Send in the clones! [Archive]

The_Doctor

05-19-2005, 22:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4563607.stm

British scientists say they have successfully cloned a human embryo - the country's first.
The Newcastle University team took eggs from 11 women, removed the genetic material and replaced it with DNA from embryonic stem cells.

Three of the resultant clones lived and grew in the laboratory for three days and one survived for five days.

The critical factor for success appeared to be how quickly the egg was collected and manipulated.

We are talking about several years before we are talking about a cell-based therapy that can go back into the patient

Professor Alison Murdoch

Patient-specific stem cell first

Any longer than an hour and there was no success, Professor Alison Murdoch and colleagues found.

The clone that lasted for five days had been collected and manipulated within 15 minutes.

The ultimate aim of the research is to make cloned embryos from which stem cells can be harvested and used to treat diseases.

Stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any tissue in the body and could, in theory, be used to replace damaged cells in conditions such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes.

But Professor Murdock said this was still a long way off.

"We are talking about several years before we are talking about a cell-based therapy that can go back into the patient.

Colleague Dr Miodrag Stojkovic said: "I'm really happy but I know that this is just the beginning of a long journey so we have to continue to try to derive stem cells that will definitely help us one day to cure diseases."

Therapeutic cloning is allowed in Britain, although reproductive cloning - the cloning of human embryos with the intention of creating a baby - was made illegal in 2001.

The UN recently voted in favour of a ban on all human cloning, but this was non-binding which means the UK can continue to do therapeutic cloning.

But cloning opponents criticised the research.

Julia Millington from the ProLife Alliance said cloning for research purposes was profoundly unethical.

Josephine Quintavalle from CORE said: "No matter how it is created, a human embryo's destiny should be to live and not to be turned into human stem cells."

Life said cloning was "unsafe and inefficient", and involved exposing women to dangerous fertility drugs in order to collect sufficient eggs.

South Korean scientists cloned 30 human embryos last year.

However, they took the genetic material from normal cells from the same women who were the egg donors and combined it with these eggs.

The UK research is published in Reproductive and BioMedicine Online.

GoreBag

05-19-2005, 22:04

Finally.

PanzerJaeger

05-19-2005, 22:36

I just hope they keep this out of the United States.

Papewaio

05-19-2005, 23:54

I just hope they keep this out of the United States.

Against identical twins too I suppose...

Surely not two hot twin girls...

Uesugi Kenshin

05-20-2005, 01:35

Panzer how is using this type of medicine to cure previously fatal diseases bad?

JAG

05-20-2005, 06:15

Panzer how is using this type of medicine to cure previously fatal diseases bad?

He is a Christian fundamentalist, like all fundamentalists, they do not make sense. It is bad because he is told it is bad and he follows like a good believer.

I am very glad my govt is putting huge investment into this type of scientific research and we are trying to become one of the leaders in the field. I am glad, unlike others in certain countries such as the US, we value saving peoples lives via new, important technology over old doctrines.

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 06:19

I am very glad my govt is putting huge investment into this type of scientific research and we are trying to become one of the leaders in the field. I am glad, unlike others in certain countries such as the US, we value saving peoples lives via new, important technology over old doctrines.

So why not study science and/or medicine and/or engineering and join the future Jag? ~D :duel: ~:grouphug:

JAG

05-20-2005, 06:25

So why not study science and/or medicine and/or engineering and join the future Jag? ~D :duel: ~:grouphug:

Because it is boring! ~D

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 06:28

Because it is boring! ~D

So what makes your choice any different to that of another fundamentalist? ~D ~:handball:

JAG

05-20-2005, 06:43

The choice itself is no different, in terms of each of us simply choosing whatever we want and nothing helping us choose etc etc. The consequences of the choice however is completely different. My choice of thinking it completely fine means I do not oppose the curing of horrible diseases, his choice of not wanting it means he is.

My neglect of choosing to take up the profession of medicine etc, means that more able and interested people can as well. ~;)

Byzantine Prince

05-20-2005, 06:50

Damn right JAG. Not everyone should become a scientist. I for example find Science obsenely boring and tedious, but that doesn't mean I don't anyone else trying it out and improving it.

I myself am interested in politics and economics more then anything but I'm going to be an engineer because that's the opportunity I have.

