Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans 607

Posted by michael from the double-your-pleasure dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans More

Scientists Claim They Cloned Humans

Comments Filter:

  • Important to note.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) <mikemol@gmail.com> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:19AM (#8257501) Homepage Journal
    ...That they didn't claim to produce an entire embryo; just stem cells.

    • Not according to Coast the Coast Radio (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:20AM (#8257516)
      Not according to "Coast to Coast Radio" with Art Bell. According to him, the UN already has millions of cloned army men stationed in secret bases in Siberia and Northern Minnesota.
      • Not according to "Coast to Coast Radio" with Art Bell. According to him, the UN already has millions of cloned army men stationed in secret bases in Siberia and Northern Minnesota.

        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)

      by mirko ( 198274 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#8257538) Journal
      Well, the story submitter would have been less error inducing by titling it "Scientists claimed they cloned human cells".
      It is too "sensational" and biaised the way it is submitted.

    • Re:Important to note.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:22AM (#8257542)
      They have produced full embrios up to 100 cells equivalent to a seven day old.

      • Re:Important to note.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:22AM (#8258127)
        Which, religious issues aside, is roughly equivalent to saying that your fingernails have grown some in the past hour.

        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)

      by Draxinusom ( 82930 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:47AM (#8257766)
      They transplated the nucleus of a somatic cell into an egg, cultured it to the blastocyst stage, then extracted the stem cells from them. In what sense does that not involve a cloned embryo? If they had implanted the egg into a uterus instead of extracting the stem cells it would have developed into a more or less normal human.

      • Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Informative)

        by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <[gpoopon] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:05AM (#8257920)
        If they had implanted the egg into a uterus instead of extracting the stem cells it would have developed into a more or less normal human.

        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)

          by wurp ( 51446 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:37AM (#8258258) Homepage
          How is this an alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells? This _is_ an aborted embryo (albeit in vitro, but the adults from in vitro embryos seem perfectly normal).

          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!

          • How is this an alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells?

            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.

            This _is_ an aborted embryo (albeit in vitro, but the adults from in vitro embryos seem perfectly normal).

            No, it is not an aborted embryo, as it never implanted in a

          • Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Informative)

            by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <[gpoopon] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:05PM (#8258525)
            How is this an alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells? This _is_ an aborted embryo (albeit in vitro, but the adults from in vitro embryos seem perfectly normal).

            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, Funny)

          by Fear the Clam ( 230933 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:55AM (#8258433)
          Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue?

          From fat tissue? At last, jobs will go back to Americans!

          U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
        • I'm pretty sure they already cleared up the issue with telomeres. The problem resulted from using cells at the end of their division cycle (50 divisions) so that it wasn't active when they tore the nucleus out. It's been found though that the nucleus can be taken out at the beginning of this cycle resulting in an interesting phenomenon where the cloned cell then gets extra telomeres and is potentially superior to the original.

        • Re:Um, what? Yes they did. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by cookie_cutter ( 533841 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:40PM (#8258889)
          Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue?

          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)

    by 0x54524F4C4C ( 712971 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:19AM (#8257507)

    Now the big question is: who to clone?
    I, for one, can only think of people that should not exist.

  • There oughta be a law... (Score:5, Funny)

    by benlinkknilneb ( 708649 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:19AM (#8257513) Journal
    Can we pass a law that stupid people aren't allowed near this stuff? We've got too many of them already.
    • But if only smart people survive um? Won't that look bad for the rest of us normies?

      I think they made an outer limits episode out of this where the new humans could "stream"....

      Tom
    • We've got too many of them already

      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.
    • As a matter of fact, if you've read the Memes book, you'd realize that stupid people already do multiply faster than smart people. There's a lot of links, enough to satisfy almost any definition of stupidity, with education, which leads to knowledge of and awareness about birth control being the obvious one.

      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.

  • Human embryos != Humans

    • Re:Article title misleading (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:45AM (#8257742)

      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)

        by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:50AM (#8257792)
        An embryo is "In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development."

        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)

        by Jagasian ( 129329 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:51AM (#8257802)
        I really do not understand why people can't see a common sense middle ground to this whole abortion debate.

        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.
        • 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?

          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
        • I really do not understand why people can't see a common sense middle ground to this whole abortion debate

          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:Article title misleading (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jsprat23 ( 148634 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:08AM (#8257977)
        This is called the fallacy of drawing the line. It's defined as:
        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)

        by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:27AM (#8258177) Homepage Journal
        Tell me - *exactly* when does a "human embryo" become a "human"?

        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.
        • It becomes a human the moment that the woman carrying it decides she wants it

          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
    • Human embryos != Humans

      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)

    by holizz ( 737615 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:20AM (#8257525) Homepage
    Am in support of using stem-cells to repair organs. It's not really unehical at all. I mean an embryo doesn't have a personality or a self so it's hardly going to miss being alive.
    • That are the big questions of ethics:
      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 /. either

    • Re:I for one... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by queen of everything ( 695105 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:27AM (#8257591)

      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)

        by N4m0r ( 592310 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:55AM (#8257842)
        It's a common misconception that stem cells are harvested from aborted fetuses. By making it look like there are these mad scientists harvesting cells from aborted fetuses the people against the research make it look more disturbing.

