Human "Cloning" Makes Embryonic Stem Cells 111
Med-trump writes "Scientists at the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory have reprogrammed an adult human egg cell to an embryonic state using cloning technology and created a self-reproducing line of embryonic stem cells from the developing embryo. Lead researcher Dr Dieter Egli said: 'The cells we have made are not yet for therapeutic use. There is clearly more work to be done, this is early days. We see this as a step on that road, so now we do know that a human egg can turn an adult specialised cell, such as a skin cell, into a stem cell.'"
Excellent (Score:1)
Maybe now we're one step closer to ending the ridiculous interaction between medical research and anti-choice politics.
Re: (Score:1)
sigh (Score:2)
I know you're right, but can't you let me have my optimistic delusions for a few minutes first?
Re: (Score:2)
No. If you slack of for even a second, then make another yard of headway in promoting the anti-science BS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a pro-lifer I'd just like to chime in that I didn't look at the word cloning and then make up my mind to outlaw it.
While I'm far more socially conservative.than most people here for sure I like doing research into how this kind of thing is done before I reach any kind of moral decision, especially in the complicated world of stem cells and stem cell research.
Re: (Score:2)
hes pro-outlaw abortion
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.
Wow, you and Mengele would get along almost as well as Godwin and I.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm more like a materialist, but i think what you say is untrue. If there is an empirical research is about how populations of whole towns respond to nerve gas i guess, the research is out of question.
Now you can say, that a computer simulation into this topic should be completely fair. We agree. Just do your cloning research with simulation as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also bringing "The Creator" into the discussion does you no good.
Might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence then, meaning you're still a British Colony. That means a heave-ho to the Constitution as well (or what's left of it). You can't have it both ways. Either you have God give rights, or you don't.
You will never find a point at which the cell becomes distinctly human, since it happens in slow progressions.
Exactly! Since there's no discernible point differentiating the two, the cell has just as much rights as you do, or to put it another way, you have just as few rights as that cell.
Until it can live outside the woman's body, that group of cells is just a parasite with human genes.
Um... these cells ARE living outside the woman's body.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.
Would that include the Nazi experiments on the Jews in concentration camps? I know that is an extreme example, but I raise it to underscore that there are some things which we should not do, even for science. (Which to me is the highest of all goals.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure where you gents get your news, but the juvenile bias certainly shows ("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).
Nobody with any sense complains about adult stem cells. Each adult has billions, if not trillions of those to spare. Nobody has to die in order to procure them.
Now how about you tell us how successful embryonic cells are versus adult stem cells? I'll save the arguments - the adult cells tend to work far better for the intended purpose. Turning those same cells into 'embryonic' ones may lead somewhere, they may not. OTOH, it still means the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place), so I don't foresee any major (or credible) theological or moral opposition to the idea.
Now, where are those downmods from scores of angry people, most of whom cannot comprehend an opposition based on one honest moral concept?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the people who thought it was preferable to flush all those potential humans down the drain rather than use them productively ?
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).
I'd call them what they want to be called, "pro-life," if only there was any evidence that this were an accurate description of their stance - say, because it tended to coincide with other "pro-life" beliefs, such as opposition to war and capital punishment, or advocacy for healthcare for people who can't pay for it. Overwhelmingly, this hasn't been the case. If you are the exception to the rule, then wear your 'pro-life' badge with pride, I guess. But the vast majority of the kooks with giant fetuses on picket signs don't warrant such a generous phrase. And, mysteriously, the distinction between different kinds of stem cells is overwhelmingly lost on them - the very people to whom the difference should matter most.
I'm sure you know very well that the definition of "human being" is what the whole argument is about, so using that term as if it were just a universally agreed-upon fact, does you no favours.
Re: (Score:2)
because it tended to coincide with other "pro-life" beliefs, such as opposition to war and capital punishment, or advocacy for healthcare for people who can't pay for it.
Actually, if you look at basic Christian religious beliefs, you'll find that consistency in most of them. In any Catholic church, asking around will find all of that to be true.
So your point was what - a strawman argument?
