Embyonic stem cell research

story

Quote:

---

Biologists have developed a technique for establishing colonies of human embryonic stem cells from an early human embryo without destroying it. This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.

---

So it looks like we can do embryonic stem cell research without "murdering the embryo"

Quote:

---

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.”

---

I never understood the argument that we couldn't use public funds for research using embryos that were going to be discarded anyway, but apparently there is some other "ethical" problem with just taking one cell and leaving the embryo alive and unharmed......... I am assuming they would still be taking the cells from the excess embryos , so would the unharmed embryo then still be discarded? :unsure:

We take blood and tissue from humans all the time for tests, is it unethical to use that for research?

Anyone got any idea what ethical problem there could be ? serious question

Religious problem. Bush even says if a women gets raped and a she gets a child she has to keep it, but mr. bush says that only because he knows where he lives and what he is told to say, not that he is a christian, i don't belive that. They are afraid that humans could clone humans. Than why do u need god, its not like god created me, i know who did haha. But let me know when we can clone a human brain. Cloning may be good for medical purpose but i dubt that this will be like that very soon.

What religious problem?

Quote:

---

The new technique would be performed on a two-day-old embryo, after the fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, known as blastomeres. In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found. Many such embryos have grown into apparently healthy babies over the 10 years or so the diagnostic tests have been used.

Up to now, human embryonic stem cells have been derived at a later stage of development, when the embryo consists of about 150 cells. Both this stage, called the blastocyst, and the earlier eight-cell stage, occur before the embryo implants in the wall of the womb. Harvesting the blastocyst-stage cells kills the embryo, a principal objection of those who oppose the research.

---

The embyo is unharmed and if implanted into a woman will grow normally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I never understood the argument that we couldn't use public funds for research using embryos that were going to be discarded anyway

---

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I never understood the argument that we couldn't use public funds for research using embryos that were going to be discarded anyway

---

The reason why there are cemetaries. People regard a grave site and a person's remains as being the person.

There is an attachment to what has lived.

McDonald's throws out food everyday but a McDonald's worker cannot give the food away.

I say that anyone that makes stink about an embryo (that's going to get discarded anyway) adopt it or STFU about furthering medical research. Some have and I applaud them....reallly.

"Hey don't use that embryo for medical research. Throw it out." :crazy:

The difficulty is that we all have pretty much different views on where to draw the line regarding the issue of what counts as a human being and what doesn't.

Pro life campaigners and those of religious persuation regard the very moment that a sperm penetrates an egg as being the beginning a a human life. At the opposite end of the scale The Abortion Act allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to and even during birth where the unborn child is thought to be disabled. Most of us are caught on the scale somewhere between these two reference points and as usual the religion, science and politics are the main players whilst the opinion of the man/woman on the street holds little sway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Religious problem. Bush even says if a women gets raped and a she gets a child she has to keep it, but mr. bush says that only because he knows where he lives and what he is told to say, not that he is a christian, i don't belive that. They are afraid that humans could clone humans. Than why do u need god, its not like god created me, i know who did haha. But let me know when we can clone a human brain. Cloning may be good for medical purpose but i dubt that this will be like that very soon.

---

Its going to be impossible to clone humans.....even if they research for years it won't happen.:lol: That theory is just as ridicilous as time travel.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

Its going to be impossible to clone humans.....even if they research for years it won't happen.:lol: That theory is just as ridicilous as time travel.:D

---

Do you say that because you don't believe the end product of a human cloning would be a consious person with the ability to think? Or because you don't think it is physicaly possible to have a living person as a result of cloning? Or are you just saying that the end person would not be identical in every way?

Personaly I think that if it isn't already possible, it will be sometime soon. I also do not have a problem with them doing it. Although I do think maybe we should focus on other things, such as ensuring we have the space/resources/ability to properly accomodate more people to begin with.

We can't get along with the people we already have here on earth, no need to hurry figuring ways to make yet more:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tracydani3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

Its going to be impossible to clone humans.....even if they research for years it won't happen.:lol: That theory is just as ridicilous as time travel.:D

---

Do you say that because you don't believe the end product of a human cloning would be a consious person with the ability to think? Or because you don't think it is physicaly possible to have a living person as a result of cloning? Or are you just saying that the end person would not be identical in every way?

Personaly I think that if it isn't already possible, it will be sometime soon. I also do not have a problem with them doing it. Although I do think maybe we should focus on other things, such as ensuring we have the space/resources/ability to properly accomodate more people to begin with.