        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:
        Where do embryonic stem cells come from?


        Human embryonic stem cells are derived from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Using 14 blastocysts obtained from donated, surplus embryos produced by in vitro fertilization, a group of UW-Madison developmental biologists led by James Thomson established five independent stem cell lines in November 1998. This was the first time human embryonic stem cells had been successfully isolated and cultured.


        The cell lines were capable of prolonged, undifferentiated proliferation in culture and yet maintained the ability to develop into a variety of specific cell types, including neural, gut, muscle, bone and cartilage cells.


        The embryos used in the work at UW-Madison were originally produced to treat infertility and were donated specially for this project with the informed consent of donor couples who no longer wanted the embryos for implantation.

    • Re:I for one... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by theLastPossibleName ( 701919 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:42AM (#8257722)
      Putting morality aside, could widespread use of stem cells to clone organs or other body parts eliminate using DNA as forensic evidence?
      • First off, DNA evidence is based on bodily fluids which will still have the persons real DNA. Secondly, DNA evidence can only be legitimately used to clear the innocent, not prove guilt. DNA tests are not 100% identifying, but can be used to say that a particular sample does not match. This is a very important distinction when the population is large, which, in fact, it is.
        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.

  • Deja vu (Score:5, Funny)

    by GerritHoll ( 70088 ) <gerrit@nl.linux.org> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#8257526) Homepage
    How often did we hear this before?

    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...

  • Oh wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wizarddc ( 105860 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#8257527) Homepage Journal
    What's with the sensatioanlistic headlines this morning? KAZAA'ers PAY TO USE VPN TO BYPASS RIAA on a story about a company who offers public vpn for $6, with no implicit mention of Kazaa or FileSharing. And now WE'VE CLONED A HUMAN about a korean company who has cloned only an embryo to only a very early stage to generate stem cells, not making Steve 2.0 from Steve. Let's not go overboard, or am I talking out of turn? This is Slashdot, of course. Overboard is the story d'jour.

  • The topic here is rather misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by freerecords ( 750663 ) <slashdot.freerecords@org> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#8257530) Homepage Journal
    The team detailed here has not cloned a human has such. It has cloned the stem cells in an embryo specifically for stem cells. The claims that they have made (also made in New Scientist this week) are not as radical as the claims made by the Raelians and Panayiotis Zavos, and so are much more believable than can be expected by looking at this title :) I say all power to the team doing this as they are obviously going for something that is going to eventually become a pioneering field for saving life. I think the key issue is that they are cloning the cells (i believe) rather than the entire embryo, and so the issue of Sanctity of Life does not come into it. Tim

  • also in the BBC (Score:5, Informative)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <(tuxette) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#8257531) Homepage Journal
    article here [bbc.co.uk]

  • In related news..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:24AM (#8257557)
    "In related news, delegates to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention have attempted to introduce a "yes, you can marry your own clone" clause into the gay marriage debate."
    • after realizing that a clone is essentially a twin brother or sister to you, Texas has allowed it too, citing that men and women should be equal for the law...

    • Re:In related news..... (Score:5, Funny)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:00AM (#8257881)
      Oh give me a clone
      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)

    by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:29AM (#8257599)

    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.

  • There's only 6 billion people! (Score:3, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:30AM (#8257614) Journal
    We need more! Make more people! Quick! There's just not enough baby factories in the world. Look at China, for example. There's hardly anyone there! It's an unpopulated wasteland! More clones now! Rah rah rah sis boom bah!

  • Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SimianOverlord ( 727643 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:31AM (#8257620) Homepage Journal
    Your stem cells can be collected and stored at birth, from the cord blood that is thrown away anyway when they tie the knot to make your belly button. It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.

    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)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 )
      It should be standard practice to store them now from newborns for when stem cell technology matures in the future.

      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)

      by cookie_cutter ( 533841 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:13AM (#8258026)
      ... that didn't have there cord cells placed in a reserve?

      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)

      by totatis ( 734475 )
      Let me tell you why your solution is in no way interchangeable with this advancement.

      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)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:32AM (#8257625) Journal

    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)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:36AM (#8257659) Journal
    On this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, this very thing was discussed. One of the interesting arguments: at what point to we determine an embryo a human being?

    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)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:56PM (#8259118)
      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.

      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.