Re: (Score:3)
You got the wrong thing from the post. There was sarcasm. The stereotypical (USA) pro-lifer follows the Republican belief system. No abortion, but plenty of money for the military, and a strong death penalty. Like the rest of the Republican belief system, strongly contradictory stances presented together without blinking.
Re: (Score:2)
if you look at basic Christian religious beliefs, you'll find that consistency in most of them.
you need to define the terms "basic" and "christian", and the inclusion of the qualifier "most" renders the strawman accusation toothless. It seems like a setup for the no true scotsman fallacy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely right. Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the religion itself deserves the term pro-life and it may well be that most of it's members do as well, but the vocal and political "religious right" does not. They apparently need to spend more time listening to their clergy and reading the Bible.
Re: (Score:3)
That argument doesn't get any more lucid by repeating it.
The excess embryos used to harvest stem cells will die anyway. If they're not used to harvest cells they'll go in the bio trash bin.
And if a bunch of a couple dozen to hundred cells is worth calling a human being is highly debatable. Remember you shed way more living cells when you take a dump or blow your nose, and each and every one is viable as we know since Dolly the sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).
Yes really. Pro-life is the more emotionally charged term because it casts the other side as anti-life, which is inaccurate. One side cares more for the life and well-being of the fetus, while the other cares more for the life, well-being, and freedom of the parent (you could argue for the freedom of the fetus too, but you aren't really taking control away from something that has no control over the situation in the first place).
On the other hand, pro-choice and anti-choice are both very accurate terms for
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-choice more accurately describes one side than pro-life?
Tell me, do you then propose we also apply the pro-choice label for depressed mothers who want to kill their 5 year old children, because it's EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
All this "telling women what to do with their bodies" mantra is extremely one-sided and a stellar example of a strawman argument.
Re: (Score:2)
But you see, the whole point is that every single cell in your body that has a full complement of your DNA is, potentially, a separate and distinct human being. A zygote is, potentially, a separate and distinct human being.
Re:Excellent (Islamic angle) (Score:2)
"the source wasn't a separate and distinct human being that had to be destroyed in order to produce them (which is the whole kick against the embryonic ones in the first place), so I don't foresee any major (or credible) theological or moral opposition to the idea."
The conjection is wrong because moral objection to destroying a human being or potential human being is not the only foreseeble moral theological opposition to this idea. Since there is quite general views among my Muslim brothers on this subject
Re: (Score:2)
Now how about you tell us how successful embryonic cells are versus adult stem cells? I'll save the arguments - the adult cells tend to work far better for the intended purpose. Turning those same cells into 'embryonic' ones may lead somewhere, they may not.
Except, that's exactly not doing science. Your argument is that, you understand how one thing works a little, and you don't see proof yet that something else may be better, ergo you assume it's not worth pursuing. What if, embryonic stem cell research (and only embryonic) required the sacrifice of 1 million IVF embryos (all of which were in the process of being discarded), but the resulting research would cure 100 million people a year of disease? What if it's 1 billion people a year, or 1000 people a year?
Re: (Score:2)
The track record for ESC is quite good. We discovered a lot about adult stem cells and biology by doing studies on embryonic stem cells. We even discovered induced pluripotent stem cells via studying ESC, which are going to be far more useful for
Re: (Score:2)
I hope we're one step closer the ending the ridiculous process known as aging,.
It didn't use to be much of a problem... but here lately, it's bothering me more and more.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe now we're one step closer to ending the ridiculous interaction between medical research and anti-choice politics.
And maybe the anti-life people will finally realize that adult stem cells are "where it's at".
Let's all hold hands and make a circle!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes it feel a little less like Bush America
That, and all this unemployment!
Re: (Score:2)
Rally? While unemployment peak a few months after Obama took office, it start in 06, and seclated sharply.
Only an idiot, or a person with an agenda, believe Obama casue this unemployment rate. Also, it's getting better. Slowly, but better.