As for cloning, I don't think we should hold back because of ethical reasons as long as we know for sure there are not many consequences to cloning. It's a new field and it's very interesting but it's also very dangerous and mysterious.

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 06:50

Good answer... if you believe in Good and Evil that is...

Howabout broad minded answer ~D

JAG

05-20-2005, 06:54

Good answer... if you believe in Good and Evil that is...

Howabout broad minded answer ~D

lol! :duel:

Aurelian

05-20-2005, 06:57

"I just hope they keep this out of the United States." - PanzerJager

"The UN recently voted in favour of a ban on all human cloning..." - article

Look PJ, you and the UN finally agree on something! ~D

PanzerJaeger

05-20-2005, 08:01

Look PJ, you and the UN finally agree on something!

Whoa! This shatters all kinds of pre-concieved positions! :shocked:

He is a Christian fundamentalist, like all fundamentalists, they do not make sense. It is bad because he is told it is bad and he follows like a good believer.

Now thats not very nice Jag. If you could come up with one example where I have referenced Jesus, God or the Bible in any of my arguments Ill be very surprised.

I dont need to be a Christian to know that creating life to later kill and harvest it is not right, just as Jesus did not tell me its wrong to kill an 8 month old child.

Life is sacred, or at least it should be.

JAG

05-20-2005, 08:08

Life is sacred, or at least it should be.

Except in war when it is not sacred at all but a 'needed sacrifice'... Or when it is the death penalty and is a 'needed sacrifice'...

Even if we accept that the scientists create human life your position is completely hypocritical and laughable.

But to insist that human life is created is in itself a clear statement of a Christian fundamentalist, as it is only a Christian fundamentalist who would believe that creating a few cells is creating a human being. No scientist agrees with you - except those funded by or part of Christian fundamentalist organisations - and it simply doesn't make sense, you don't need a scientist to tell you it is crap.

Productivity

05-20-2005, 08:08

Life is sacred, or at least it should be.

All life? Or just human life?

Byzantine Prince

05-20-2005, 08:19

Life is sacred, or at least it should be.
"Sacred" is a made up word that is accosiated with a higher spirit(GOD). It isn't applicable to most rational people such as scientists.

There's nothing sacred about life. There is infinite potential anyone that is adult to have as many offsprings as he/she is inclined to have. Theoretically speaking it doesn't even make a difference.

No what constitutes a human being is another question. Human beings have rights given by law to protect them from harm's way. If a fetus is a human then it's immoral to kill it. The way to find out for sure is to research the cognitive capabilities since that is what our real perception of being is located. If that exists in a fetus that it should indeed be illigal to conduct abortions and make cloning tests even if it's for curing deseases.

JAG

05-20-2005, 08:27

After reading your first paragraph BP I thought I would have to disagree with you.. But having read the third paragraph, you typed exactly what I would have and thus I totally agree with you..

You shouldn't get caught up on the sacred word, human life is sacred, it is sacred because we should want to protect human rights, the connotations with God mean diddly squat, all that matters is that we understand that we should protect and keep life alive wherever and in whatever form it is in and not hide behind doctrines which stifle debate and state that life is a single cell and a two week old fetus, which is absurd.

By the way I do mean human life, I do not put any obligation on the protection of other animals lives as I do to human lives.

PanzerJaeger

05-20-2005, 08:35

Except in war when it is not sacred at all but a 'needed sacrifice'... Or when it is the death penalty and is a 'needed sacrifice'...

Life is still very sacred in war Jag. That is why I support the military spending as much money as it can on technology to limit the number of people killed on both sides.

When the death penalty is need the life in question has taken other innocent lives, thus losing its own sacredness. If that statement was hard to understand I can explain it better tommorow as it is late.

Even if we accept that the scientists create human life your position is completely hypocritical and laughable.

Thats the second time youve been less than friendly with me..

But to insist that human life is created is in itself a clear statement of a Christian fundamentalist, as it is only a Christian fundamentalist who would believe that creating a few cells is creating a human being. No scientist agrees with you - except those funded by or part of Christian fundamentalist organisations - and it simply doesn't make sense, you don't need a scientist to tell you it is crap.

Again please show me where I have ever envoked God in an argument.