We can't get along with the people we already have here on earth, no need to hurry figuring ways to make yet more:lol:

---

I would have to agree that if if cloning was possible then it would be a huge breakthrough and it would be like giving life. Also it could be used as a method of saving lives. But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well i said that human brain can't be cloned, they don't even know how its made , they only guess by now. No brain no human. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.:lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D

Cells need to grow right and you have to believe that cells cannot just be created out of nothing. The whole basis of cloning comes from cell division which is the bodys natural way of reproducing cells. Same thing with bacteria...they need time to grow and divide. Which precisely leads to the point that all the cells cannot be cloned in one shot because of the fact that the cells cannot replictate at a fast enough rate to create tissues....organs....or organisms. Unless there is another method which i never heard of. Its probably possible to clone a certain area for example the skin which is a collective amount of the same cells but you see creating a human from cell to cell is dammn difficult. You have to think how many cells there are in the body. Which then leads to the conclusion IMPOSSIBLE.
I need to look up on the biology books. Also they did manage to clone sheep but what they did was use the embryo of dolly the sheep and insert her cell (dont know which one) and it grew and it was genetically identical to dolly.
This is a clone but not the same as how human cloning can be achieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

---

I don't regard a clump of cells sitting in a petri dish as a human being.I view a clump of cells in a petri dish differently from a baby growing inside a womb. The point is that those clumps of cells will not live. They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain and will never be implanted into a womb. The "adoption scheme" is admirable but doesn't even scratch the surface of excess embryos and I think it more "immoral" to just discard them than use those cells to save life.
Now you could ban IVF treatment because it discards all these "human beings" but think of the humans alive today that would not be without it.
All the Bush veto did was stop public money funding research. It did not ban private money funding it. Using the "immoral" card is odd because if it's "murder" to fund it publically it is murder to fund it privately.

However that looks like a moot point now as they can get the cells without destroying the embryo....so what I am wondering is what is the ethical objection now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

---

I don't regard a clump of cells sitting in a petri dish as a human being.I view a clump of cells in a petri dish differently from a baby growing inside a womb. The point is that those clumps of cells will not live. They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain and will never be implanted into a womb. The "adoption scheme" is admirable but doesn't even scratch the surface of excess embryos and I think it more "immoral" to just discard them than use those cells to save life.
Now you could ban IVF treatment because it discards all these "human beings" but think of the humans alive today that would not be without it.
All the Bush veto did was stop public money funding research. It did not ban private money funding it. Using the "immoral" card is odd because if it's "murder" to fund it publically it is murder to fund it privately.

However that looks like a moot point now as they can get the cells without destroying the embryo....so what I am wondering is what is the ethical objection now?

---

I take it from "They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain" that these are the things which, in your mind, define what a human being is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brenda

The difficulty is that we all have pretty much different views on where to draw the line regarding the issue of what counts as a human being and what doesn't.

Pro life campaigners and those of religious persuation regard the very moment that a sperm penetrates an egg as being the beginning a a human life. At the opposite end of the scale The Abortion Act allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to and even during birth where the unborn child is thought to be disabled. Most of us are caught on the scale somewhere between these two reference points and as usual the religion, science and politics are the main players whilst the opinion of the man/woman on the street holds little sway.

---

I hear what you are saying and take your point, however for me it is a matter of logic, not of religion. If one takes the position that a clump of cells in a petri dish is not a human being (obviously I disagree with that), then it must become one at some point. Is that point at the moment of birth, patently not, the baby is no different than it was an hour previously. Other than it is outside of it's mother's womb.

So the logical position must be that it becomes a human being some time before birth. So what event causes a human being to come into existence. When is the human being there.

I can answer what my opinion is, at the moment of conception. I can think of no logical reason to think it is any other moment, so I must conclude it is then. I would be happy to hear, from those who disagree, when they think it happens.

It all depends on politics if they unban the law, like it was never stopped for real. Probably some rich folks already have reserved in advance some future extra organs like they bought pieces of land on mars. Science, faith and politics have to decide now, final world goes to politics. Politics influenced by church, what is normal and after bible. Nobody religious wants to clone jesus, but they already have an answer for that. They say jesus isn't a simply a matter of genetics. http://www.snopes.com/religion/clone.htm
Religion was always against science, the world would be flat and the heads of wizards(scientists) and witches would roll if it was after em all the time.
U know on how many pages u can read: Embryo is not human life.
Some comments on human embryo clone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1676559.stm
At end nobody can stop science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

Also they did manage to clone sheep but what they did was use the embryo of dolly the sheep and insert her cell (dont know which one) and it grew and it was genetically identical to dolly.

---

That's pretty much what I was refering to as far as human cloning was concerned. If they can do it with a sheep, they can do it with a human.

The other method you are refering to would be a bit more difficult:P But I wouldn't say beyond possibility.

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex.

---

I take it you are joking in all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.:D

---

I would classify you as ever-so-slightly simpler than Dolly the sheep, if that's OK ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.:D

---

http://simpsons.skewsme.com/img/homer_clones.jpg

Sorry.

/coat

:shuriken:

human clones exist already.

Fact

Identical twins are genetically .... identical. Well as near it as makes no difference

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that there are stem cells in fatty tissues on human adults, too.

Could be wrong tho' :unsure:



And could you elaborate, ilw?

