Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

South Korean Cloners In Hot Water Over Donors 110

Posted by timothy from the hot-amniotic-fluid-at-least dept.
Xookliba writes "Last February, South Korean scientists succeeded in the world's first human clone. Read the slashdot article here. As it turns out, they might have not been the best abassadors for this technology as they are currently mired in an ethical scandal over the source of the eggs used in the experiment. The field definitely does not need this type of debacle. No doubt this will fuel the argument of those who oppose all types of cloning, including the beneficial therapeutic cloning that this research was aimed at. Read the story here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Korean Cloners In Hot Water Over Donors More

South Korean Cloners In Hot Water Over Donors

Comments Filter:

  • "Beneficial therapeutic cloning"?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saganaga ( 167162 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @03:49PM (#9119836) Homepage
    This only begs the question: beneficial to whom? Isn't there someone you're forgetting, someone who doesn't benefit from so-called "therapeutic" cloning, namely the unborn human being who is being harvested for parts for the benefit of others? How is this different from the Nazi-era human experimentation that we all (hopefully) abhor?
    • I agree. :\ Times like this I wish /. had a "Here-here!" or "Huzzah" voting button. :)
    • "Unborn human being"? What I would call it is a tissue sample created in the lab. Is "unborn human being" what you would call those millions of embryoes created each year for infertile couples? Oh, let's not forget that 80% of those will never see the light of day. If you ask me, by your definition that sounds not just like Nazi's but a freakin' holocaust! But that's all perfectly legal, of course. Just because you have your particular defintion of human life doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer
      • "Just because you have your particular defintion of human life doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer because of it.": So what is your definition of human life? And whatever it is, why should I accept your definition as any better than mine?

        "When I am old and suffering from Parkinson's so bad my whole body shakes, I will be glad when a doctor suggests some type of stem cell treatment. ": The way things are going in our culture, when you are old and suffering from Parkinson's you won't be cured, rathe
        • The way things are going in our culture, when you are old and suffering from Parkinson's you won't be cured, rather you'll be harvested for parts. The thinking at that time will be that you aren't human anymore, or that you are too much of a burden for society. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear not

          I doubt this will be a valid concern. Young fresh parts are desireable. Why would you want old parts from someone with a debilitating sickness?

          I call B.S. Care to offer some evidence for this sweeping statement? I
          • I doubt this will be a valid concern. Young fresh parts are desireable. Why would you want old parts from someone with a debilitating sickness?: Fair enough. If your parts aren't fresh enough, we'll just throw them away after we kill you. Either way, you've become a burden to society and you aren't valuable anymore.

            Lab rats? Clinical trials on Chimpanzees? These types of tests go on every day and I would certainly say some percentage of them are to the detrimant of those being used for the tests.: I do n
            • Hey, here's a thought...maybe we could limit all medical experiments to use only non-human embryos or fetuses. That way, neither side should (in theory) have a problem with it. What do you think?

              Or we could use both. I don't have too much of a problem with testing on animals (it really just depends on the test). I was just throwing the animal issue out there for the purpose of debate. You actually might have a point though, initially both sides might be ok with it (excluding the extreme animal rights acti

            • One of my favourite consipracy theories (and one that I personally believe to be true) is that the U.S. offered protection from prosecution for the Nazi scientists in exchange for their medical data for what they did during the Halocaust -- medical data that has launched our understanding of our species decades ahead of where we would otherwise be. Does that qualify?

          • who's to say that with more research we won't work out a method for cloning specific parts and not whole people from whom parts will be harvested.

            This will almost certainly come to pass. A researcher in Japan (no I don't have a link, somone else here does) has succesfully created a frog without limbs, one without a head, and one that was nothing but a head, etc.... We'll get there in spite of luddite attitudes in the US.



    • raises the question, my friend, raises the question.

      but raise it does :

      cloning is not for the benefit of the clone

    • How about the millions of unborn human beings that die when you masterbate?
      • You're doubtlessly joking, but if not...the life of a human being begins at conception, and not before.
        • I'm not sure these days, ask your local right-to-life nazi......