  • Back to the Forefront (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil Schmoo ( 700378 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:36AM (#8257662) Homepage
    ... and the inexorable march of science continues unabated. This is a significant breakthrough, if not a huge step forward, in the process, and there will probably be another within 12-18 months, and so on. FWIW, I think the most positive aspect of this is that it will bring bioresearch back into the public eye, and will hopefully foster intelligent, measured discussion on the obvious benefits and admitted drawbacks to all forms of new technology, bio, nano, or otherwise. As the proliferation of nuclear technology (now 60 years old) has shown, technology will out, despite all attempts to contain it. Therefore, we need to be discussing the ethics and ramifications of said technology well before it becomes public domain. Note that I'm not advocating the containment of technology -- heaven forbid! I'm merely suggesting that we're not yet ready to deal with these issues as a nation or as a race, and the time to begin thinking about them is sooner rather than later.

    • Re:Back to the Forefront (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jagasian ( 129329 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:36AM (#8258257)
      Most people do not understand the science, nor do they understand anything other than what they were told to think by their religious dogma. What would they have to contribute to the debate? They most likely will never understand because they refuse to understand.

      I say we move on without them.

  • Life-saving potential (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Durandal64 ( 658649 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:38AM (#8257684)
    Stem cell technology has the potential to save millions of lives. Clearly, we need to issue bans on it.

  • But seriously (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:39AM (#8257698) Journal
    What are the chances that when I get older I'll need to go overseas for a one of these new transplants (Now rejection free! Two kidneys for price of one!) because the US has banned all stem cell research and related items.

    • Slim (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johnjay ( 230559 )
      It's a legitimate fear, but I think the elements in the US that are for business and for keeping our edge technologically will keep the US for banning stem-cell research. There's no way to avoid the fact that stem cells are an enourmous part of the future of medicine.

      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)

    by kyknos.org ( 643709 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:39AM (#8257700) Homepage
    Can we clone some pretty girls to make supply so high to make them available for geeks too?

  • 0.4% success rate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:41AM (#8257716)
    Worse than the first livestock cloning rates. Thats probably why success hasnt been reported before.
    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)

    by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <john.jmaug@com> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:41AM (#8257717)
    Everyone has been posting that they didn't clone a human. No they didn't clone a human but the embryo grew well enough in a petry dish to suggest that if they did not extract the stem cells they could have cloned a human. Laws in South Korea allows them to create stem cells in this way but they are not allowed to clone an entire human. In the United States none of this is allowed and for a long time there have been discussions to make the laws more like South Korea (cloning of full humans not allowed but this research in cloning embryos and stuff like that is.)

    Anyway, yeah the title is misleading BUT the scientists believe they could have cloned a human.

  • Cloning . . . good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aynrandfan ( 687181 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:43AM (#8257731)
    Could someone please tell me what the hell gets people so damn scared about the issue of cloning?

    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)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @10:53AM (#8257820) Homepage Journal
    Group A: Primarily Christians and other Religious groups. Are against Cloning for the above reasons. Becuase God's against it.

    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)

      by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:11AM (#8258004)

      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)

      by BigBadBri ( 595126 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:28PM (#8258730)
      Well, I'm an atheist, and you'd have to make a Group C - 'it's fucking stupid and dangerous' for me.

      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)

    by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 ) <slashdot@@@remco...palli...nl> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:02AM (#8257893)
    What if you clone yourself and genetically modify the DNA to make it a member of the opposite sex, apply some rapid growth and then have sex with it, does that count as masturbation or incest ??

  • Leon Kass is a Fallacious fool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cookie_cutter ( 533841 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:04AM (#8257912)
    Dr. Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics: "The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today, cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for babymaking,"

    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)

    by Squidbait ( 716932 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:12AM (#8258023)
    is that a story like this immediately transforms itself in the minds of some very ignorant people, into: Scientists are now able to create fully adult genetic and mental duplicates of me, who will look, talk, and act just like me, sleep with my wife and take over my life just like in The Sixth Day, and furthermore they will all be abominations in the eyes of God!! The reality of what's possible with cloning is far more mundane than our sci-fi nightmares, but the general public rarely concerns itself with the differences. Lets see:
    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)

    by boatboy ( 549643 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @11:41AM (#8258309) Homepage
    An argument for this technology strictly from the perspective that it "could save lives" is a weak argument. The human research conducted by Nazi Germany could "save lives". Shoving hot spikes in people's toenails would no doubt teach us alot about pain and perhaps lead to better pain relievers.

    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)

      by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:56PM (#8259121) Homepage
      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.

      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)

        by boatboy ( 549643 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @04:53PM (#8261652) Homepage
        Good points. As for the exact "moment" being itself a process, I'd think that if one were looking to nail down a nano-second it would be when the new entity becomes something distinct from it's parent. The resolution to which that exact moment is measurable today may be limited, but for practical purposes, it is enough to say that it begins at conception. Preventing it from happening is a technically different thing from halting it once it's occured.

        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)

    by alchemist68 ( 550641 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:22PM (#8258679)
    Pig-human chimeras contain cell surprise...at New Scientist...here:

    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 94558 [newscientist.com]

    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.

    ...The injections must be given after the body plan of the fetus has developed, but before the immune system is active. The former ensures the animals look like normal pigs and sheep....

    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)

    by Aidtopia ( 667351 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @01:32PM (#8259505) Homepage Journal

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close