Last I saw, what clones have been produced thus far (Dolly, etc.) still come with some defects. Sounds funky doing that with people when the science isn't exact enough, if it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Identical twins are genetically .... identical. Well as near it as makes no difference

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

---

Our 60 Minutes just did a segment on that very thing, however, I didn't catch much more than that, detail-wise, so it can't be too interesting. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Our 60 Minutes just did a segment on that very thing, however, I didn't catch much more than that, detail-wise, so it can't be too interesting. :huh:

---

It showed 2 instances of twins (one set identical, one not) of them being gay/straight. The identical twins were in their 20s, the other set were much younger (single digits). One of the younger set had bed netting, play with dolls, and loved pinks. The other boy had G.I.Joe and such.

That means absolutely nothing, however.

The boy that likes the G.I.Joe can still turn out gay, and the boy with the pinks and bed netting just latched on to what he saw. That's a case of nurture. Someone may say, "Well why didn't the G.I.Joe twin like bed netting?"

Cause humans aren't robots.

Last time I checked, genetics don't hard-wire likings for pinks, dolls, and bed netting.:ermm:

One likes what they like.

One gay twin debunks genetics as a cause for gayetty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Identical twins are genetically .... identical. Well as near it as makes no difference

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

---

Just because some gay scientists said it soo doesn't mean they are right. To be gay has nothing to do with genetics, its more like what you choose in your head. Like you can't be fat if you don't eat. Such things like: born fat or born gay you only hear from scientists from usa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Just because some gay scientists said it soo doesn't mean they are right. To be gay has nothing to do with genetics, its more like what you choose in your head. Like you can't be fat if you don't eat. Such things like: born fat or born gay you only hear from scientists from usa.

---

Interesting that the same scientists who see a genetic predisposition to homosexuality insist that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

BTW-It should be noted that this is the same scientific community that insists that global warming is a man-made phenomena.

If Will Rogers was alive he'd surely have concocted an entire show called, There's Money In Them There Theories!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Interesting that the same scientists who see a genetic predisposition to homosexuality insist that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

BTW-It should be noted that this is the same scientific community that insists that global warming is a man-made phenomena.

---

wait

WHAT

how many scientific communities are there?

Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

---

One could argue that sexuality might be fluid, and that no one is 100% straight or gay, genetically or hormonally. Sexuality might be more like a spectrum of preferences where each of us prioritize different features in others.

If so, hetero-/and homosexuality might be part choice (conscious or unconcious), and in part dictated by what is more and less accepted/taboo in our own societies.


Having said that....Gay scientists from the USA? :blink:

Last I saw the same sort of ideas about people being homosexual not by choice, have surfaced in every country in the world that isn't an oppressive dictatorship or run by religious nutters.

I wonder where brother lime is from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Just because some gay scientists said it soo doesn't mean they are right. To be gay has nothing to do with genetics, its more like what you choose in your head. Like you can't be fat if you don't eat. Such things like: born fat or born gay you only hear from scientists from usa.

---

There are people genetically predisposed to be being fat.:ermm:

That's a physical characteristic unlike gayetty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

That's a physical characteristic unlike gayetty.

---

What about the limp wrists and the mincing? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

---

Pedophiliacks don't choose to like children either.

I doubt they woke up one day and thought, "I think today I'm going to like butt-fucking kids.":ermm:

Where the choice come in is action.

I doubt gays choose it or are born that way.

There's an entire world of difference between molesting children and the relationship between two consenting adults.

I'm drunk and done. There's no point.

:shuriken:

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical. You can't be gay from birth if you have women and another month men or you don't know. A child doesn't even know what sex is until he sees it in some magazine or on tv or parents tell him. Even the most popular gays like Freddie Mercury & George Michael had women. What gays are doing is that they say that they don't know what they like to have, or women or men. I don't see any different sexuality if you choose another hole. Lets make bestiality, pedofilia, shoe licking, scat eating and all other fetishes also genetical than.
Who told women or men to dress like they do, parents did, tradition, trends and not gens. Try to give your baby away to some animals and you will see it behave like an animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

There's an entire world of difference between molesting children and the relationship between two consenting adults.

I'm drunk and done. There's no point.

:shuriken:

---

Well my statement wasn't made to bring forth a high-horse response.

My point is that neither is something you born with nor choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical.

---

You can get your clitoris circumcised, breasts enlarged, and get liposuction. What you said proves nothing.:stars:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

---

top answer on google was:

Quote:

---

Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families. The researchers found a very similar pattern with lesbians.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

---

Other studies found lower correlations, but the same pattern & conclusions, i.e. closest correlation for homosexuality in siblings goes: identical twin then fraternal twin then non twin.


Edit: Snny, identical twins are clones ^_^ just not manmade ones

Are they really clones, by definition, when they've developed simultaneously, rather than had their genetic material harvested from a grown, or at least older individual, albeit that they both initially came from the same cell?