        • Because, what? You say so?

          If you're going to arbitrarly declare that zygotes should have the rights of a fully grown human being despite lacking a central nervous system, you might as well claim that those "unborn babies" still in the haploid stage of human development also warrant those rights.

          So why don't right-to-lifers declare that a "holocaust of the unborn" is happening every time a virile male doesn't fertilize an egg? It would certainly be consistent with their rhetoric about "Roe vs. Wade" m

          • Because, what? You say so?: No, because it follows from logic and reason.

            So why don't right-to-lifers declare that a "holocaust of the unborn" is happening every time a virile male doesn't fertilize an egg?: Because it does not follow from logic that a male sperm cell is human. Human life does not begin until an egg is fertilized. Biology 101.
            • No, because it follows from logic and reason.

              I don't see much logic & reason occurring here - just your pigheaded refusal to accept that any other viewpoint than your own has any merit.

              Human life does not begin until an egg is fertilized. Biology 101.

              Incorrect. Human life does not begin until the life is recognizable as a human. By definition. But not your definition.

              • pigheaded

                Ouch. But how is your attitude any different from mine? In other words, aren't you being just as pigheaded? Or do you always resort to name calling when you can't think of any good arguments?

                Incorrect. Human life does not begin until the life is recognizable as a human. By definition. But not your definition.

                Please enlighten me as to the source of your definition of human life. And how would one go about determining if life is "recognizable as human"?
    • Nothing to see here folks, this whole thread is over. A Nazi comparison on the second post to a /. discussion... I think this might just be a record breaking Godwin's Law [faqs.org] post. Come to think of it, I doubt it.
    • How can you compare theraputic cloning to Nazzism? That's an obvious attempt to play off of the world's hatred for them to trick people into supporting your belief. Kind of like when politicians call each other Hitler, but a little more subtle.

      Besides, what's more reminiscent of Nazi policy: killing unthinking organic tissue, or stifling technology/science/culture?
      • Besides, what's more reminiscent of Nazi policy: killing unthinking organic tissue, or stifling technology/science/culture?: What I find most reminiscent of Nazi policy is the deliberate dehumanization of an entire class of human beings (just as you have done with your use of the phrase "unthinking organic tissue") and then taking advantage of the dehumanized class for scientific gain.
    • This only begs the question: beneficial to whom? Isn't there someone you're forgetting, someone who doesn't benefit from so-called "therapeutic" cloning, namely the unborn human being who is being harvested for parts for the benefit of others? How is this different from the Nazi-era human experimentation that we all (hopefully) abhor?

      Did you RTFA or just have a knee jerk reaction? Or maybe you watched The Boys from Brazil and think that is the Nazi cloning reference? These were not even 'fertilized' ce

      • Did you RTFA or just have a knee jerk reaction?: Yes I did read the article, but I was referring to the throwaway statement "Beneficial therapeutic cloning" from the next to last sentence of the story summary.

        These were not even 'fertilized' cells... they were unfertilized eggs: If they were unfertilized, then how did they manage to grow them? I quote from the article:

        "After being grown in culture for a few days, this clone can yield embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any of the body's tissues
        • It depends on what your definiton of "fertilized" is. It is not, in fact, fertilized by conventional means (ie sperm). The eggs were stripped of their nuclear material and a new nucleus (w/ DNA) was inserted into them. The egg allows the new DNA to direct the development of a genetically-identical copy of whatever you took the nucleus out of. That is how cloning works.

          But you are quite correct that if implanted into a uterus it would probably grow. In that sense, the egg is "fertile."

          So the nucleus

          • "The newly made embryo is not, IMO, a person, because it cannot become one unless some very specific conditions are met.": By this argument, all embryos are non-persons, not just the cloned ones. Which is what I was trying to say: there is no practical difference between cloned embryos and those created the natural way.

