Harvard Scientists to Clone Human Embryos 592
An anonymous reader writes "Harvard University scientists claim they will soon start trying to clone human embryos to create stem cells. Even with the history of controversy and fraud researchers hope they can one day use the newly created stem cells to aid in battle against many diseases. From the article: 'The privately funded work is aimed at devising treatments for such ailments as diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, sickle-cell anemia and leukemia. Harvard is only the second American university to announce its venture into the challenging, politically charged research field.'"
Is it worth it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stem Cell Story == Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Would someone... (Score:2, Insightful)
No. That joke's tasteless. I won't.
Even without bringing morality into the question.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Whether we think it's moral or not, our current administration sure wouldn't think so.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, one might be interested in reducing the suffering in the world.
By also not being an avid advocate for miscellaneous wars, for example.
Controvesy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a few years ago the Pope told Steven Hawking that though the Catholic Church believed in the theory of the big bang, what happened before that was the hand of God and not to be meddled into be humans.
If we could rid ourselves of silly arbitrary superstitions great advancements in science will follow.
Re:Stem Cell Story == Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should they have closed their eyes and ignored it because the atomic bomb was reprehensible?
The scientist who study stemcells are much in the same position, they are not in the decision chain when a woman gets an abortion. I don't think stem cell research are the driving force why women do get abortions. But they happen.
Should we close our eyes and pretend that the benefits doesn't exist? The future baby has already died. Don't let it die completely in vain.
Survival of the Fittest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Morals are relative.
What is moral for a taleban is not necessarily moral for the rest of the world and vice versa.
For example, some people consider forcing religious beliefs on children immoral. People should be left to chose what they believe in once they are capable of choosing it.
Similarly, some people do not see anything immoral in harvesting stem cells from an entity without a functioning brain. It is the capability to think, rationalise and be aware of its surroundings which differentiates a human being from a cluster of cells. If an entity does not have this capability it is not a human yet or it is not a human any longer.
The biggest atrocities in the history of mankind have been committed in the name of absolute morality. Torquemada is just one example. Many others.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Morality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Never, never, and never (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
A valid question, but where to draw the line?
A lot of the science about twins known and used today was performed by none other than Dr. Mengele. Should we refrain from using that knowledge - because it most likely was obtained in horrific ways - to honor his victims or should we use that knowledge as best we can to honor his victims and ensure they didn't suffer in vain?
Morality is hard..
Re:Survival of the Fittest (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. We're still constrained by survival of the fittest, just like always. It's the environment that's changing.
Some people get advanced degrees and don't have kids. Some die crossing the street as children and don't reproduce. Etc. Etc. The rate of death before reproduction is still perfectly reasonably high, so the species is getting 'better' as much as any species does. The environment we're optimizing for is changing pretty fast right now, so don't expect any changes in the race to become visible any time soon (not to mention it would take a few thousand generations to see much of any change at all).
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Morality? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:does an embryo have a soul? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then identical twins only have half a soul each.
Philosophical descisions are thoguh to answer... (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone ever think that some (certainly not all) diseases arise because of meddling with nature with reckless abandon.
Now I can hear the complaints: if you are going to do science, you can't just stick your head in the sand! Well, that isn't what I'm advocating, but I've seen a lot of scientists motivated by nothing more than fame, and then you see negative results that couldn't be predicted without extensive study. I'd like to see most medications tested for at least 2 generations before being released -- it wouldn't halt everything, but it might stop a reoccurance of Thalidimide...
One person's view... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not religious. I don't believe that an embryo is a life. It's a collection of cells with the ability to become life if allowed to develop fully.
Please don't mod this as flamebait or troll. I'm not alone. This just happens to be my point of view and I believe that if cures and treatments may be found from such research I will support it wholly until the day I die.
It's been painful watching my Uncle deteriorate by the week. He's afflicted with ALS (Lou Gehrigs). I've attended the funeral of a six-year-old girl who died of leukemia. My uncle has lost his sight due to diabetes.
Those who oppose such research based on their religion, to me, are no better than those who deny life saving treatments to their children or themselves due to religious reasons. Religion makes people do things like this [dailytimes.com.pk].
Why is it so hard to imagine that your God gave man the ability to do such things as a means to improve our lives?
