It's alive! ALIVE!!
(Actually, I think this research is quite interesting and has much promise, I just couldn't resist goofing about the terminology they used.)
Posted on 12/02/2004 6:14:15 PM PST by beavus
SCIENTISTS last night claimed to have made a major breakthrough in overcoming opposition to stem cell research by creating human embryos which cannot develop into babies.
The so-called "ethical" embryos have been created by using an enzyme dubbed the "spark of life" which tricks human eggs into believing they have been fertilised even without the presence of sperm.
Stem cells from the embryos can turn into different kinds of tissue and scientists believe that with the right chemical cues they could produce replacement tissue for patients suffering degenerative brain illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease as well as heart damage.
Dr Karl Swann, of the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff, tricked the eggs into dividing by injecting phospholipase C-zeta (PLC-zeta), an enzyme produced by sperm that he discovered two years ago, into an unfertilised female egg.
He said: "It’s the spark of life. It tricks the egg into thinking it has been fertilised."
According to a report in New Scientist magazine, embryos created by the new procedure contain two sets of chromosomes from the mother, but none from the father and so are unable to develop into babies.
Proponents of the new technique say that allays the fears raised by pro-life campaigners opposed to stem cell research.
The tricked eggs divide for four or five days until they reach 50 to 100 cells, which is known as the "blastocyst" stage.
In theory, the blastocysts should yield stem cells which can then be used for scientific research.
Bob Lanza, the head of research at the cloning company Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, in the United States, hailed the discovery as a major one.
He said: "This could eliminate one of the main sources of ethical controversy in this research."
But campaigners refused to concede that the new technique paved the way for ethical stem cell research.
Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, a London-based pro-life lobby group, said last night: "I’d be happier if it was beyond all reasonable doubt that it could not become a human life."
But, I don't think a sperm cell is simply a lump of proteins. It also contains (at least) a genetic code, and chromosones, and probably other material that the cord would never have (inexpert assumption, admittedly).
It's alive! ALIVE!!
(Actually, I think this research is quite interesting and has much promise, I just couldn't resist goofing about the terminology they used.)
Been done. They are all working tech support at Microsoft.
There's nothing ethical about purposely creating a crippled human being so you can harvest parts from it.
Thanks for pointing out the practical problems of embroynics vs. adult and cord cells.
I tend to agree with you on the motivation, especially after visiting the Advanced Cell Technology site, which creeps me out.
Boy, is that ever *creepy* (#36.)
OK, I'm not getting this. Wouldn't this be a clone or twin of the mother? Does it automatically stop dividing at the blastocyst stage?
Not yet, anyway, given the young state of this technology."
A human being, by definition, is the product of conception. No conception is taking place here, just the manipulation of cells. Science has been doing that for generations. Nothing an egg can be "tricked" into producing without a sperm cell could be accurately defined as a human being.
Still, it does boggle the mind. I suspect the death brigade would be unsatisfied with these stem cells anyway, since no life is sacrificed for their production. Preliminary research has already shown umbilical cord and adult stem cells to be more effective than embryonic stem cells in treating some targeted maladies, so why the big push for embryonic stem cells, if not for the idea of furthur devaluing human life?
But the egg already has genetic code. As another astute poster already pointed out, for some animals, that is sufficient. It is not yet known why it is never sufficient for humans, but it unlikely an absence of genes, seeing as mom has all the genes she needed. It most likely comes down to some proteins. One day someone may unlock the key, and feminists will have a field day.
Thanks for the link. Me neither.
If I'm not mistaken, what CA voters just passed was for embryonic SCR only, which is simply horrible. The biotech industry doesn't need help being unethical, and now they have access to a taxpayer bonanza.
It's the difference between meiosis and mitosis. Most of mom's cells have a set of chromosomes from grandma and a set from grandpa. Mom's egg cells (prior to meiosis II), however, have either two sets from grandma, or two sets from grandpa, and so is different than mom's cells. So, not a clone.
Mitosis duplicates the genes into new cells. Meiosis splits the parentage of the genes into new cells.
I'm guessing that the egg's code isn't complete and needs the sperm's code to become complete. So I would think it's proteins AND genes.
Nonsense. Fully developed adult rabbits and mice have been produced parthenogenetically. A little more practice, and they'll be able to make parthenogenetic human embryos develop all the way.
The problem with that idea is that mom's egg chromosomes were sufficient for her conception. The only way this would make sense is if some duplication of genetic material is needed to increase excess amounts of some protein that mom's genes can already produce.
Yes, but at least the second polar body is still within the zygote/embryo for a short time after fertilization. Not sure what happens to the first polar body or when.
It sure was. They clearly showed the failed fetus from the little boy. The hair was about five of six inches long. It was wavy and looked healthy. But when they cut open the specimen or whatever it was, it was sort of hollow where the brain should be and it looked like some sort of spongy tissue where the entrails should have been. Scientists speculate that about one in eight twin conceptions end up this way but most don't cause a problem. I guess because they don't grow as big as the one the little boy had. He was about 7 years old and had it in his belly.
Actually, it's easy to do in frogs (and other amphibians), and healthy adult rabbits and mice have been produced parthenogenetically (though it's very difficult and the vast majority of stimulated eggs fail early in development).
What are you going to call a fully developed, breathing, thinking, feeling person who was developed from a cloning process (such as this parthenogentic process)? Rabbits and mice have already been produced parthenogenetically, and the technical obstacles to doing it in humans will no doubt be overcome shortly. Since you don't believe anything to be human unless it started by "conception", will you be okay with killing, enslaving, or otherwise abusing non-conceived people?
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.