            But on the argument of whether or not the embryo actually is a person, why should the necessity of a specific environment for survival disqualify the embryo from inclusion in the human race
        • If they were unfertilized, then how did they manage to grow them?

          As another person in this article pointed out we are arguing semantics. We can currently get human skin cells to grow in a lab [worldhealth.net] but no one argues that they are human. We take a nucleus form one of those skin cells and then drop it in an egg and we now have a human being? All the information needed to make a complete human is in the nulceus of the donor cell, the egg provides the machinery to start making the totipotent stem cells.

          When w

          • We can currently get human skin cells to grow in a lab but no one argues that they are human.: No, no one argues that they are human because the natural end result of skin cells growing is never a human being, but just a mass of skin. The end result of a fertilized egg growing, however, is a living breathing fully grown human being like you or me.

            I have a real hard time with considering a group of 12 cells a 'human' any more than I would consider an unfertilized egg that gets flushed out with menstruatio
            • Why do you have a hard time with it? There is a fundamental difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertizilized egg.

              I think I have a hard time of it because there is also a fundamental difference between an egg, an egg that is fertilized, and an egg that is fertilized and put in a uterus. Each of those three steps is required for the egg to fully develop - why draw the line after step 1? why not after step 2 (or even later, their are many other fundamental things that need to happen for the embryo t

              • I think the reason many people, like myself, believe that human being begins at conception is because that is first point in time when you can point to something and say, "Look! Here is a person! This is when you or I began!" Everything genetically is present at that point, in the fertilized egg, to create the entire human body. The sperm or egg do not in themselves comprise a human being because they're only building blocks.

                I certainly think it's reasonable to have doubts about this...after all, the hu
                • I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this... I think that it does come a bit later (does nucleus implantation in cloning count as 'conception'?).

                  It has been a good discussion and I have thought a bit more and refined what I think about it more, but I still think the line lies later, and is not actually a 'line' but is a transition of grays.

  • Man, people are way too uptight about this crap. Animals clone themselves all the time. What if a decade from now a virus hits humanity that destroys our fertility (just imagine, you don't have to figure out how exactly)... wouldn't it be nice for us to at least now how to keep humanity going somehow? And to all those people that say the clone wouldn't be "human" be because of lack of soul, well you are the inhuman one. Anyone who would treat a thinking human different based on how they were born is a very

    • Re:Uptight (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Opius17 ( 719717 )
      I guess i just wanted to point out that these stem cell grown parts will only be usefull to the one person whose original cells were used. Most embryonic stem cell research has been relatively unsuccessfull because they have been using fertilized embryos which have a different genetic make-up than the person intended to benefit from them, thus bringing up the issue of rejection inherent when doing a normal organ transplant or other such procedure. Adult stem cell research (such as nasal stem cells or bone
      • ...stem cell grown parts will only be usefull to the one person whose original cells were used.

        That doesn't really hold true.

        I read the other day that a woman was discovered to have functioning XY brain cells that had developed out of a bone marrow transplant a decade earlier. So, this discovery not only demonstrated that donated stem cells can be used by another, but also that those donations could cross the blood-brain barrier.

        Yeah.. This [medicinenet.com] looks like it.

      • The idea behind therapeutic cloning, however, is to take cells from the patient, clone them, and harvest the ES cells from the clone. These ES cells would have identical makeup to the patient, and be perfectly viable.

        Your point about "adult" stem cells is valid, though. There has been as good deal of success using cord blood and bone marrow pluripotents. There is even evidence that pluripotents can be differentiated into muscle, liver, neural, endothelial, and a number of other tissue types. The reason thi

    • "What if a decade from now a virus hits humanity that destroys our fertility (just imagine, you don't have to figure out how exactly)"

      What if, a century from now, all cloned humans are destroyed by a mutant virus? What if, in a million years, the Morlocks and Eloi manage to combine their DNA and form a retro-human, circa 10,000 BCE? We can all play the "what if" game, but it doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

      "Animals clone themselves all the time [therefore it is ethical for humans to do

      • I have three children. I support stem-cell research and the use of reproductive and cloning technology to the extent of providing 100% compatible stem cells for people.