What did they do in that lab Jag if they did not create a human life? Im not aware that pig's stem cells work for humans. Only other human stem cells can be used, right? And how many diseases have they cured Jag?

Now you can bring all the relativity into the discussion that you like and ill be glad to shoot it down, but there is no justification for creating human life to destroy it and harvest the raw materials.

Who made you or anyone else so self-important as to say that your continued health is so valuable that you can manipulate humanity just to extend it a few years? I guess it was the same people who told you you could end the life of an 8 1/2 month old child.

I think any good scientist would tell you that there are in fact ethical questions that must be examined before tampering with things like human life - no matter what religion he is or who pays him.

All life? Or just human life?

Just innocent human life.

Meneldil

05-20-2005, 08:47

I'm sorry to say that, but I have to agree with PJ here.

Creating a living being just to save/cure another living being seems kinda selfish, knowing that everyone is doomed to die one day or another.

JAG

05-20-2005, 08:49

So you are telling me that all scientists are wrong when they state that a SINGLE cell cannot possibly be classified as a human life? Think about it, is a cell from the roof of your mouth a human? Scrape the roof of your mouth with your finger and create hundreds of new humans!!!! YAY! Who said men can't get pregnant!? We don't need to, we can scratch our arse and make humans!

Again even if life is created by these single cells your position is contradictory, if you cannot see it I am amazed. In war you think some life being killed is OK if it is in the best interest of the greater good and will save lives in the future. With the death penalty you think that taking a sacred life is OK if it is for the greater good and to save lives in the future. But when it comes to stem cell research you are totally against it?! Where do you get off, seriously, what are you on?! Can you not see the position you lay out in front of yourself?

As to you mentioning God, it is irrelevant, it is obvious not only from your comments here but your previous posts on this forum that you do hold the opinions you have because of your belief in my arse - my arse being God of course.

Who made you or anyone else so self-important as to say that your continued health is so valuable that you can manipulate humanity just to extend it a few years? I guess it was the same people who told you you could end the life of an 8 1/2 month old child.

As in terms of that I think you should look at the facts of my position. I do not support abortion past 24 weeks, I think life is sacred and I am FAR more consistent in my opinion in that than you.

And what is innocent life? Is innocence believing in God, not sinning, going to church on sundays and doing good? Is good not committing crimes? What then if a crime isn't a crime until later? Say you kill a black man when it was legal but 20 years later it is illegal, are you innocent? ... So many objections to an absurd statement like 'only innocent life'.

Meneldil

05-20-2005, 09:07

Seriously, the main issue for me is why we should always try to cure diseases and allow the human being to live longer ?

There would be serious economical, demographical and political issues if everyone was allowed to live until 100 or so.

BDC

05-20-2005, 09:10

Finally. It's totally inevitable, standing against the tide will at best delay it a couple of decades.

And about this human life thing, where do you draw the line? What if in the future they could somehow roll back all human cells to a stage where they can grow into an entire human being? What would you do if you scraped a bit of skin off then? Call it murder too?

PanzerJaeger

05-20-2005, 09:18

So you are telling me that all scientists are wrong when they state that a SINGLE cell cannot possibly be classified as a human life? Think about it, is a cell from the roof of your mouth a human? Scrape the roof of your mouth with your finger and create hundreds of new humans!!!! YAY! Who said men can't get pregnant!? We don't need to, we can scratch our arse and make humans!

It depends on which cell they are using. The way i understand things is that stem cells come from the early stages of a developing human, thus the cells can be manipulated with other human cells.

So in a sense you were once just what these clones were, right? Were you nothing but a human resource to be used like oil or coal?

Again even if life is created by these single cells your position is contradictory, if you cannot see it I am amazed. In war you think some life being killed is OK if it is in the best interest of the greater good and will save lives in the future. With the death penalty you think that taking a sacred life is OK if it is for the greater good and to save lives in the future. But when it comes to stem cell research you are totally against it?! Where do you get off, seriously, what are you on?! Can you not see the position you lay out in front of yourself?

I only support killing those people who have taken, or support taking innocent life. If you cannot understand the difference between killing killers and creating innocent life simply to kill it and loot it then I am the one who is truly amazed.

