Posted on 04/24/2003 8:59:56 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Scientists claim to have discovered a way of producing embryonic stem cells that could side-step the entire ethical debate surrounding such research.
Researchers from the US bio-tech company Stemron have produced embryos capable of providing stem cells, but which can never become human beings.
It is the first time scientists have used a technique called parthenogenesis on human cells.
Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which the egg develops without fertilisation. The phenomenon occurs naturally in many insects, while artificial parthenogenesis has been achieved in almost all groups of animals, although it usually results in abnormal development.
No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have previously been reported. But researchers from Stemron report in the journal Stem Cells that they have successfully used artificial parthenogenesis in humans and that the cells taken from one of the embryos survived for a number of days.
advertisement
advertisement
Associate Professor Martin Pera, from the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development, described the findings as an "interesting advancement" in the study of stem cells. But he said the advancement was not totally unexpected as parthenogenesis had already been used in non-human primates.
He said the most intriguing aspect of the work would be in determining whether the cells were "normal".
When the female sex cell begins its journey in preparation for being fertilized, it 'gives up' half of it's chromosome complement to become a diploid cell. With parthenogenesis, the ovum is stimulated with an electrical charge while it still has its full complement of 46 chromosomes, making it, in effect, an 'embryo in waiting.
Absolutely false. Parthenogenetic organisms almost invariably either develop abnormally when implanted, or fail to develop at all. The limiting factor is within the organism itself, not simply because they don't intend to implant it.
Isn't the resultant embryo in effect a clone? If so, aren't the scientists simply abusing yet another technological ability to clone humans using a different method, only to "cannibalize" these people for their parts?
I don’t trust these ghouls one bit. They are simply using semantic gymnastics to confuse the public’s perception of reality. Case in point: ”Researchers from the US bio-tech company Stemron have produced embryos capable of providing stem cells, but which can never become human beings.” If they are embryos and can “provide stem cells,” then they ARE HUMAN BEINGS ALREADY!!!
Just because they “develop abnormally when implanted, or fail to develop at all” does not make them less human. We have no right bringing these embryos into existence in the first place. It is utilitarianism at it’s most un-godly!
And with all the emerging alternatives that are not “cannibalistic” there is NO need. They seem permanently stuck in the “playing God” mode!
How many normal mammalian organisms been developed? A few rabbits, out of tens of thousands of attempts. Parthenote mice invariably die after implantation - zero successes there. How many parthenogenetically-created primates have turned out to be viable? Zero. Why? At the moment, it looks as though without the complement of male genes, a placenta can't form, even if you implant it.
These are organisms that are truly not viable, and since the only way to test it - by implanting a human parthenote and seeing what happens - looks to be completely unethical because of what the evidence so far indicates is the likely outcome, we're just going to have to settle for that indirect evidence from other higher species for now and for the foreseeable future. The odds are very much against these being viable human embryos, and to treat them as such is not something supported by the evidence.
You can do parthenogenesis either way, with 46 chromosomes, in which case, yes, it is effectively a clone. However, parthenogenesis is typically used to indicate the stimulation of a haploid gamete, with 23 chromosomes in the case of humans, in which case, it is not a genetic clone of the original organism.
Just because they “develop abnormally when implanted, or fail to develop at all” does not make them less human.
But these are things that have no potential to ever become human. This is not like normal development, where ordinarily things work out fine, but occasionally something goes wrong and you get a genetic defect or two - there's no reason to believe that these can ever develop into fully-fledged humans. It's akin to removing a finger and then artificially keeping it alive in a laboratory - yes, it has human genes, but no matter what happens, that finger never going to grow up and be a human. It'll always be a finger, and parthenotes will always be parthenotes, not humans.
As you may have noticed, I'm trying to walk a middle ground here, and find some compromise that can satisfy everyone. Parthenotes sem to me to be a very good avenue for doing so - there is no fertilization taking place, which should satisfy people who believe that life begins at conception. Implantation is almost uniformly a failure, which ought to satisfy people who think life begins at implantation - I confess, that's a new one for me, but there you go. The odds that a parthenote can develop into a human being upon implantation are virtually zero, which ought to satisfy those who are concerned with the potentiality and viability of such a creation. And you can extract stem cells from them for research purposes, which ought to satisfy people who think that research on non-adult stem cells ought to take place.