        That seven week old was nothing more than an undifferentiated pile of cells 10 months ago. You'd have no more feeling for your child back then if it were an aborted 3 week pregnancy in your toilet. Come off this "I don't support cloning and reproductive research because dammit we were all a handful of cells once" bullshit. Do you feel b

        • Aside from your point, I just want to nitpick : 10 months ago it was a heckuva lot more than an undifferentiated lump of cells. In fact, at that stage (~4 weeks) you're already well into the embryo stage, with a good number of organ systems derived and developing (CNS, cardiovascular, some of the sensory organs, etc) and is not terribly useful for ES harvesting. It can be used, but it's tougher (based on my experience with mice, at least)

          The stuff they use for ES is a LOT further back than that. I'm a prett

          • I just want to nitpick : 10 months ago it was a heckuva lot more than an undifferentiated lump of cells. In fact, at that stage (~4 weeks) you're already well into the embryo stage, with a good number of organ systems derived and developing (CNS, cardiovascular, some of the sensory organs, etc) and is not terribly useful for ES harvesting.

            You're absolutely right, I blew the math. :-)

        • From the moment that I knew that my wife was pregnant, I thought of him as a baby and not an "undifferentiated pile of cells." Yes, I would have strong feelings if he had been aborted.

          " I support stem-cell research and the use of reproductive and cloning technology to the extent of providing 100% compatible stem cells for people."

          I find this attitude absolutely terrifying. There's not much of a leap from harvesting "stem cells" to harvesting embryos. How far does it go? Do you support "reproductive

          • I find this attitude absolutely terrifying. There's not much of a leap from harvesting "stem cells" to harvesting embryos. How far does it go? Do you support "reproductive and cloning technology" to grow babies whose sole purpose is to grow organs?

            Of course not. I said I am very keen on stem cell research, not growing full humans for the purpose of harvesting their organs. Reducing the argument to absurdity doesn't do anything to help your side.

            • I noticed you neglected to mention the sentence immediately following this quote. I would make no distinction between "full" and "incomplete" humans. What is absurd, sir, is the fact that calling a mass of cells, which will inevitably and irrevocably become a living, breathing member of society, "stem cells" when they are in fact human. An adult is human. A child is human. A baby is human. It stands to reason that the developmental stages preceding birth are therefore undertaken by humans and not some

              • I noticed you neglected to mention the sentence immediately following this quote. I would make no distinction between "full" and "incomplete" humans. What is absurd, sir, is the fact that calling a mass of cells, which will inevitably and irrevocably become a living, breathing member of society, "stem cells" when they are in fact human. An adult is human. A child is human. A baby is human. It stands to reason that the developmental stages preceding birth are therefore undertaken by humans and not some amoe

                • "I see you neglected to reply about my masturbation comment -- they're "partial humans" -- by your definition they're a "pre-developmental" (if you will) stage preceding birth."

                  I neglected to reply because it was obviously inflammatory. Iron is a component of steel and is required for it's formation, but it's still just iron and not steel. Sperm or eggs by themselves do not grow into a human if left to their natural devices; furthermore, their cells do not divide and grow as does a fertilised egg. Ther

    • Man, people are way too uptight about this crap... And to all those people that say the clone wouldn't be "human" be because of lack of soul, well you are the inhuman one. Anyone who would treat a thinking human different based on how they were born is a very ignorant animal...

      Do you have any idea how many deformed, retarded, sick sheep were created and destroyed before the first successful clone? Do you really think that there's no ethical problem with creating (at least) hundreds of human beings with te

  • The field definitely does not need ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @03:59PM (#9119928) Journal

    the skeptics being right, how dare they!

  • South Korean Cloners In Hot Water Over Donors (Score:3, Funny)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:16PM (#9120074)
    or, Hard Boiled Egg Plot Involves High Risk of Blood Clot.

