| Raf 19.01.2008 07:06 |
US team makes embryo clone of men By Helen Briggs BBC News science reporter US scientists say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, in an attempt to produce patient-specific stem cells. Researchers removed DNA from donated human eggs, and replaced it with DNA from the skin cells of two volunteers. They produced embryos with genetic material that matched the men's, but did not go on to extract stem cells. UK experts say the research, published in the journal Stem Cells, is a small but not a great step forward. 'World first' The team at Stemagen Corporation in La Jolla, California, says the work could be an important stage in developing embryonic stem cells for patients. The group produced five embryos called blastocysts from 25 donated eggs. DNA fingerprinting proved that at least one of these was a clone. "We're the first in the world to take adult human cells and then document that in fact we were able to clone embryos from them," lead researcher Dr Samuel Wood told the BBC. He said the embryos were destroyed in the process of verifying they were clones, but they were now working on creating stem cell lines. Dr Lyle Armstrong of Newcastle University is one of a handful of other researchers who have made cloned human embryos using a technique known as nuclear transfer pioneered in Dolly the sheep. Unlike the US team, the Newcastle group used DNA from embryonic rather than mature tissue. Dr Armstrong said the US study showed that the objective of using cells from an adult person to make individual stem cells might one day be possible. "It's a small step but not a great step forward," he told BBC News. "It's interesting that they've been able to repeat somatic cell nuclear transfer and get embryos of the stage where embryonic stem cells could be derived, but it is disappointing that they've failed to derive a stem cell line." Ethical issues Many scientists believe that being able to make stem cell lines tailored to individual patients could revolutionise the treatment and prevention of human diseases. But the research has proved controversial. Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk claimed in 2005 that he had created such cell lines, but the study was later discredited. Meanwhile, critics have objected on ethical grounds, saying it is wrong to use embryos for research. Some scientists argue that clones might not be required to harvest stem cells. Last year, researchers in Japan and the US were able to "rewind" adult cells back to their embryonic state using a new technique. Professor Jack Price of King's College, London, is an expert on neural stem cells. He too said the Californian experiment was a small step forward but not a breakthrough. "This constitutes technical progress," he said. "It shows that the approach using human embryos does still have promise and it does provide justification for continuing that avenue of research." link |
| magicalfreddiemercury 19.01.2008 09:40 |
Any advance is a good advance. If the results are positive, we know they're on the right track and will keep going. If they're negative, we know (or can hope) they'll learn from it and not repeat that particular process. I'm not sure what the issue is here. If they need adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, what's the difference? Just figure out how to cure these dreadful diseases. It amazes me that there's a 'morality' issue when talking about destroying clumps of cells after they've been used in research, but there's barely a nod toward all the animals caged and tortured for the same reason. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 22.01.2008 14:52 |
I'm all for cloning parts of the human body if indeed it means that people who have sustained major injuries or have some sort of disability or other can lead a better more fulfilling life. But NOOOOOOO.I'm against cloning humans PERIOD. Who do these scientists guys think they are. Playing God? It wont be long before they start cloning someone like Hitler or some other tyrant. God,can you imagine if they tried to clone some of the idiots in this forum. Frightening isnt it!!? |
| sparrow 21754 22.01.2008 15:06 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: I'm all for cloning parts of the human body if indeed it means that people who have sustained major injuries or have some sort of disability or other can lead a better more fulfilling life. But NOOOOOOO.I'm against cloning humans PERIOD. Who do these scientists guys think they are. Playing God? It wont be long before they start cloning someone like Hitler or some other tyrant. God,can you imagine if they tried to clone some of the idiots in this forum. Frightening isnt it!!?i agree with you 200% its one thing to clone parts for someone to live a better life, but to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!! personally, i wouldnt think it were a person, knowing where it came from. but in 30 years that will be an ethical issue. |
| Smitty 22.01.2008 16:00 |
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but why exactly do you not agree with human cloning? Both of you weren't very specific. I'm personally undecided on the matter, but I'm interested in why you feel this way. |
| Music Man 22.01.2008 16:15 |