Third time youve been unneccesarily hostile in this thread towards me.

As to you mentioning God, it is irrelevant, it is obvious not only from your comments here but your previous posts on this forum that you do hold the opinions you have because of your belief in my arse - my arse being God of course.

Ahh yes it has quicly become irrelevant because you cannot back up what you said. Find a time when i have justified anything by envoking God and i will bow down and worship your ass. Check and mate. :yes:

As in terms of that I think you should look at the facts of my position. I do not support abortion past 24 weeks, I think life is sacred and I am FAR more consistent in my opinion in that than you.

Again, how are you so self-important as to think you can define when life begins? Do you think every fetus is the same at 24 months? I think the difference between you and a Christian is that you have simply replaced Jesus with yourself. You seem to be ultimate authority on human life.

And what is innocent life?

http://www.medizin.de/gesundheit/data_images/low/1364-fetus.jpg

~:cheers:

Byzantine Prince

05-20-2005, 09:19

And about this human life thing, where do you draw the line? What if in the future they could somehow roll back all human cells to a stage where they can grow into an entire human being? What would you do if you scraped a bit of skin off then? Call it murder too?
Yep that is the ultimate of flaw of this morality this world has created. It helps if you dismiss the crap and look at it with eyes unbleamished and say "what is it that bothers me so much about the death of human life if it hasn't started yet?"

Is this not the point? To live.

Ser Clegane

05-20-2005, 09:30

Third time youve been unneccesarily hostile in this thread towards me.

Agree - I expect that the issues will be argued in this thread. Attempts to ridicule other patrons based on their (perceived) religeous beliefs neither makes for a stronger argument nor will it be tolerated.

Papewaio

05-20-2005, 11:16

"Sacred" is a made up word that is accosiated with a higher spirit(GOD). It isn't applicable to most rational people such as scientists.

Don't bet your farm on that. Sacred / beauty / harmony are all terms quite rational scientists will use. It is often those criteria that find the shortest path to the solution.

Dogs use scent.

Scientists use scientific beauty... ~:cool:

doc_bean

05-20-2005, 13:25

I'm getting kind of tired of people saying 'scientists say this' , 'scientist say that' as if they knew the absolute truth in all matters, even moral ones.

Scientist are just people, people with ideologies and opinions, not everything they say or do is based on rationality and pure deductive reasoning.

I understand that you don't want to study science or engineering, but please, learn to make a distinction between scientific theory (usually with all the boring math stuff) and its interpretation.

Science is in itself merely descriptive, all interpretation, about for instance how molecules must be designed by god or how human life can't possibly be contained in a single cell, is philosophy, not science.

So please stop acting as if the interpretations of a few (or even a lot) of scientists about the interpretation of their theories matter more than the opinions of the masses.

doc_bean

05-20-2005, 13:30

On a side note,

recently 'designer babies' have been born, through invitro with selected eggs, to provide stem cells for a sick brother/sister. The stem cells used for threating the other kid are extracted from the umbilical cord after birth.

This does lead to the moral question 'is it wrong for a baby to be born in order to cure another person', but it doesn't lead to 'is it wrong to create and kill human life in order to cure another'.

Maybe this can be an acceptable alternative for people like Panzer ?

Uesugi Kenshin

05-21-2005, 04:59

JAG i know he has strong beliefs that may not be founded in facts but in a sense of morality. I always like to ask the question, I find it makes it easier to understand someone's position if you hear them tell you what it is and why.

Panzer you are pro-death penalty right? So if you take stem cells from an embryo that is not intended to be born and use it to help save hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people from debillitating, wasting, mind altering, fatal or otherwise horrible diseases is it not working for the greater good as much if not more than a soldier's sacrifice in war?

If those tiny embryos can bring more good into the world than the sacrifice or work of any other person how is it bad?

PanzerJaeger

05-21-2005, 07:15

This does lead to the moral question 'is it wrong for a baby to be born in order to cure another person', but it doesn't lead to 'is it wrong to create and kill human life in order to cure another'.

Maybe this can be an acceptable alternative for people like Panzer ?

It sounds fine to me as long as the child in question isnt created for use as raw materials. Of course it should be treated no different than the other aswell.

