Posted on 12/06/2011 1:59:44 PM PST by NYer
Ian Wilmut, the scientist who achieved international notoriety for cloning the sheep Dolly, is now urging his fellow scientists and researchers to abandon embryonic stem cell research.
His comments at a conference follow on the major news that Geron, a cloning company the Obama administration funded to undertake the first human clinical trials involving embryonic-like stem cells, abruptly canceled the trials and got out of the embryonic stem cell research business.
Wilmut spoke to researchers at a late November event in California and said that embryonic stem cells are not likely going to show promise because they lead to the development of tumors after injected into animals in studies and that scientists should focus their energies on non-embryonic stem cell research. Wilmut is particularly impressed by direct programming, a process that takes adult stem cells and reverts them to an embryonic-like state without purposefully creating and destroying human embryos.
“I’m not quite sure why this hasn’t been pursued more actively,” said Wilmut, according to a report in the North County Times.
Baptist Press noticed the newspaper article on the speech and said it “paraphrased him as saying direct reprogramming would provide the benefits of embryonic stem cell research without the risks. The government, he added, likely won’t spend money on embryonic research if a safer method is available.”
BP also talked with LifeNews blogger and former Indiana State University biology professor David Prentice about the speech, and Prentice said Wilmut wasn’t making his argument on ethical grounds but mere feasibility.
“iPS cells are ethically OK, but because they act like an embryonic stem cell, frankly are still not safe,” Prentice said. “Wilmut is saying there is an even better way that gets around the ethical problems but also bypasses much of the safety issues.”
“This is Dolly’s daddy, the guy who cloned Dolly the sheep,” Prentice said. “He’s turned away from cloning, he’s turned away from embryonic stem cells, and he’s pointing towards reprogrammed cells.”
Wilmut first began backing away from embryonic stem cell research and cloning a few years ago and said in 2009 that animal cells “are extremely unlikely to be suitable as recipients for use in human nuclear transfer.” “This is very disappointing because it would mean that production of patient-specific stem cells by this means would be impracticable.”
Dolly was finally created after 300 failed attempts, resulting in miscarriages and malformed offspring. Ultimately, the “successful” result, Dolly, aged too rapidly and had to be euthanized.
Pro-life advocates worry that the same phenomenon will happen when scientists attempt to clone human embryos. Eventually hundreds, if not thousands, of unborn children will be killed in the process.
Ping!
I guess he never heard that phrase about stuffing the toothpaste back into the tube.
Getting away from Nazi science. Nazi scientists were allowed to do anything, were bound by no ethical considerations. But their work led to nothing, or almost no positive results.
Bingo!
I guess he never heard that phrase about stuffing the toothpaste back into the tube.
sounding like J. Robert Oppenheimer
Because it doesn't involve dicing babies, which is a sacrament of the professional Left.
I never knew the cloned sheep aged too rapidly and had to be euthanised. Interesting.
But, “We did it for science”. Imagine if the NAZI Criminal doctors at Nuremberg accused the prosecution of being “anti-science”?
Elsewhere on FR they are talking about cloning an extinct Wooly Mamouth. If they needed 300 attempts to clone Dolly (a readily available sheep)and the attempts resulted in many deformed and unsuitable offspring, I wonder what it would take to clone an extinct wooly mamouth? And where would they obtain additional genetic material after the first attempts failed? The question still begs, WHY? At what COST? Aren’t there better ways to use research dollars?
Back at the beginning of the whole attempt to push embryonic stem cell research, I objected on a purely scientific basis, while intentionally leaving out any mention of morality.
My objection back then was that embryos are basically masses of rapidly growing cells, receiving all kinds of instructions from each other and their environment. These instructions constrain the cells to grow only in the ways that lead to the embryo becoming a mature organism. Removing those cells from the context of an embryonic organism and injecting them into a mature organism basically removes all of the instructions that tells the cells how to grow, but leaves them in the rapidly growing state. In other words, the idea that these cells would be highly likely to form tumors when removed from the embryo is extremely predictable.
The fact that many tumors have inappropriately active genes that are normally turned off during fetal development, makes the prediction that embryo cells outside of the embryo might form tumors even stronger.
Just think of it. If the Democrats could clone Alec Baldwin, why, we could have an asshole on every plane.
This factoid is rarely discussed, as it shows cloning in an extremely unfavorable light. It is not, nor ever has been, practical to any extent, and no scientific breakthroughs of any kind have been reported from the field. It is long past time to stop wasting large sums of money on it...
the infowarrior
Did I miss where the author defined what “iPS” means?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