Sparrow wrote: to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!!I just can't wait to hear the objective evidence as to why it is okay to create life through conception, but it is ethically incorrect to do so through other means. Anyone care to explain? |
| john bodega 23.01.2008 00:18 |
It's unethical for stupid people to have children, but it still happens. Honestly; fuck human rights. It's about time we started treating our own kind the way we treat animals. Or we show the animals the respect we give to human test subjects. Either or, I actually don't care; I just want a bit of consistency. Seriously, I don't care if they clone people. Out of sight, out of mind. Let them do what they have to, I reckon. |
| Fopjeflauwmopje 23.01.2008 16:03 |
Im realy against clowning too, it shoul t be forbidden they think they can do everything but thats not so I hate people plaining god. |
| Smitty 23.01.2008 19:26 |
-edit- |
| sparrow 21754 23.01.2008 23:34 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:as i figured someone would point this out. i could go on about how i think people should just do what china did and limit each family to 3 kids at the max...and yes you can tell me all the stuff on that.Sparrow wrote: to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!!I just can't wait to hear the objective evidence as to why it is okay to create life through conception, but it is ethically incorrect to do so through other means. Anyone care to explain? i personally think things like IVF and cloning (creating life thru science vs nature, maybe i shouldve worded it like that) are ethically wrong, simply because the world is overpopulated as it is. there are too many children homeless, and unwanted who will most likely go unadopted. meanwhile you have mothers who choose IVF over helping a CHILD by taking him/her into a home with the best intentions and love (not saying that always happens, but that should go without saying) i just see it as selfish. they dont think about the future of those 6 babies theyre having at a time (half the time they have a pair of twins or a child before, who will be neglected of proper care because the parents will be too focused on the multipple births, WHICH when natural, one baby is hard enough....and mind you that means theyre somehow NOT infertile if they have children before having these multiples). and majority of the time, those multiple births are premature, so that means hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in medical help, (which most likely they will have to deal with for life) and their future college funds (most likely unaffordable) and to be able to spend some quality time properly with each child would just be near impossible. as for these natural births that are due to irresponsibility of the parents not using contraceptives, and such, it has been pointed out. im looking at it ethically. why does the world need scientifically made children when theres already so much irresponsibility with the population made naturally anyway? as of now im too tired to explain how i really feel, and generally i always have alot of ammo to back me up on my opinions but ill leave with this: what does this have to do with cloning? if they start with what they have now, with the issue of IVF itll continue to cause a population imbalance. it will be an ethical issue in the future. its just not needed. unless therse 500 people left on earth and they were all smart and peaceful and talented, and shit rainbows or something, its not needed. i know im missing more points but ill think of them tomorrow. |
| The Real Wizard 24.01.2008 10:36 |
For decades, we're going to be dealing with the mentality of detractors who see this as "playing God" (a phrase which should always be under scrutiny in the first place), as we see in this very topic. Whoever wants a decent reply out of these people probably isn't going to get one, because most of them aren't able to defend their beliefs rationally. They simply believe that life is created by a higher being, and refuse to accept that it can and will be humanly created - which challenges the very view that the higher being creates life at all in the first place. Or - who's to say the higher being isn't guiding the scientific/chemical process? Either way, beliefs are one thing and naturally they can have their positives, but using them irrationally to interfere with the direction of science? Not so good. The argument from ignorance (i.e. you can't prove that my beliefs are wrong, so stop your sciencing) will still be able to fly for a while, but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete. |
| sparrow 21754 24.01.2008 13:23 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things. |
| The Real Wizard 24.01.2008 17:06 |
Sparrow wrote:I call that a euphemism. :)Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things. |
| sparrow 21754 24.01.2008 18:02 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:;PSparrow wrote:I call that a euphemism. :)Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things. |
| Music Man 24.01.2008 21:37 |
So, if I am correct, Sparrow, you are simply against population growth itself - the methods of such growth being irrelevant? It did not seem like this was the original message you were conveying, in that you made the point to exclude conception from your ethics basket of wrongdoing. |
