind me please why it is that I should give a rat's ass about cloning, whether it's Joe Blow's stem cells or Adolf Hitler's own gametes? Cuz I just fail to see the significane of this at all, really.
The question (Score:5, Interesting)
Is a ball of 100 human embryo cells a human being? One woman on the program was claiming - yes, this is so. I personally think that this is a bit extreme, almost "every sperm is sacred" extreme.
On an unrelated note, I find it ironic that the same people who claim that abortion at day 3 is criminal are often pro-death penalty.
Re:The question (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it is extreme - if one was to draw a line as to when to call something a human being this is really the only black and white place to do it. Conception marks the first time in my personal history where the entire genetic material for me existed. Before that there was no certainty that this particular genetic combination would happen. Afterwards, all (physical) development was simply the working out of the DNA which was created during conception (of course influenced by the environment).
Furthermore, it takes a deliberate action for conception to happen. People need not worry about embryos simple popping into existence inside of a woman's womb. It does not however take a deliberate action for a baby grow inside you, or be born. These things simply happen as a natural course once conception has taken place. (Of couse not all conceptions natually result in child birth, and there are things the mother can do to increase the likelyhood of a successful pregnancy).
All other meters of life for which I have heard are really gradients not hard lines. In particular, some mention that a baby is reliant on the mother until after birth. But often premature babies can survive without their mother. But you say they are dependant on doctors and technology - so are all the diabetics, and cronically ill. In fact every person on this planet is dependant on other people to some extent - how many people do you think could survive if complete isolated from society? So birth is just one point (admitedly, an import one) in the gradient of self-reliability. The best we can do is draw some line that says this fetus has 0.0x% chance of surviving - and therefore, what? I don't think this is a good metric for determining whether something is a human being, but could be usefull in how much value we should place in it relative to other concerns.
There are also definate stages in the growth from an embryo to a fetus to a baby, but the boundies between these are also fuzzy. There is no point at which I can say that yesterday it was an embryo but today it is a fetus. Furthermore the development each day is just as significant as the day before it. So picking some point in the middle of development and saying that is when it becomes human is not possible.
Lastly, the other two determinations of a human - when it becomes sentiant, or when it gains a soul are too far beyond our understanding to make any reasonable judgement.
In conclusion, conception is the most logical place to declare something a human being. What sort of rights a human being should have at that point, however, is a different matter.
Re:The question (Score:3, Interesting)
While some might choose to debate you on where you set the dividing line, let's assume that brain activity is in fact what makes somebody human.
So, is it OK to euthanize the mentally retarded? How much brain activity is enough - the formation of the first neural stem cell?
The argument of those who are pro-choice is that a 1-week-old blastula is not a human entitled to civil-rights, and a 1-week-old child is. In most democracies we don't have various levels of
Back to the Forefront (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Back to the Forefront (Score:4, Insightful)
I say we move on without them.
Life-saving potential (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously (Score:5, Interesting)
Slim (Score:3, Insightful)
An example of this is Bush's partial ban on stem cell research. Being fairly religious, he probably wanted to ban it completely, but he just couldn't do it. He had to leave a loop-hole. Bush seems to be at the upper limit of the presidents-wit
Pretty girls for geeks (Score:5, Funny)
0.4% success rate (Score:4, Interesting)
US labs suffer from high human egg costs. The going rate is about $4,000 per donor. It would cost a megabuck just for the egg cells.
They didn't clone a human but... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, yeah the title is misleading BUT the scientists believe they could have cloned a human.
Cloning . . . good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Opponents of cloning fear the development will lead to cloned babies.
What if it does? So what? Clone me anytime. All it means is that there will be another guy who looks just like me walking around. Will the clone think and act like me? Fuck no; the people who think cloned genes will equal a cloned mind are the types who worry about cloned little Hitlers running around. Don't place your faith in Hollywood movies to show you what cloning is all about.
Cloned people are not any less human than "naturally born" people. What makes a human is intellect, not just how one was born.
Where's the Debate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Group B: Us heathens who believe otherwise, those who hope to benefit medically from the research and sadly those who want to make a profit.
So for some reason in America Group A can get laws passed to ban the research. However isnt religious oppression illegal in the US? So why dont the lawyers that represent those companies fight it on grounds of religious oppression?
I'm not a Christian (Score:4, Informative)
But I still oppose abortion (all cases) . I don't oppose cloning - but I do oppose treating cloned humans as convenient cell farms.
Why? Because I think humans and human life has value- in and of itself. That value isn't increased or decreased by the existence (or not) of a God- or even several Gods.
If you don't believe that then I can understand you supporting abortion and cloning embryos for their cells (but you're wrong). If that is your stance then I would assume that if you are consistent that you must oppose Murder being a crime?
Re:Where's the Debate? (Score:4, Interesting)
If it were possible to grow single organs from stem cells, or to inject stem cells where they were needed and effect a cure, then I might be persuaded that the sacrifice of an egg to be injected with my DNA and then grown on for a few generations is justified.
But it isn't - and this research adds little if anything to the sum of human knowledge.
But then, I'm against abortion and fertility treatment on purely irrational grounds, too.
Now research into making my own cells turn into stem cells - that's where I'd like to see the money spent. No ethical issues, no religious objections (at least, none associated with foetuses), anda reasonable chance of success, since genetic identity is guaranteed.
Clone sex (Score:3, Funny)
Leon Kass is a Fallacious fool (Score:5, Interesting)
Slipper slope fallacy [nizkor.org] - actually, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Therapeutic cloning can be done without us having to do reproductive cloning.
"In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning."
