stem cells 101

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My objection isn't a religious issue, but I do think logistically it would be a nightmare. Fear and paranoia would bring society down to its proverbial knees.

I think until our society matures to the point when clones COULD be considered "normal" like an identical twin is considered, we need to steer clear of reproductive cloning and limit ourselves to therapeutic cloning.

I'm old enough to remember all the clamor about the first "test tube baby." The arguments against artificial identical twins (i.e., cloning) are essentially the same as those against the first in vitro fertilization. However, today in vitro fertilization is considered an unremarkable technology and Louise Brown is a person like any other, just one of over a million people who were born that way.

The only way that cloning will be considered unexceptional is to do it and let people see that all the irrational hysteria about cloning is just that--irrational. People will become as accustomed to cloning as they are to in vitro fertilization.

This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My objection isn't a religious issue, but I do think logistically it would be a nightmare. Fear and paranoia would bring society down to its proverbial knees.

I think until our society matures to the point when clones COULD be considered "normal" like an identical twin is considered, we need to steer clear of reproductive cloning and limit ourselves to therapeutic cloning.

I'm old enough to remember all the clamor about the first "test tube baby." The arguments against artificial identical twins (i.e., cloning) are essentially the same as those against the first in vitro fertilization. However, today in vitro fertilization is considered an unremarkable technology and Louise Brown is a person like any other, just one of over a million people who were born that way.

The only way that cloning will be considered unexceptional is to do it and let people see that all the irrational hysteria about cloning is just that--irrational. People will become as accustomed to cloning as they are to in vitro fertilization.

This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

I can truly see your point and you've expressed your opinion quite elegantly. Right now, I feel, therapeutic cloning must be allowed to go forth. Reproductive cloning needs to be studied and debated a bit more. The only question I have is, what good could reproductive cloning provide? I understand what therapeutic cloning could provide but not reproductive cloning.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My objection isn't a religious issue, but I do think logistically it would be a nightmare. Fear and paranoia would bring society down to its proverbial knees.

I think until our society matures to the point when clones COULD be considered "normal" like an identical twin is considered, we need to steer clear of reproductive cloning and limit ourselves to therapeutic cloning.

I'm old enough to remember all the clamor about the first "test tube baby." The arguments against artificial identical twins (i.e., cloning) are essentially the same as those against the first in vitro fertilization. However, today in vitro fertilization is considered an unremarkable technology and Louise Brown is a person like any other, just one of over a million people who were born that way.

The only way that cloning will be considered unexceptional is to do it and let people see that all the irrational hysteria about cloning is just that--irrational. People will become as accustomed to cloning as they are to in vitro fertilization.

This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

I can truly see your point and you've expressed your opinion quite elegantly. Right now, I feel, therapeutic cloning must be allowed to go forth. Reproductive cloning needs to be studied and debated a bit more. The only question I have is, what good could reproductive cloning provide? I understand what therapeutic cloning could provide but not reproductive cloning.

yes I agree, for every day use it doesnt make sense for humans, it could probably be used to help create super mice or other type of animals. We could clone cows that milk better and then have a larger base to breed more. For us it would maybe come down to sports, but thats it. Unless we would have our own attack of the clones

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My objection isn't a religious issue, but I do think logistically it would be a nightmare. Fear and paranoia would bring society down to its proverbial knees.

I think until our society matures to the point when clones COULD be considered "normal" like an identical twin is considered, we need to steer clear of reproductive cloning and limit ourselves to therapeutic cloning.

I'm old enough to remember all the clamor about the first "test tube baby." The arguments against artificial identical twins (i.e., cloning) are essentially the same as those against the first in vitro fertilization. However, today in vitro fertilization is considered an unremarkable technology and Louise Brown is a person like any other, just one of over a million people who were born that way.

The only way that cloning will be considered unexceptional is to do it and let people see that all the irrational hysteria about cloning is just that--irrational. People will become as accustomed to cloning as they are to in vitro fertilization.