| sparrow 21754 24.01.2008 23:26 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: So, if I am correct, Sparrow, you are simply against population growth itself - the methods of such growth being irrelevant? It did not seem like this was the original message you were conveying, in that you made the point to exclude conception from your ethics basket of wrongdoing.sorry, what? i dont understand the question |
| Music Man 25.01.2008 01:12 |
Are you against any form of creation of life, including conception? Or is there a reason you initially excluded conception? |
| YourValentine 25.01.2008 06:39 |
Therapeutical cloning is really not about creating people, it's about stem cell research. As many other people I don't understand why therapeutical cloning is forbidden. It's okay to have an abortion after 16 weeks of pregnancy if the unborn child has a Down syndrome but it's not okay to use some cells which never would develop into a child anyway. The pure naming of a couple of cells an "embryo" thus insinuating we are dealing with an unborn child is ideology. I understand that we have to be careful and not everything that can be done must be done but common sense must be applied. For example, it's allowed to import embryonic cells for research in some cases but it's not allowed to clone them in the laboratory, that's just plain ridiculous and nobody really can explain it. |
| Lady Nyx 25.01.2008 18:30 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Are you against any form of creation of life, including conception? Or is there a reason you initially excluded conception?(this is sparrow from another sign-on) i was saying any form of conception done by science seems unethical. im not against natural conception, but if any babies are made that should really be the only way (hell, with them being made the natural way, ive been saying they have enough problems as it is). things like cloning (if it were to advance) or IVF or artificial insemination (sp?) are unessesary, and are harmful to the population. the other thing i was thinking is if someone does not have the ability to produce a child, there must be a genetic reason for it. so why interfere with that? am i unclear? i could go in depth of how it relates to my beliefs, but we'll be here all week. i just see scientifically made lives are just due to selfish desisions...how it hurts things on a grand scale. now maybe i didnt read into it far enough, but this cloning thing is just for helpin the growth of tissue, and curing diseases? if that is to step forward into ending of suffering with such diseases, fine, thats great, but if it escalates, then...well it'll be back to my point, really. again, 'scuse the lack of better explainations. oddly enough i have been working on a philsophy report. one of these days ill explain better when im not swamped with essays and letters from my band, and headaches altogether. |
| Raf 25.01.2008 20:41 |
Lady Nyx wrote: (...) IVF or artificial insemination (sp?) are unessesary, and are harmful to the population. the other thing i was thinking is if someone does not have the ability to produce a child, there must be a genetic reason for it. so why interfere with that?Many people have bad eyes, heart problems, several types of cancer and many other problems for genetic reasons - So why interfere with that? Some people want children, they can't have it by natural meanings, and science allow them to have their own kids. And I don't find it unethical. I know there are many abandomned children in the world, but hey, people have the right to have their own children if they want. That's a bit how I feel about donating money. No matter how much you have, if you earned it all in a honest way, you don't owe anyone anything. It's not your fault if other people need money. It's nice of you to donate some, though. Same with kids, IMHO, it's nice of you to adopt one or two (or more), but if you'd rather get pregnant and have a kid that looks like you, nothing wrong with that. Lady Nyx wrote: now maybe i didnt read into it far enough, but this cloning thing is just for helpin the growth of tissue, and curing diseases? if that is to step forward into ending of suffering with such diseases, fine, thats great, but if it escalates, then...well it'll be back to my point, really.Why? Why is it good to do that to heal bad diseases? If you have them, there's a genetic reason and we shouldn't interfere, isn't it...? ;) No, seriously, among serious scientists, most of them are working on how to successfully clone tissues and organs. Of course there are people trying to clone full humans, but I'm pretty sure that's not likely to work so soon. If it ends up happening... Do your part. Don't get yourself cloned. Simple like that. If you think IVF is wrong - don't do it. That's what I always say to conservative who are against gay marriage or usage of condoms. If you think homosexualism is wrong, we assume you won't do it, so why do you need a law forbidding it? Afraid of betraying your own ideas and doing it? |
| john bodega 25.01.2008 21:10 |