False Dillema fallacy [nizkor.org]. Kass is saying that we either completely ban all cloning, or we'd have to deal with and accept all types of cloning. In actuality, we can allow cloning for therapeutic purposes(you know, to save lives), while disallowing, or greatly limiting it for reproductive purposes(eg allow it for people who have no other way to reproduce, but disallow it for people who want to clone a legion of duplicates to satisfy their vanity/megalomaniacal ambitions).
The reason cloning is so touchy... (Score:5, Funny)
Sci-Fi | Real Life
Genetic duplicate | Check
Adult | Baby
Same memories | No memories
Same personality | Somewhat similar personality
Steals my identity | WTF?
JC wouldn't like it | You are an idiot
Weak argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, most people- even those who deny it-have some sort of moral sense prohibiting the logical conclusion of "anything in the name of science", or more broadly "the ends justify the means".
This argument also has the very un-scientific assumption that the hypothesis is correct. This technology could cost lives. This research could prevent funding on research into umbilical cord stem cells. So the person who says it should be done because it "could save lives" has actually already made up their mind that it will, and refuses to consider any other possibilities.
The question then is not whether this technology can save lives, but whether it is ethical to procede in this fashion. Here, the core issue is when life begins. If it begins at the zygote stage, then this technology is murdering for scientific gain. The trouble is, there is no clear-cut way of drawing that line- is it when the organism is self aware? Then abortion should be acceptable several months- even years- after birth. Is it when heart activity starts? The problem with this is that we know a person may be alive and recussitated for several minutes after his heart has stopped. Brain activity? Then maybe those with less brain activity- Alzheimer's patients, mentally ill etc.- should be killed as well, since their life is of less value by that criteria.
No, the only logical point to say life has started is at the very beginning. Researchers have the unique challenge of finding ways to enhance human life without taking or harming it. Granted this can be difficult, but I have confidence that people can work within ethical limits and still find honorable ways to do the things they are now trying to do through cloning and abortion.
Re:Weak argument (Score:4, Interesting)
Where, exactly, is the beginning? Even the "moment" of conception is not an actual moment. It takes a non-insignificant amount of time for chromosomes to match up.
You also need to address the flip side of the "beginning" argument. Over half of all pregnancies end through natural abortion/failure to implant. If we assume "life has started at the very beginning" then why do we let all those people die simply because they fail to implant in their mother's wombs? That number is far greater than abortions, murders, car accidents, etc. Why are those lives valued less or treated with less care than others? If we say it's "nature", then why do we interfere with nature by making antibiotics, developing vaccines, or outlawing murder?
My point is not to start an abortion/when does life begin argument here. Rather it's to point out that you cannot simply solve an ethical issue such as this by taking one extreme viewpoint or another (or any inbetween, for that matter) and implying it logically solves all our ethical problems.
Re:Weak argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings up your next good point- it happens it nature all the time, so why is it worse if we make it happen? You actually answer this yourself. People die naturally, but we outlaw murder. We do this because most people have moral objections to killing another human being. Some base this on social frameworks (social relativism), some on personal frameworks (individual relativism), some on a theological basis. It is, in my mind, the exact same issue here. If the being is human and alive, then to intentionally end its life is murder. The fact that some die naturally or accidentally does not have a direct impact on the issue, just as the fact that some people die in car accidents does not make vehicular homicide OK.
Thus, the only real question is when does one become a live human being. Personally, I think the extremes are to say it begins before conception or that it begins with self-awareness. I can understand why some would say it begins with brain activity, but this still has illogical conslusions. To me the most logically defensible position is to say it begins at conception.
Does this solve all our ethical problems? Of course not. But my main point was to show the weakness of the argument that "it could save lives", that the real issue is "when does a human life begin?", and to present what I think is the answer to that question.
Pig-human chimeras contain cell surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
Pigs grown from fetuses into which human stem cells were injected have surprised scientists by having cells in which the DNA from the two species is mixed at the most intimate level.
It is the first time such fused cells have been seen in living creatures. The discovery could have serious implications for xenotransplantation - the use of animal tissue and organs in humans - and even the origin of diseases such as HIV.
The adult pigs that had received human stem cells as fetuses were found to have pig cells, human cells and the hybrid cells in their blood and organs.
"What we found was completely unexpected. We found that the human and pig cells had totally fused in the animals' bodies," said Jeffrey Platt, director of the Mayo Clinic Transplantation Biology Program.
The hybrid cells had both human and pig surface markers. But, most surprisingly, the hybrid cell nuclei were found to have chromosomal DNA that contained both human and pig genes. The researchers found that about 60 per cent of the animals' non-pig cells were hybrids, with the remainder being fully human.
I CANNOT believe that these animals looked like "normal" pigs. If the Pig and Human nuclear DNA mixed, and the animal was 60% percent human, one would think that the animals were more human than pig.
Cloning isn't so bad when compared to an experiment like this gone awry.
Cloning is like Prostitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloning is like prostitution. Moral or not, legal or not, people are going to do it and get paid for it. The question is whether we want an open, regulated industry or an underground one.
Once they find the Heorot burial yard. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Big deal (Score:3, Funny)
> Did they clone Paris Hilton? If not, I don't care.
Yeah, but the clone turned out to be short, fat, and prudish.
We'll send her right over. How many do you want?
Re:Stem cells from fat (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but the result would look a bit like this. [columbia.edu].
Its not that simple. (Score:3, Informative)
Your mantra - genetically human is human - is too simple. For example, many different types of human cells are cultured in labs all around the world. They are derived from adult humans... every type of cell from neurons to muscle cells to adult stem cells. One of the first such cell lines ever made, HeLa, is actually named for Helen Lang, the person from whom the original cell came. All these cells are as genetically human as any cell of a similar type in your body or mine. I feel no remorse when, in t