This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

I can truly see your point and you've expressed your opinion quite elegantly. Right now, I feel, therapeutic cloning must be allowed to go forth. Reproductive cloning needs to be studied and debated a bit more. The only question I have is, what good could reproductive cloning provide? I understand what therapeutic cloning could provide but not reproductive cloning.

yes I agree, for every day use it doesnt make sense for humans, it could probably be used to help create super mice or other type of animals. We could clone cows that milk better and then have a larger base to breed more. For us it would maybe come down to sports, but thats it. Unless we would have our own attack of the clones

Making supermice and supercows and whatnot would bring forth a whole new ethics question. LOL

 

[Czar]

hehe true, but then again we have been doing that for the last few hundreds years with plants an animals

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My objection isn't a religious issue, but I do think logistically it would be a nightmare. Fear and paranoia would bring society down to its proverbial knees.

I think until our society matures to the point when clones COULD be considered "normal" like an identical twin is considered, we need to steer clear of reproductive cloning and limit ourselves to therapeutic cloning.

I'm old enough to remember all the clamor about the first "test tube baby." The arguments against artificial identical twins (i.e., cloning) are essentially the same as those against the first in vitro fertilization. However, today in vitro fertilization is considered an unremarkable technology and Louise Brown is a person like any other, just one of over a million people who were born that way.

The only way that cloning will be considered unexceptional is to do it and let people see that all the irrational hysteria about cloning is just that--irrational. People will become as accustomed to cloning as they are to in vitro fertilization.

This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

I can truly see your point and you've expressed your opinion quite elegantly. Right now, I feel, therapeutic cloning must be allowed to go forth. Reproductive cloning needs to be studied and debated a bit more. The only question I have is, what good could reproductive cloning provide? I understand what therapeutic cloning could provide but not reproductive cloning.

Thank you. I agree with the prior poster that reproductive cloning is most useful for animals, and I don't think it will ever be a popular means of reproduction, but I see no reason to deny it to those who want it. Perhaps the most imprortant societal benefit it would provide is disprove the myths and preconceptions that make cloning in general so controversial, when therapeutic cloning is so important to the future of medicine.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My objection isn't a religious issue, but I do think logistically it would be a nightmare. Fear and paranoia would bring society down to its proverbial knees.

I think until our society matures to the point when clones COULD be considered "normal" like an identical twin is considered, we need to steer clear of reproductive cloning and limit ourselves to therapeutic cloning.

I'm old enough to remember all the clamor about the first "test tube baby." The arguments against artificial identical twins (i.e., cloning) are essentially the same as those against the first in vitro fertilization. However, today in vitro fertilization is considered an unremarkable technology and Louise Brown is a person like any other, just one of over a million people who were born that way.

The only way that cloning will be considered unexceptional is to do it and let people see that all the irrational hysteria about cloning is just that--irrational. People will become as accustomed to cloning as they are to in vitro fertilization.

This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

I can truly see your point and you've expressed your opinion quite elegantly. Right now, I feel, therapeutic cloning must be allowed to go forth. Reproductive cloning needs to be studied and debated a bit more. The only question I have is, what good could reproductive cloning provide? I understand what therapeutic cloning could provide but not reproductive cloning.

Thank you. I agree with the prior poster that reproductive cloning is most useful for animals, and I don't think it will ever be a popular means of reproduction, but I see no reason to deny it to those who want it. Perhaps the most imprortant societal benefit it would provide is disprove the myths and preconceptions that make cloning in general so controversial, when therapeutic cloning is so important to the future of medicine.

Sadly enough, you're probably right, the American people would probably be more apt to be swayed into allowing all forms of cloning, rather than trying to educate said people in the differences between the two types of cloning.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

Just because you don't have a conscience doesn't mean that there aren't issues involved for those of us who do.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

Just because you don't have a conscience doesn't mean that there aren't issues involved for those of us who do.

That's an arrogant and baseless assertion. Care to attempt to argue why identical twins are evil?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Please don't ruin this thread. It was a beacon of civility in a totally f'd up forum. LOL

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Please don't ruin this thread. It was a beacon of civility in a totally f'd up forum. LOL

hehe yes, please keep it civil, I've been here a long time and I cant even remember the last time I saw a thread like this one

 

[dudeguy]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: dudeguy

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: dudeguy
so in otherwords it does involve killing embyos that could have become babies.

