Discovery could silence debate over stem cells

The Age ^ | April 25 2003 | Michael Bradley

[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".

[MHGinTN]

Askel would tell you that if the parthenogenesis trick with 46 chromosome ova is to be tried, it should not be done on human ova, higher mammals like chimps, but not human ova that will be electrically stimulated to conceive human embryos, albeit likely severely handicapped human embryonic beings.

[MHGinTN]

And human life is, after all, the ultimate subject of interest in the matter of abortion. It would appear that you don't perceive embryos to be individual human beings. Abortion kills an individual human being, abortion at any age along the continuum of that individual's lifetime begun at conception. From reading your offerings on this thread and the cloning thread (and other previous RJ Cogburn threads), it seems likely that you have chosen to dehumanize the embryo, disconnecting it from the continuum of its lifetime, in order to support your desired experimentation with individual human life.

Here's something for you to flame on: I apply the term 'abortion' even to the killing (via dismemberment or flushing) of embryos held in labs, because that act of ending the already alive, individual being in embryo age along its lifetime continuum is killing an individual already existing, alive individual, expressing its individual life through mitosis. Those wishing to obfuscate the truth of killing individuals prior to birth will now jump up and cite the zygotes lost during a menstrual cycle and claim that even God doesn't count these embryos as individual humans else why does God allow so many to be lost without implantation. If you try that tactic, you do so at your own risk of lecture, and not from me, though I would love to, but I try to confine all my disagreement with exploitation of individual human life to the areas of science and human moral ideals. I don't try to question God's sovereignty, only humankind's treachery.

[general_re]

It would appear that you don't perceive embryos to be individual human beings.

It appears that I have not been as clear as I had hoped - whether embryos are individual human beings or not is irrelevant to discussions of parthenotes. Parthenotes are not embryos, and not individual human beings, either actually or potentially. Therefore, discussions of abortion and embryos and the individuality thereof have no bearing on whether or not parthenogenetic research is itself moral or worthwhile. It will have to be evaluated by a different set of criteria - as I said to another poster above, if you still feel that parthenote research is immoral, that is certainly your prerogative, but you will have to do it based on something besides the sanctity of human life, since parthenotes are not embryos.

[MHGinTN]

Steadman's Medical Dictionary: parthenogenesis - Apogamia; apogamy; apomixia; virgin generation; a form of nonsexual reproduction, or apamogenesis, in which the female reproduces its kind without fecundation by the male.

Let's get a no spin zone going. Parthenogenesis 'reproduces' a like organism of the species in question. The same obfuscation tried with the specious differentiation of reproductive cloning and 'therapeutic cloning' is being tried with this form of REPRODUCTION. I purposely addressed the potential of stimulating a single haploid cell to reproduce itself, the single cell, because such a methodology will not stimulate a 46 chromosome ovum to begin mitosis, cell division of reproduction, reproducing a duplicate DNA organism. Parthenogenesis, as these 'scientists' wish to define it will not reproduce a born individual human being because the scientitst will not afford this newly conceived EMBRYO a human body in which to follow gestational development. Also, the EMBRYO so conceived from just the 46 chromosome ovum will likely be severely deformed, if past experiences with other parthenotes of higher mammals is any indication. BUT, the embryo so conceived will be an individual, alive human being, likely kept in vitro and never implanted in a uterine environ.

[general_re]

I understand that this is your opinion with regards to diploid parthenogenesis, but I am still waiting for your answer regarding haploid parthenogenesis.

[MHGinTN]

As you said to me, regarding another post, I said to another poster above, if you still feel that parthenote research is immoral, that is certainly your prerogative, but you will have to do it based on something besides the sanctity of human life, since parthenotes are not embryos. The owrds of the scientists trying this approach are contradictory to what you've tried to assert. The process WILL conceive an EMBRYO, and from that embryo the scientists will seek to harvest stem cells, the organs of that embryo, for their experimentation. This is a no spin zone, for further discussion purposes. Be honest, RJ.

[MHGinTN]

I have already explained my understanding of haploid parthenogenesis, but I'll do it again, just for you. It is objectionable to me because it is a form of experimenting with human life, but not experimenting with a human being; the Embryo (even a parthogenically conceived embryo) is a human being in its earliest age along its lifetime continuum. A thing formed via electrical stimulation of a haploid cell (a 23 chromosome cell) is not a human being.

[MHGinTN]

From the posted article (note the word EMBRYO and stem cells; these terms refer to an alive, individual human EMBRYO conceived through artificail parthenogenesis): 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.

Here's the key to the obfuscation that you're promoting. From the article: Scientists claim to have discovered a way of producing embryonic stem cells that could side-step the entire ethical debate (read, a way to confuse the average pro-lifer so they don't understand the reality) surrounding such research.

[MHGinTN]

From the posted article (note the word EMBRYO and stem cells; these terms refer to an alive, individual human EMBRYO conceived through artificail parthenogenesis): 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.

Here's the key to the obfuscation that you're promoting. From the article: Scientists claim to have discovered a way of producing embryonic stem cells that could side-step the entire ethical debate (read, a way to confuse the average pro-lifer so they don't understand the reality) surrounding such research.

[general_re]

It is objectionable to me because it is a form of experimenting with human life, but not experimenting with a human being

By that definition, any research at all that involves human parts, organs, structures, genes, et cetera, is off-limits bcause it is experimenting with "human life", albeit not a "human being"...

[Coleus]

good point

[MHGinTN]

Nonsense. You know the differentiation I referred to; the haploid will only reproduce its single cell reality, as in cell division without differentiation. But you likely knew that, you're just trying to obfuscate.

[general_re]

You know the differentiation I referred to; the haploid will only reproduce its single cell reality, as in cell division without differentiation

I don't know any such thing, and neither, I suspect, do you - haploid parthenogenesis can and does produce entirely haploid organisms, complete with cell differentiation and everything. Not that it matters, because you appear to object to haploid parthenogenesis for somewhat more nebulous reasons...

[MHGinTN]

You have no idea how far, how deeply I've delved into this issue. Go to the article I link below and educate yourself regarding the goals and methodology of these scientists, then, perhaps, I will respond to your further dissembling.

CLICK HERE

And here's the URL ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1676240.stm

[cpforlife.org]

Hey M,

Would you mind if I post that article for all to see?

K

[syriacus]

Let's get a no spin zone going. Parthenogenesis 'reproduces' a like organism of the species in question.

Somehow I get a bit of a feeling that scientists know they are currently "failing" at using parthenogenesis to create humans who are viable, so they have decided to find other "good" reasons to keep using the same equipment and similar methods.

Some of the scientists might even have relabeled their "failures" at creating viable humans as "successes" at creating non-viable humans and non-humans..

It's like some of them went to a lot of trouble engineering a motorcycle that turned out to have an engine that sputtered and died after travelling 2 miles. So they decided to declare they had a success by calling their motorcycle a "bicycle."

It seems to me that biologists could have started with "creating" non-humans and saved all of us a lot of trouble.