Re:Morality? (Score:2, Insightful)
In cricket, if there is doubt about a decision regarding a wicket being taken, the batsman is given "The benefit of the doubt", ie: since the batsman (if out) is out for the innings, but the bowler gets to bowl again, if there is uncertainty, the batsman is not out.
While cloning, stem cell research and abortion are far removed from cricket, I think using this can possibly bring a broader consensus than trying to answer that question satisfactorily.
My thoughts:
1 - on growing human embryos to harvest (kill) for stem cell research (or any other purpose)
If we ban it because we judge the embryo to be human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be neglecting to persue one avenue of research (there are others) that would possibly, at some point in the future, deliver a medical benefit to some people.
If we allow it because we judge the embryo to be not human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be committing mass murdur on an ongoing basis.
2 - abortion
If we ban it because we judge the embryo to be human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost?
We would be denying women some fairly basic rights to control their bodies and lives, certainly an important thing to consider, not to be treated lightly. (For the sake of this post, sticking to the idea of abortion on demand, which I understand to be most abortions. I do recognise that other situations would require more looking into)
f we allow it because we judge the embryo to be not human, and we are wrong, what would be the cost? We would be committing mass murdur on an ongoing basis.
Based on the risks of being wrong, I judge in favour of the embryo's. Ban it.
Think about the parents... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't agree with your characterization of the atomic bombs, or their use. We killed more people in one night by bombing Tokyo with conventional incendiary bombs than we did with either atomic bomb. By ending the war *extremely* quickly, the atomic bombs saved a great many more Japanese than they killed (oh, and yeah it saved a few American lives too). By the way, Plan B was to use nerve gas, which lacking in the shock value of the atomic bombs, probably would have required using it in many cities and towns. That makes the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a humanitarian mission.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Morality is only hard if you think about it, and try to find a basis for it in reality. If you inherit your morality from Bronze Age shepherds and don't think about it, it's easy.
Re:Philosophical descisions are thoguh to answer.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did it occur to you that the benifit of releasing new drugs more rapidly out weights the risks? Take for example anti-HIV/AIDS medication. If we tested it for two generations not even the most primitive types would be available and there whould be a lot fewer people still living with HIV/AIDS. As another example consider new antibiotics - lifesavers that we can't develop fast enough, would cost a lot of lives to delay them any more (my mom is a Nurse and tells me all about it).
Dodgy consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
Should we close our eyes and pretend that the benefits doesn't exist? The future baby has already died. Don't let it die completely in vain.
See here you run the risk of putting a market value (possibly an incredibly high one) on the results of abortions. What happens if stem cells start to become worth thousands of dollars per sample? You will have women queueing up to supply the demand. People might start making careers out of it. That is an unethical abomination, and thats what everyone should be trying to avoid.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's amazing how much misinformation there is about stem cells and clonning: stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses; they come from embryos that are left over following in vitro fertilization. If not used for research these embryos would be incinerated. Everyone involved (parents, doctors, etc) consents to the research use and there is no monetary incentive involved. So normal stem cell creation has nothing to do with killing embryos, but it is still banned from federal funding.
In this Harvard clonning case the embryo is indeed created only to be destroyed. I don't have a problem with it because a 60-cell mass that has only two cell types is not life for me. But I can see how it can be an issue for some people
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Insightful)
Alive is obviously not enough. Skin cells are alive. Plants are alive. Free will, or consciousness is the issue.
Can anyone say an embryo is conscious? They have a potential for consciousness, just like eggs and sperm have the potential for consciousness given the right conditions.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sickle cell anemia doesn't protect anybody against malaria.
Sickle cell anemia is caused by a recessive mutation in one of the genes that encodes a particular globine proteïne.
When it occurs homozygotically, the allel causes sickle cell amenia. Red blood cells are sickle shaped, and can't bind oxygen as well. Results in short breath, higher bp, and basically an earlyer death (your hart has to work harder).
When this allel occurs heterozygotically (one mutation in one chromosome, the other chromosome still caries the dominant wild-type verson of the gene), it causes more resistance to malaria. But the red blood cells (hemoglobine) still binds oxygen as it would in anybody else.
Sickle cell anemia doens't have anything to do with malaria. Increased resistance just explains its prevalance.
What is an embryo? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you say that this amount of cells are already a human being, than you have to monitor every female human, as natural failure after fertilization occurs every moment. Most women get pregnant and lose their "baby" in the first six weeks without even noticing.