SCNT creates FAKE embryos, not real human ones. But if you further manipulate these fake embryos they can develop into reproductive cloning. That's the only danger that there is with all of this.

Remember, these are unfertilized eggs (not touch by a male's sperm) that have had its nucleus extracted. Then they inject the egg with cells from the donor, incubate them until they're a blastocyst-like state, then extract the stem cells they've produced.

The only real, real moral issue for me, like I said, is keeping people from further manipulating them into creating a real, human embryo. That would not be good, in my opinion.

so in otherwords there is not a point in which if implanted the embryo could become a human, as the unfertilised normal cells have been removed fromt he egg case, and some other ones put in, which obviously arent capable of starting a pregnancy.

It would take a deliberate action to create a viable human embryo. To do so, would require much more manipulation of the cells to do that. What I've described prior is what they call THERAPEUTIC CLONING. What you are worried about is REPRODUCTIVE CLONING. That's what I'm against.

Oh btw, to do reproductive cloning, it must be deliberately done. It can't be done by accident. It would be like you bumping into a lady at the grocery store, your penis falling inside of her and you impregnating her.

i am against cloning but that ISNT the point im after.

what i want to know is, is there in any way a viable embryo destroyed that could otherwise have go on to become a pregnancy?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

Just because you don't have a conscience doesn't mean that there aren't issues involved for those of us who do.

That's an arrogant and baseless assertion. Care to attempt to argue why identical twins are evil?

Yes, just try to preempt any argument with an idiotic statement. There is a huge difference between identical twins and genetically manipulated clones, you're just choosing to ignore it. Hitler was after reproductive cloning, do you think he was trying to create an army of identical twins?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
This isn't to say that we should begin reproductive cloning today, as we still need more testing to verify the safety of the process. However, the problems are technical, not ethical.

Just because you don't have a conscience doesn't mean that there aren't issues involved for those of us who do.

That's an arrogant and baseless assertion. Care to attempt to argue why identical twins are evil?

Yes, just try to preempt any argument with an idiotic statement. There is a huge difference between identical twins and genetically manipulated clones, you're just choosing to ignore it. Hitler was after reproductive cloning, do you think he was trying to create an army of identical twins?

Could you calmly and politely attempt to explain what ethical differences you perceive between a mother having a child through cloning and the same mother having identical twins through artificial insemination?

 

[CycloWizard]

Yes, I can.

Reproductive cloning is ethically debatable because it would allow for eugenics and 'designer babies.' Parents could have kids that were all tall, thin, blond, blue eyed, even smart on a whim. There is a large list of reasons I can generate as to why this is a bad thing, and I will produce it if you want (the first and foremost is that if everyone is smart, no one will do the 'lesser' jobs that hold society together). This is the single greatest reason why reproductive cloning is ethically challenging, while identical twins are not.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, I can.

Reproductive cloning is ethically debatable because it would allow for eugenics and 'designer babies.'

Genetic engineering is independent of reproductive cloning. The technology that enables genetic engineering of babies is in vitro fertilization, not cloning. You can genetically modify your children without going through all the additional work of cloning too.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
Genetic engineering is independent of reproductive cloning. The technology that enables genetic engineering of babies is in vitro fertilization, not cloning. You can genetically modify your children without going through all the additional work of cloning too.

You can't genetically modify children using in vitro fertilization, other than by picking 'designer sperm' or ova I suppose. So yeah, to a certain extent you are right, but cloning gets into the more nitty-gritty of dealing with the complexities of genetics. In vitro won't allow manipulation to the extent of eugenics is I guess what I'm trying to say (I think?).

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
Genetic engineering is independent of reproductive cloning. The technology that enables genetic engineering of babies is in vitro fertilization, not cloning. You can genetically modify your children without going through all the additional work of cloning too.

You can't genetically modify children using in vitro fertilization, other than by picking 'designer sperm' or ova I suppose. So yeah, to a certain extent you are right, but cloning gets into the more nitty-gritty of dealing with the complexities of genetics. In vitro won't allow manipulation to the extent of eugenics is I guess what I'm trying to say (I think?).