For me, abortion is not an issue in parthenogenesis - parthenotes are not human, unless we stretch the definition of "human" beyond all common sense. Parthenotes are "humans" in the sense that your liver is "human" - it's just a part, that can never become the whole thing.
Yes, ideally the point is to someday take a swab of cells from the inside of your cheek and use the DNA to grow you a brand-new kidney, or whatever organ you might need, without requiring a full-blown clone that you strip for parts, but you can't do things like that unless you understand how to take some random specialized adult cell, force it into regressing back to the developmental point where organs and tissues are differentiating, and then guide it into growing into one single organ - and there's no way to do that unless you really understand how specialized cells and tissues and structures and organs come about from generic stem cells. And the only way to do that is to understand how the process takes place in the fetus. But now maybe we can learn those things without actually using fetuses, which is why I don't quite understand the resistance to the prospect of parthenogenesis - it seems to me to be an excellent middle ground.
Too bad Askel's not around any more - I'd truly be interested to hear her take, although I can guess what it would be ;)
You have repeatedly used the term embryos.
Your #27: “Add to that the fact that it is overwhelmingly likely that parthenogenetic embryos simply cannot develop into normal humans, and I think you're in the clear, morally speaking”
Your #28: “Right, fine. But as I said in my previous post, we're also talking about embryos here where it's extremely likely that it cannot develop into a viable human baby. If you actually implanted one into a womb, the likelihood is that it would just spontaneously abort or be reabsorbed or be stillborn anyway. We're talking about embryos that really aren't long-term viable anyway, so where does that leave us?”
Are they or are they not human embryos?
In your # 57 you start with: As you may have noticed, I'm trying to walk a middle ground here, and find some compromise that can satisfy everyone.”
In your #58 you start with: “setting aside the morality of it for a moment”
With all due respect “setting aside the morality of it for a moment” & “middle ground” are not acceptable with this subject.
Doing the science first and figuring out the morality after the fact sounds hauntingly familiar to: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
30 years and 42+ million dead babies later, this country is so dead to the truth that this very week people are debating weather or not Connor Peterson was a “Person” deserving equal protection under law. UNACCEPTABLE.
Also—if you could please let me know what your position on abortion is, that would give me a much more clear understanding as to your general fundamentals on Bio-ethics.
Only for lack of a better word. DC's post 33 does a good job of expressing why "embryo" is not an adequate description of the things we're talking about. If you look up "embryo" in the dictionary, parthenotes don't really fit any of the definitions offered.
With all due respect “setting aside the morality of it for a moment” & “middle ground” are not acceptable with this subject.
Certainly they are. WRT to my post 58, you are ignoring the context of what I said, which was an attempt to explain why people were interested in researching fetal stem cells, without attempting to address the morality of such research. If I may be permitted to expand on that a bit, while it may be convenient from a political standpoint to ignore why people actually do what they do, and instead paint stem-cell researchers as Doctor Victor von Doom, twirling their moustaches as they engage in the twisted pursuit of forbidden science, that is hardly a truthful portrait. Whether their acts are objectively evil or not, nobody does things like that simply for the sake of being evil. There are practical reasons for fetal stem-cell reasearch - the question is whether those practical reasons justify the acts being done, which is not answered by pretending that those reasons don't exist.
As for whether a middle ground exists or not, it certainly does, but whether you choose to avail yourself of it is entirely up to you. This strikes me as a fine place to compromise, because it doesn't involve actual or potential human beings for the research subjects. Now, if you still choose not to accept this research as worthwhile or morally valid, that is certainly your prerogative, but you will have to find some grounds for rejecting it other than as a defense of the sanctity of human life - that argument is not applicable here, because we're not talking about a human life when we talk about the product of parthenogenesis.
Also—if you could please let me know what your position on abortion is, that would give me a much more clear understanding as to your general fundamentals on Bio-ethics.
I'm sure it would, but you'll have to settle for evaluating my argument in this area on its own merits. As I said, I don't believe one's position on abortion is really relevant here, since this is a different set of issues - I believe it's entirely possible for you or I to oppose abortion, and yet not object to parthenogenesis on the simple grounds that the product of parthenogenesis is neither an actual nor a potential human life. And human life is, after all, the ultimate subject of interest in the matter of abortion.
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.