Tarp(Bush) and the auto bailout(Obama) stopped it. look at the trend, it was rising like crazy.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate [google.com]
I re
Re: (Score:2)
While I naturally considered suggesting a spell checker for your posts, I must admit you've got me. Seclated? Not only do I have absolutely no idea what word that was supposed to be, but it sounds like it should be a real word. In fact, please come up with a real definition for 'seclated' and try to get it widely adopted.
However, please don' t try that with "casue", "redrick", "tyhe"or "froma".
Re: (Score:2)
And I think "redrick" is supposed to be "rhetoric", although it may be a "The Shining"-esque reference to "kcirder".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The point of my parent was to discuss Bush's throttle on stem cell research in relation to the article rofl, way to read the links slashdot. On that note, I'd take a monkey in office over Bush any day, no progress would be progress towards something better in that theoretical scenario.
Bush was a shining figure in opposing stem cell research to the point of banning it and making it illegal, why? Because of his Christian values and beliefs or something. So to recap, we had a president who put his beliefs ov
Re: (Score:2)
Bush was a shining figure in opposing stem cell research to the point of banning it and making it illegal, why?
Except that Bush did not ban it or make it illegal. All he did was become the first President to allow any federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell treatments listed in the article that you linked to use adult stem cells. President Bush in no way can be considered to have negatively impacted research into the use of adult stem cells.
Obama was a bit slow since the republicans appear to hate the ground he walks on and opposed him on everything, legit or not.
You mean during his first two years, while he had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? When the Republicans could do noth
Holy Fucking Gravy Christ! (Score:2)
That's like turning Linux into Windows 7 using only BASIC. Or something. I just thought I'd toss out an analogy for those of you who understand computers but not biology to point out how fricking insane that is.
Re: (Score:1)
They turned an egg, a cell with only half the DNA of a regular cell, into a survivable cell line!
That's like turning Linux into Windows 7 using only BASIC. Or something. I just thought I'd toss out an analogy for those of you who understand computers but not biology to point out how fricking insane that is.
It's more like turning a broken installation of Windows 7 32-bit Home Premium into whatever installation of Windows 7 you want by wiping the hard drive and then using one of those multi-installer DVDs that have a custom config page that lets you select between versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like they turned an egg into an embryo. Ever had sex?* Turns out if you do that, it's really hard not to turn an egg into an embryo.
* - this must always be asked as a serious question on /.
Re: (Score:1)
Ever had sex?* Turns out if you do that, it's really hard not to turn an egg into an embryo.
...Unless it's not really hard, then it's really hard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know why sex is necessary, do you...
Re: (Score:1)
No one called me on it (because no one RTFA), but I left the word "not" out by mistake and obviously can't edit it to fix it.
They did not wipe the hard drive, they did a dirty install and it worked.
(But it's still unsuitable for using as a base image because of the extra junk. Their goal is to get it working when wiping the hard drive first, but the problem is their multi-installer dvd doesn't contain the drivers needed for the target machine to see the RAID array. The donor egg machine is a newer Dell, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Holy Fucking Gravy Christ! (Score:5, Insightful)
They took an egg. They inserted a full copy of the DNA, and the egg did what eggs normally do when they have a full copy of DNA: it started growing. The difference from previous attempts is that the single chromosome set that originally was in the egg was left in, when usually, it's removed. That difference led to different results. Previous attempts to clone humans have failed after a few cell divisions, but now the cells are able to continually divide! There's an extra set of chromosomes, which means the produced cells aren't really useful for clinical use, but it's a step in the right direction.
Your analogy describes turning one kind of fully-grown and mature cell into something completely and utterly different, like turning a skin cell into a neuron. A more apt analogy for this process is turning a half-installed Debian system into a booting Red Hat system by just reinstalling over the half-installed copy. It boots and seems functional enough, but you know it's not quite right.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
An engine comes out of the factory, but it's only half complete. It's installed into a car, and the car goes nowhere. Usually in cases like this, the manufacturer would put in a new engine, and the car would run fine for a bit, then stop for no known reason. Now a bunch of researchers have come along, and put a complete engine into the car, and it can suddenly drive! Now, those researchers didn't remove the old engine, so the car's slower than it should be and doesn't really run well, but it runs and, for s
Re: (Score:2)
Except these guys didn't get rid of the original DNA. That's what made this attempt work, and also what makes it clinically useless.