Untrue, viral vectors can be used to infect fertilized embryos before certain passages of differentiation. A neighboring lab here was able to use a lentivirus to insert a sequence for GFP (green fluorescent protein) into the genome of embryonic mice. These mice were born and are developing now, quite healthy -- and they glow in the dark.

also
In fact a similar procedure has been used to produce designer, fluorescent fish.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: dudeguy

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: dudeguy

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: dudeguy
so in otherwords it does involve killing embyos that could have become babies.

SCNT creates FAKE embryos, not real human ones. But if you further manipulate these fake embryos they can develop into reproductive cloning. That's the only danger that there is with all of this.

Remember, these are unfertilized eggs (not touch by a male's sperm) that have had its nucleus extracted. Then they inject the egg with cells from the donor, incubate them until they're a blastocyst-like state, then extract the stem cells they've produced.

The only real, real moral issue for me, like I said, is keeping people from further manipulating them into creating a real, human embryo. That would not be good, in my opinion.

so in otherwords there is not a point in which if implanted the embryo could become a human, as the unfertilised normal cells have been removed fromt he egg case, and some other ones put in, which obviously arent capable of starting a pregnancy.

It would take a deliberate action to create a viable human embryo. To do so, would require much more manipulation of the cells to do that. What I've described prior is what they call THERAPEUTIC CLONING. What you are worried about is REPRODUCTIVE CLONING. That's what I'm against.

Oh btw, to do reproductive cloning, it must be deliberately done. It can't be done by accident. It would be like you bumping into a lady at the grocery store, your penis falling inside of her and you impregnating her.

i am against cloning but that ISNT the point im after.

what i want to know is, is there in any way a viable embryo destroyed that could otherwise have go on to become a pregnancy?

Using SCNT, the "embryo" they create isn't real and could never become a real embryo unless more MAJOR alterations were performed. They can't be created accidently.

Now, if you further the argument into saying that the egg was destroyed or whatnot, then you must pass a law that outlaws women from having menstrual cycles.

 

[marcello]

I think that one point that has been missing from this debate is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of embryos sitting in a freezer right now. Scientists want to be able to use these for stem cell research instead of just destroying them (which is what they are going to do).

Stem cell research has the potential to cure diabetes, spinal cord injury, cancer, organ failure, Parkinson's disease, and many other afflictions. In fact, in rats, they've already managed to cure spinal cord injury:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3039098.stm


Another problem I have with the ban on stem cell research is that many, not all, people have religious problems with the research. That is a scary integration of church and state which is not allowed. I don't think it is fair to impose your beliefs on other people because you feel differently than they do. Throughout history science has been met with resistance by many people, and look where the advancement of science has brought us today.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
Genetic engineering is independent of reproductive cloning. The technology that enables genetic engineering of babies is in vitro fertilization, not cloning. You can genetically modify your children without going through all the additional work of cloning too.

You can't genetically modify children using in vitro fertilization, other than by picking 'designer sperm' or ova I suppose. So yeah, to a certain extent you are right, but cloning gets into the more nitty-gritty of dealing with the complexities of genetics. In vitro won't allow manipulation to the extent of eugenics is I guess what I'm trying to say (I think?).

Untrue, viral vectors can be used to infect fertilized embryos before certain passages of differentiation. A neighboring lab here was able to use a lentivirus to insert a sequence for GFP (green fluorescent protein) into the genome of embryonic mice. These mice were born and are developing now, quite healthy -- and they glow in the dark.

also
In fact a similar procedure has been used to produce designer, fluorescent fish.

There's a difference between using a virus to make something glow in the dark and making designer babies. If someone really, really wants their kid to grow in the dark, I don't know that I can oppose that.

Originally posted by: marcello
I think that one point that has been missing from this debate is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of embryos sitting in a freezer right now. Scientists want to be able to use these for stem cell research instead of just destroying them (which is what they are going to do).

Stem cell research has the potential to cure diabetes, spinal cord injury, cancer, organ failure, Parkinson's disease, and many other afflictions. In fact, in rats, they've already managed to cure spinal cord injury:

[L=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3039098.stm

]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3039098.stm
[/L]

Another problem I have with the ban on stem cell research is that many, not all, people have religious problems with the research. That is a scary integration of church and state which is not allowed. I don't think it is fair to impose your beliefs on other people because you feel differently than they do. Throughout history science has been met with resistance by many people, and look where the advancement of science has brought us today.