    I am happy full of glee
    that you clone some eggs from me.
    Science good, coersion bad,
    I'll be a mommy AND a dad!
    No wait, eggs of mine
    They are not
    Please excuse
    mine english is rot.

    Western values rule the day
    You don't see this game we play?
    In other News, (Hold your breath!)
    Some Koreans, HAVE BREASTS!
    But of course!
    We'll use the Force!
    Nothing to see here.
    You're looking for a beer.

  • the trouble with clones (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you seen one, you've seen them all.
  • I hope they didn't coerce the women to give their eggs unwillingly, especially when there is such a health high risk associated with this type of mass donation. Either way this is a great breakthrough and I hope this scandal doesn't cover up the high points of the experiment.

    It doesn't mean a whole lot to people who think cloning of any type is evil no matter what, but I felt one of the more important points in the article was that, "This is not cloning to make babies, but to create medicine."

    Even though
    • I wonder how many sceptics would still oppose cloning research (or genetic research in general) if they knew it could lead to a cure for his/her child. IMO the question if an experiment is ethical or not should be decide by those who are knowledgable enough to judge wisely. And not by a Hollywood-educated, religious fanatical mob.

      • Re:Skeptics be damned (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Saganaga ( 167162 )
        Your comment is typical of the utilitarian viewpoint (the philosophy that says that whatever course of action provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the most ethical one). Your comment also smacks of elitism ("religious fanatical mob") and demonstrates your willingness to let "those who are knowledgable" make all your decisions for you.
        • Your comment is typical of a troll (attack the person, not the argument).

        • Re:Skeptics be damned (Score:4, Insightful)

          by shadowbearer ( 554144 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @09:41PM (#9123202) Homepage Journal
          So, let's leave it up to the "donors" (the thousands of women who have abortions every month). How about a simple check box: "Are you willing to donate your childs/fetuses'/gamete tissue to medical science for research on stem cells?" We all know there are many abortions undertaken for purely medical reasons involving the health of the mother, and other reasons such as rape+pregnancy.

          I know damned well this won't satisfy the radicals on both sides, but I think it would be a reasonable compromise; let's face it, whether or not abortion is legal, abortions are going to happen. It's arguably more moral to allow them to happen in supervised and licensed clinics where there is less risk for the woman.

          In that sense, arguing for pro-choice (and I am, although I see the arguments on both sides, once having disagreed with someone who aborted a potential child of mine), doesn't it make sense from a moral and ethical standpoint to let the woman decide what should be done with the tissue that is taken from her own body?

          One thing that this whole debate lacks to a large extent is a rational decision as to whose choice it is to allow a fetus to come to term. What I find disgusting about the whole debate is that it's come down to whether it's the choice of the majority (ie, government), rather than the choice of the people involved, to make the decision. I fail to understand what role, if any, the federal government should play in those decisions.

          If the people on either side don't like what I've posted, I don't really care. Just think about it, and think about this: While you argue, you are screwing up a lot of lives, and most of them are people who are grown and already contribute to society. That kind of damage is of a higher magnitude than ending the life of an early term fetus is, to society as a whole.

          If we have a dysfunctional society, we might as well be living back in the Dark Ages.

          SB

        • the philosophy that says that whatever course of action provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the most ethical one

          As opposit to the philosophy that says that whoever can drag in the most gods and religious stories is the most ethical?
          But those are the two extremes. Utilitarianism would approve of the Hollocause as the number of "good Germans" were much higher than the number of "undermenshen" (sp?)(All those who were procecuted because they weren't Arian, or were gay, or ha


    • Lets let the Consumericans of the future breed their own sub-human slave race for the purposes of 'medicine'. Great idea.

      Cloning is one of those situations where you not only cannot and should not ignore the man behind the curtain, but you should take him out of the theatre, kick his ass, and start dating his sister ...

      In 50 years time, after 'a few years' of industrialized human-breeding for the sake of fashion and medicine, I don't think I'm gonna want to call myself a member of this race.
    • Instead the idea that we can cure the ailments of tons of people....