After the amount of napalm and Agent Orange we chucked at Vietnam, the absolute toasting of Dresden, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the TWO Gulf Wars, and all that pesky civil war in a little place called Africa, nobody can tell me that the human race holds the sanctity of life above anything else. |
| Music Man 25.01.2008 23:02 |
My question, Sparrow, is how, in any way, is natural conception any different than IVF or cloning? |
| Lady Nyx 26.01.2008 22:36 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:i was simply stating an opinion, raf. im not gonna go on a crusade for it. most of what you said goes without saying. of course if im against it, i wont take part in it.Lady Nyx wrote: (...) IVF or artificial insemination (sp?) are unessesary, and are harmful to the population. the other thing i was thinking is if someone does not have the ability to produce a child, there must be a genetic reason for it. so why interfere with that?Many people have bad eyes, heart problems, several types of cancer and many other problems for genetic reasons - So why interfere with that? Some people want children, they can't have it by natural meanings, and science allow them to have their own kids. And I don't find it unethical. I know there are many abandomned children in the world, but hey, people have the right to have their own children if they want. That's a bit how I feel about donating money. No matter how much you have, if you earned it all in a honest way, you don't owe anyone anything. It's not your fault if other people need money. It's nice of you to donate some, though. Same with kids, IMHO, it's nice of you to adopt one or two (or more), but if you'd rather get pregnant and have a kid that looks like you, nothing wrong with that.Lady Nyx wrote: now maybe i didnt read into it far enough, but this cloning thing is just for helpin the growth of tissue, and curing diseases? if that is to step forward into ending of suffering with such diseases, fine, thats great, but if it escalates, then...well it'll be back to my point, really.Why? Why is it good to do that to heal bad diseases? If you have them, there's a genetic reason and we shouldn't interfere, isn't it...? ;) No, seriously, among serious scientists, most of them are working on how to successfully clone tissues and organs. Of course there are people trying to clone full humans, but I'm pretty sure that's not likely to work so soon. If it ends up happening... Do your part. Don't get yourself cloned. Simple like that. If you think IVF is wrong - don't do it. That's what I always say to conservative who are against gay marriage or usage of condoms. If you think homosexualism is wrong, we assume you won't do it, so why do you need a law forbidding it? Afraid of betraying your own ideas and doing it? i never said i was against the fact that they may clone tissue, if its a step to cure diseases. its fine to find a way to cure diseases, and if its to help natural ferility, then fine. its the idea of creating a life, a full human thru science, and i stated my reasons behind it. and its not to say i have anything against hte children who are made from things like IVF (or if it somehow escalates, which you mightve missed me saying, into forming a life thru cloning). it was not their choice to be created that way. just like children who are abandoned or abused and deserved to be saved. i just see it as a selfish matter to rule out the idea of helping another by furthering this imbalence is all. |
| Lady Nyx 26.01.2008 22:41 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: My question, Sparrow, is how, in any way, is natural conception any different than IVF or cloning?simply the fact that one is creating a life in the lab, and a nother naturally. there are already enough humans made thru natural conception, why create a further imbalence thru creation of life in a lab? its just the way i see it. it just seems selfish to rule out the idea of helping one another, or looking at things futuristically. im not going to condemn people who have had it done or anything (damage is done anyway), but i still think its just a selfish move to have a child thru IVF (or if it makes it to that point, cloning). in a perfect world, people would use contraceptives (or if you really want to get to 'ideals or religion' or whatnot, and not have sex...) untill they were ready to have a child. in a perfect world, stupid people would not exist (since that has been pointed out) but stupidity is also pretty relative. there is already enough irresonsibility with natural conception, and too many lives ignored, that i just see lives being made scientifically is just unessesary. i added more to my reply to raf's quote, if youre interested. normally i can sit back and say 'hey, if its not hurting anyone, then whats the problem?' and i let it be. but i do see a problem in this. will i go out and create a scene and get people to believe me? no. if they agree with me, fine, if they disagree, fine. im just stating an opinion. |
| eenaweena 29.01.2008 08:50 |
i'd like to agree that this whole cloning idea is unethical in more ways than one, but to go deeper into this, i'd go all religion, philosophy and ethics and people will bash me for it anyway. so, i'd rather just say that i find it unethical. bow. |