Posted on 06/28/2007 6:47:21 PM PDT by neverdem
SC Ping
Two major problems with this.
First, if an embryo is produced and stem cells harvested, the fact of the matter is that A HUMAN EMBRYO IS KILLED. Period. It doesn't matter if the embryo is a leftover from IVF or "produced" for the sole purpose of isolating stem cells. Either way a human being is killed and that is plain WRONG.
Second, I get very upset with these reports of "new" ways of producing embryos. I have a PhD in molecular biology and teach college biology, so I know what I'm talking about. There isn't anything new with introducing a somatic cell's DNA into an unfertilized egg and then stimulating it to begin dividing. It's the same old story, repackaged to make it more acceptable to the sheeple.
By your definition, a human embryo is flushed away (killed!) once each month throughout a nubile female’s lifetime, unless she becomes pregnant. Also, the pill flushes an embryo away, fertilized or not, once each month.
These people are finding ways to use clone tissue for stem cells instead of fertilized embryo tissue (read potential person), why do you have a problem with that, Mr or Ms, microbiologist?
How gullible do these people think we are and how short do they think our memory is?????
Well, first, it's not "new." It's called parthenogenesis and Wu Suk Hwang reportedly achieved the same - as a matter of fact, the only stem cells that any other observers saw from Hwang's lab were those parthenogenetic stem cells.
Secondly, there's just no reason to believe that an abnormal embryo, created by one more "new" way doesn't change the fact that these are Human embryos, intact, integrated, organisms from a human parent, with all the human genetic heritage that you and I have.
and since 1981 when ESCR started in animals, there has yet to be one successful human clinical trial in humans and they still believe ESC’s are going to work.
Logical fallacy - “is” doesn’t mean “ought.”
And you’re factually wrong. Unless the oocyte is stimulated to divide and create an embryo, as it is in these experiments, there’s no loss. Regardless, what happens in nature does not mean that it’s permissible - that we humans ought to purposefully set out to do the same.
In nature, more boys are the result of natural conceptions in humans, and more of them die off before reaching a year old. Does this mean that we can kill off neonatal boys if we find that it’s useful to harvest their body parts?
Is there any way to tell if the cluster of cells that is procured in this fashion is or could ever be an embryo at all? Are there analogies in other species?
These folks are talking about harvesting stem cells from embryonic clones produced in “unfertilized” eggs. Unfertilized eggs which would be flushed away once a month in any event.
Is there a reason why I should not harvest and use embryonic stem cells from my clone to save my own life?
To say that a human embryo is flushed away once a month is therefore misleading. The egg is not an embryo, it cannot divide and develop. That's what is "flushed" once a month!
On the other hand, the embryo, formed by fertilization, is a diploid cell (46 chromosomes), it is the earliest form of life, and if let alone it will start dividing, the cells specialize, and given the time becomes a baby.
Can you tell if a cluster of cells is an embryo, with an inalienable right to life, or just that, a cluster of cells? Sure thing! Do a karyotype, where you can actually see the chromosomes. If the cells have one copy of each chromosome, this is a haploid cell, it is NOT a human being, and as such does not have the rights to which human beings are entitled. But if there are 2 copies of each chromosome, this diploid cell IS a brand new, unique, human being and nobody has the right to take his/her life. What these people are doing is taking an unfertilized egg (haploid), removing the nucleus and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell (diploid). Once they have a diploid cell, it can be activated to begin cell division and an embryo is formed. This is a unique human being, both genetically and spiritually, and this is what I oppose killing.
As for harvesting embryonic stem cells to save your life... don't hold your breath! So far there has not been a single report of treating a condition with embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, there are dozens of treatments with ADULT stem cells, ranging from experimental, to clinical trials, to standard treatments like bone marrow transplant. So, if I was concerned about saving my life, I would go with the research that shows results, not with the one that promises but does not deliver!