Drugs also have the potential to do all of these things without the need to consume human life (yes, they still are, even if they're frozen in a warehouse... I alreay mentioned that I think in vitro fertilization is a problem for this reason).

The separation of church and state has been brought up time and time again to allow things that impinge on the conscience of many people in our country. Unfortunately, this is NOT what the separation of church and state is about. The whole point of separating church and state is to avoid a theocracy, not to allow immoral behavior. http:// http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

 

[jackschmittusa]

IMHO there is no real problem with theraputic cloning except for religious reasons, and those are not really valid. I do not consider a zygote a human being, and have never heard an argument that that even made me question that for a moment.

I have only heard one argument that bears consideration in reference to reproductive cloning; that is that there will probably a number of defects in early attempts until the process gets worked out. Since these defects can be spotted early, if the defective embryos are destroyed (the same as an abortion in my estimation), then there really is no problem. I admit that there is a possibility that there could be some deficiencies that we currently would not know to look for and would be suprised by when they appeared, and that this presents the only real moral or ethical issue to be considered.

"Designer babies" is a wholly separate issue. I don't have much of an issue with this either. There is the potential that we could eliminate some genetic information that we consider less desirable now that would be of value in some unknown future senario. I do not think this will be a real problem though as I doubt that such a senario would result from cataclysmic change (as opposed to gradual change) and so, we would be able to take counter-measures.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
IMHO there is no real problem with theraputic cloning except for religious reasons, and those are not really valid. I do not consider a zygote a human being, and have never heard an argument that that even made me question that for a moment.

I have only heard one argument that bears consideration in reference to reproductive cloning; that is that there will probably a number of defects in early attempts until the process gets worked out. Since these defects can be spotted early, if the defective embryos are destroyed (the same as an abortion in my estimation), then there really is no problem. I admit that there is a possibility that there could be some deficiencies that we currently would not know to look for and would be suprised by when they appeared, and that this presents the only real moral or ethical issue to be considered.

"Designer babies" is a wholly separate issue. I don't have much of an issue with this either. There is the potential that we could eliminate some genetic information that we consider less desirable now that would be of value in some unknown future senario. I do not think this will be a real problem though as I doubt that such a senario would result from cataclysmic change (as opposed to gradual change) and so, we would be able to take counter-measures.

Unfortunately, many people do have a problem with abortion, as evidenced by the numerous threads on the subject in the past couple days. What you're saying really amounts to eugenics already (destroy anything that's not perfect, allow designer babies). As I said, if everyone is smart, looks the same, and has the same abilities, our society will come tumbling down. No one with a 180 IQ will be a janitor or garbage collector.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
Genetic engineering is independent of reproductive cloning. The technology that enables genetic engineering of babies is in vitro fertilization, not cloning. You can genetically modify your children without going through all the additional work of cloning too.

You can't genetically modify children using in vitro fertilization, other than by picking 'designer sperm' or ova I suppose. So yeah, to a certain extent you are right, but cloning gets into the more nitty-gritty of dealing with the complexities of genetics. In vitro won't allow manipulation to the extent of eugenics is I guess what I'm trying to say (I think?).

You're right that cloning requires a greater knowledge of genetics than in vitro fertilization, but cloning is not required for genetic modification and does not make genetic modification easier to do. Genetic modification of embryos predates cloning by decades. The prerequisite technology for genetic manipulation of embryos is n vitro fertilization.

Cloning an organism is done by replacing the nucleus of an egg with the nucleus extracted from a somatic cell of the organism being cloned. Genetic modification (GM) is the alteration of the DNA in the nucleus. Replacing the nucleus to produce a clone doesn't make GM any easier. It's no more difficult to modify the egg's original nucleus than it is to replace the nucleus then modify the replacement nucleus.

 

[CycloWizard]

I may not be on the right track here (it's been a dearly long time since I took genetics - 9 years :-x), but if you're replacing the nucleus to create the clone, why is it difficult to replace it with a nucleus containing the desired DNA?