Panzer you are pro-death penalty right? So if you take stem cells from an embryo that is not intended to be born and use it to help save hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people from debillitating, wasting, mind altering, fatal or otherwise horrible diseases is it not working for the greater good as much if not more than a soldier's sacrifice in war?

The death penalty has no corrolation with this case. In one instance we as a society must put to death someone who has taken other lives, in the other we are creating life just to exploit it.

If I am correct in my - admittedly limited - knowledge of the subject the embryo is formed from mixing an egg with sperm, right? When that mix occurs successfully, life has begun and that embryo is not to be treated as lifestock simply because its got a few months before it looks human and starts to make people feel guilty about killing it.

Maybe Im wrong. If these cells come simply from an egg that has not been fertilized than there is no harm in it - as eggs are of course disgarded every month.

Just like with the sheep-men in the other thread, there are serious moral implications to simply tampering with human genetics. I know words like "ethics" and "morals" have no place in Jags realm of relativity - but they still hold some meaning with a lot of people including me.

Husar

05-21-2005, 11:09

Why not just go and kill some Africans to get the needed organs?
You then have a body full of usable organs to save about 6 or so lifes of rich people in the 1st world and you serve charity by reducing the hunger in Africa, thus saving some African´s lives, too.
Of course the africans should be killed by scientists, because when scientists kill it´s moral, when soldiers do, it´s not. I guess soldiers would need a university degree in medicine to make wars more moral. :dizzy2:

PS: Yes, I´m in a sarcastic mood for some reason. ~;)

Uesugi Kenshin

05-21-2005, 17:39

Panzer how about the example of a soldier's sacrifice during war? How is it different? Is the fact that the soldier is aware he may die or makes the choice to die for his squad what makes it different?

I believe the embryo must be made by mixing egg and sperm at this point.

So Panzer you are against this scientific expirementation because you believe after the sperm and egg unit human life has begun?

But if it is human life than it may be sacrificed like a soldier under the correct circumstances right? Have you ever been around people with alzheimers or other incurable and devestating diseases for a long period of time? Their lives are horrible. Because these diseases are so horrible I think it is right to do as much as we can to cure them, because then we can save many lives and minds. Perhaps after there is enough advancement there will no longer be a need to mix the egg an sperm. But until then I think it is critical to do all that we can to help save these people, because many of them have sacrificed for peace and freedom. For example I volunteer at a veteran's home every Friday and those people put their lives on the line to help stop Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany or fought in other more recent wars, but there is nothing that can be done. Many of them just sit in a chair all day and get wheeled around, they cannot speak or read or write. Others think they are just visiting and are about to head home, but in reality they live there because they cannot live anywhere else due to their disease.

PanzerJaeger

05-23-2005, 02:54

Panzer how about the example of a soldier's sacrifice during war? How is it different? Is the fact that the soldier is aware he may die or makes the choice to die for his squad what makes it different?

I dont support any soldiers dying during wartime. That is why I support all the expensive-as-hell stuff we create to keep soldiers safe. When an American soldier dies I consider that a failure.

So Panzer you are against this scientific expirementation because you believe after the sperm and egg unit human life has begun?

Yes, in a nutshell.

But if it is human life than it may be sacrificed like a soldier under the correct circumstances right? Have you ever been around people with alzheimers or other incurable and devestating diseases for a long period of time? Their lives are horrible. Because these diseases are so horrible I think it is right to do as much as we can to cure them, because then we can save many lives and minds. Perhaps after there is enough advancement there will no longer be a need to mix the egg an sperm. But until then I think it is critical to do all that we can to help save these people, because many of them have sacrificed for peace and freedom. For example I volunteer at a veteran's home every Friday and those people put their lives on the line to help stop Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany or fought in other more recent wars, but there is nothing that can be done. Many of them just sit in a chair all day and get wheeled around, they cannot speak or read or write. Others think they are just visiting and are about to head home, but in reality they live there because they cannot live anywhere else due to their disease.

As sad as those diseases are, I cannot accept that it is a good thing to destroy a life simply to prolong another.

Now what if they found the cure to AIDS in a newborn child's heart. That child cant think like we can, its mind is not fully developed. Would it then be OK to kill the child because it wasnt fully developed?

I see no difference between that and stem cell research.