      What kinds of ailments are these, exactly? I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm interested in the nature of these ailments. My only experience with situations where someone would need an organ replacement is where they continually exposed themselves to something so toxic it caused organ damage. Or where an infant is born premature... from drug consumption by her mother. What are the situations not based on negligence where this form
      • Well, organ replacement is just one idea. Some scenarios for organ replacement you did not mention would be kidney failure in diabetics for example, that is not the fault of self-exposure.

        The most exciting development would be the ability to treat non-organ centric diseases, such as Parkinsons, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, ALS, and the list goes on and on. The idea is that by applying pre-differentiated cells (as opposed to "adult" cells which have already made the choice to become liver, heart, l

        • In relation to Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Cancer, etc see my other post in this thread. I assert these diseases are the result of psychological and emotional habits. There is a wealth of information to support these ideas. You may look into Wilhelm Reich, thoguh there are certainly less controversial sources, if you hankles are easily raised.

          .
          -shpoffo
          • Yes, I would hope there are better sources. If I want to know about a biological problem, then the last person I am going to ask is a psychologist/psychiatrist. If you want me to take that seriously, you'd better come up with a much more credible source (and I doubt that my hankles could be defined as "easily raised" if that is your source). Please understand that the reason I say this is because your assertion is in the extreme minority, I personally have never heard anyone posit the theory that Alzheim
  • Even Nancy Reagan [cnn.com] is for stem cell research. The unfortunate point is that people (much like with abortion, -1 flamebait) get on their high moral horse and preach about the sanctity of life. But what they miss is that stem cell research is about saving lives. Human cloning is an inseparable issue from this, IMO. Before everyone starts making "slippery slope" arguments, think about what can be learned/gained, scientifically and medically, and then tell me with what certainty we should throw it out because it instinctively feels like something we shouldn't be doing?

    • Re:Such a shame (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Saganaga ( 167162 )
      "But what they miss is that stem cell research is about saving lives".: I don't think anyone is missing this. But it's a question of ethics. Is it right to kill 1 innocent person to save 2 other people? The strict utilitarian worldview would say "yes, of course". By this logic, people with AIDS should probably be rounded up and put into concentration camps, maybe even executed, because we'll be saving the lives of all those to whom they might spread the disease in the future. You can think of all kinds
      • So, in the grandparent to this, I said Before everyone starts making "slippery slope" arguments, think about what can be learned/gained, scientifically and medically... ...and you went right into the slippery slope. Here's my take on it. If stem cell research isn't done, people will continue to suffer from alzheimers, will continue to die from many many diseases that could be cured were this research allowed. You argue against creating human life and snuffing it out to save others. You argue that it's t
        • If stem cell research isn't done, people will continue to suffer from alzheimers, will continue to die from many many diseases that could be cured were this research allowed.

          Alzheimers, which has almost unarguably been linked to chronic metals poisoning. The cure in this case is stop the metals poisoning in the first place - not create a cure for metals poisoning after it has occurred. This is the better solution even at the utilitarian position because it is more efficient. "A stitch in time saves ni
        • I guarantee you, if you learn that stem cell research could have saved the life of your dying child or your dying spouse, you would change your mind on this topic very quickly.: How can you be so sure of what I would do? My convictions in this area are strong. I would no sooner condone cloning to save my daughter or wife's lives than I would condone the killing of a fully grown man, woman, or child to save them.

          There is an opportunity to save and enhance countless lives, but you say that because this is

  • Feelings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A lump of cells or a baby? Depends on what you want. You want to have a baby, therefore you bond that currently a-"lump of cells" into an idea of a baby. It's a baby in potentia, in hopes. It's not a baby yet, but it could become one. But it really isn't a baby yet. Please try to understand that.
    • I see that if we continue that line of thought and develop it through scientific research that we may see the appearance of a new class of genetic/formative diseases that we can only cure through this research.
    • So you're saying that your life and liberty are contingent on others wanting you to exist? If you are not wanted by anyone, then you are not human? Scary.

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?

Close