Janus’ report is not about cloning, it’s about parthenogenesis, or the stimulation of the female gamete to begin duplicating its chromosomes and then to divide and make daughter cells. In other words, the oocyte becomes an embryo without fertilization by another gamete, a sperm.
The technique requires an oocyte to be available in the lab - not an easy feat, as the researchers in Great Britain and California could tell you. The lack of willing donors has spurred controversy over paying for donation and even a drive to use non-human oocytes in cloning research.
In this case, though, Dr. Daley has it right, and yet once again, Ronald Green is wrong: the entity that the embryonic stem cells come from is an embryo, developed in a way that’s not seen in humans in nature. However, if it looks like an embryo and makes cells that act like embryonic cells, it’s an embryo.
In humans, the centromeres that allow the chromosomes to line up properly and regulate the division of the cell are found in the sperm, so the parthenogenetic embryo only lives a short time. But that does not make her anything less than a disabled human embryo, and one that is deliberately created in that disabled state for the use she’ll have to researchers.
That’s just bad ethics.
The only way to find out whether the result of parthenogenesis is an embryo is to grow and develop as far as possible.
We read last month about new evidence that sharks are able to reproduce by parthenogenesis.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6681793.stm By turning off a given gene in mice, scientists have been able to produce mice using two separate lines of oocytes, from two females. One of these mice grew up to have pups the normal way. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4909
The only benefit to this research is publicity value and the doubt that is created by noting how un-natural the process is.
This is not the time to create new ethics - old ethics works. If you’re not sure whether or not there’s an embryo, don’t do it, if you are sure, certainly don’t do it.
Melinator, if you had a twin, what would keep you from harvesting him or her for your stem cells? A clone is simply your twin. The very thing that would make your clone useful to you - if the bugs are ever worked out of the research - is the fact that he or she is a genetic copy of you, at a young age.
Interesting story of the shark “virgin birth.” It appears it was the result of the merger of two egg cells, similar to the mouse example. I.e. a kind of pseudo sperm. Having it happen with only one intact egg cell would be a closer parallel to this.
I think it was Abraham Lincoln who once said that if you call a sheep's tail a leg, it still is a tail! Same thing here. When you remove the genetic material from an oocyte and replace it with the genetic material from a somatic cell, that IS CLONING. People have given it all kinds of names, in order to make it sound "good", but it is still cloning.
the oocyte becomes an embryo without fertilization by another gamete, a sperm
Exactly! That's what cloning is all about! Reproduction without fertilization.
the centromeres that allow the chromosomes to line up properly and regulate the division of the cell are found in the sperm
Really? Where did you learn that? And I have been teaching my students that a centromere is part of any chromosome! Seriously, if you could back up that statement you would probably qualify for the next Nobel prize in Medicine. But if you can't, you'd better stop trying to mislead people by using "big words".
I'm not familiar with the mouse experiments that you refer to. If you can give me a reference more reliable than Newscientist I'll be glad to have a look at it.
I’m not trying to mislead anyone. (???)
Interestingly enough, the New Scientist article references the Nature report.
Nature (vol 428, p 860)
But, here’s the link,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/abs/nature02402.html
You’d better read the report from the original post:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/clo.2007.0033
There’s no SCNT in this technique. No one’s removing anything from the oocyte.
I don’t believe that parthenogenesis is technically “cloning.” The nuclear material comes from the donor, but it’s not a complete set, it’s not a copy of the donor.
And, I should have said “centrosome,” not centromere, but there’s evidence supporting the idea that the sperm contributes that first organization of the chromosomes, leads to the development of the microtubules, and eventually to the position of centromeres,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16467269&dopt=Abstract
http://ror.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/1/19
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8711211&dopt=Abstract
Absolutely. And you don't have to be a microbioligist to have figured this out.
You're my new favorite FReeper.
Romney and Bush have both been pushing this “altered nuclear transfer” garbage, trying to pawn it off as moral, and many of us have been trying to wake people up to the fact that they’re cloning embryos, and killing human beings. But you have done a far better job at destroying this myth than anyone I’ve seen. Thanks.
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.