The good news is that now we know what to look for next: Ways to remove the original DNA from the egg, without making it stop dividing after a few rounds.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer a car analogy actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they left the egg DNA in and added a full set from the donor cell as well, so the resulting stem cells have excess genetic material. They are not viable in the sense that they could develop into a human being.
The point of that was simply to determine if the removal of DNA from the egg was the point where human cloning was failing. This research says yes, the step of removing the existing DNA from the egg is the step that caused human clones to fail.
They must now either find a way to remove the egg
Cloning or insemination? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's little to do with how they did it, and a lot to do with what it does for us.
Having stem-cell factories means having cell factories, organ factories, body factories, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Eggs have 1 complete set - (sperm has another - when you combine them you get two sets)
What they did was add 2 full complete set of DNA from an adult source.
End result has 3 sets of DNA on how to build a human being.
Two of the sets come from an adult.
So say I have have kidney disease. OUCH.
And my kidneys are now running at 10%.
I could get grow a kidney from that embroy that has 1 set of DNA from say my younger sister's eg
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the resulting cells have 3 of each chromosome rather than two. They leave the egg's half set and add a full set from a donor cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Which he just has...
Man, is Slashdot is slow or what? There was a time when it would have scooped pretty much all the major press on something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, just in time for cloning to be complete... soon, Steve jobs is born again :)
Well this should piss off the left and the right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the left only gets annoyed at genetic engineering when the results are released haphazardly into the environment to propagate and potentially ruin our food supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Or when its used to ensure all farmers *near* a field with the genetically modified plants growing in it are required to pay a fee if those plants should happen to cross pollinate with any of their plants (looks at Monsanto). Or when companies claim ownership of a living person's body because it contains a patented gene as a result of therapy (can't find the reference)
I do not believe it should be legal to patent a living organism, or a strand of DNA, or a gene or anything else that might somehow occur natu
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Should of thought of those examples as well. The point is that it's not stupid to worry about some of the issues involved in genetic engineering. That doesn't mean that anyone with some concerns is an irrationally scared kneejerk idiot who thinks that any genetic engineering is going to end up like _I am Legend_ like the Great Grandparent poster seems to think. Also, I don't see why only more liberal leaning people should be the only ones concerned about some of these genetic engineering issues. Some o
Re: (Score:2)
Gah! I can't believe I just wrote "should of" instead of "should have".
Not *one* result... ever. (Score:1)
So far, adult stem cell research has proven to be very fruitful. Embryonic stem cell research has yielded NOTHING. Absolutely zilch. But just like "man-made global warming", pseudo-science will always have a home as long as we continue to pay attention to those who mix politics with science.
Agenda != Science (Score:1)
I'm afraid that the previous presidential administration did not allow for such cultural discourse about the matter as it must naturally merit, given the specialized concerns on all sides of the arguments, with regards to stem cell research. Hopefully this administration will find an opportunity to begin a culturally, socially beneficial discussion about the matters, though it must ultimately be a matter decided by the people.
Re: (Score:1)
Please cite the law that disallowed research or even, as you claim, "cultural discourse" regarding stem cell (I'll assume embryonic stem cell) research.
Re: (Score:2)
You can see why us Big Picture people don't contribute much to News sites.
Re: (Score:1)
Will this help us leave this rock and get mass off this mud ball?
You'll never find out, mortal!
Re: (Score:2)
One step closer to making another Steve Jobs, so we can have another tech company with vision.
Too soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Will this help us leave this rock and get mass off this mud ball? I don't care if my lifespan is only 0.00000001% of the life of the universe, I feel the species must colonize the galaxy, even if in 100000 years humans will have diverged so much we'll be different species.
I'd much rather prolong my lifespan so I can see whether we do.
Yes, I'm aware radical life extension is a very sensitive topic. I hope to spend many centuries to properly think it over.