Cloning human (tissue even) is certainly something one should discuss, but keep in mind that you put a very high value on one unborn human, while the same society doesn't have any problem in spending 100 times more on military (and using it) than others on medicine.
Furthermore all the implications this may have on society should be discussed; a longer life span, but less and less work for everybody (now a problem in europe and US, soon one in china and india), who will get the benefit, the one with money or everybody? In other words will we have rich 1000 year old and poor that won't reach the age of 80?
Certainly a lot to discuss, but you have to get some background knowledge, otherwise it is just "I have a strong feeling against it"...
Re:Great advancements occurred irregardless (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats an interesting point, and in a perfect world, I think you would be right. However if stem cells start getting associated with miracle cures, you can bet demand will outstrip supply, and the for-profit healthcare services in the US will be all over that like a cheap suit. Dollar value, sadly, is the almost inevitable result, illegal or not.
Re:What is an embryo? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the point of this is ... ?
Just because lots of people die from cancer, myocardiac infarction and traffic accidents doesn't mean that intentionally killing people is allowed.
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I have trouble thinking of something that won't survive and grow without massive human intervention(a pregnancy is massive human intervention...) as being equal to a living, breathing person in deserving rights. I do not however, find it particularly offensive when other people disagree with this position.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Baby killers [Re: br. morality in...] (Score:4, Insightful)
The egg clearly has chicken DNA and therefore has to be considered to be part of the chicken species.
Therefore, it is easy to deduce that the egg came first. The first chicken hatched from a chicken egg, since the species of the egg is determined by the DNA of the creature that hatches from it, not by the species that laid the egg.
Simply put: If you have an egg, and a chicken hatches from it, then it was a chicken egg, regardless of whether it was laid by a frog, an alligator, or an ostrich.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
No one's ever going to make a career out of getting abortions for science. However, if you really believe life begins at conception, then you should be fighting against fertility treatments.
Re:What is an embryo? (Score:2, Insightful)
Im liberal, democrat, hippie and im against this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One person's view... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a convenient, horrible argument to make. I can justify any action that I wish to take by using that same line of reasoning. The mentally retarded or physically handicaped used to be sterilized to prevent them from procriating. Why would we want to proliferate their obviously detrimental characteristics? God allowed us to do such things, so it must be God's will!
Having the ability to do something is not the same as saying that it is right, or God's will, to do it. We have free will. We can use that free will to follow the will of God or we can follow our own whims. In this case, I believe that we are following our own whims and not the will of God. Why? Because God believes that all life is sacred. When do you determine that a collection of cells ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a life? Based on your description, I am not alive as I am merely a collection of cells. Heck, if we wanted to, we could argue that I'm really just a whole slew of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc. molecules that happen to be occupying roughly the same space.
There are many diseases that are devestating and stem cells seem to hold great potential for treating them. However, I, for one, would forego such treatments if I had to live with the idea that a life was created and then destroyed just so that I could be cured. Is there some way that stem cells can be harvested without creating clones or abortions? I don't think that anyone has definatively found the answer to that.
I am a Christian. I love God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) with all my heart. I guess that I'm one of those people that you don't understand. I've been a non-believer and I know how much easier life seems when there is noone to be accountable to. But the love of God is soooo much better than easy answers.
Re:Controvesy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I Propose a Solution to the Public Funding Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've always opposed this kind of research then you are not allowed to benefit from any of the treatments that may come about as a result of it. Let's see what these social conservatives have to say if it leads to cures or significant improvements in treating some of these horrible diseases somewhere down the line should they themselves become afflicted. Any nut job who takes things on "faith" (aka they believe absolutely in what they read in a book and/or in what they are told to believe in by others without any other outside supporting evidence) should not be allowed to make scientific and/or medical decisions for the rest of the country.
I don't hear many of these social conservatives bitching and moaning that their tax dollars are being used to fund the war in Iraq. Not a peep about their tax dollars being used to execute inmates. The whole "sanctity of life" principle as espoused by social conservatives is kind of selective thing, isn't it? How convenient
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowhere does God come into this picture.
Slapping a label on an anti-abortion sentiment as zealotry is propaganda, much like those who are pro-abortion are painted as feminazis, or I dunno, blood bathing devil worshippers.
If it's possible to ever reach an agreement on the abortion issue, the first major step will be to stop the fucking rediculous propaganda and stereotyping on both sides - stop clumping those groups into the fringe element that exists on both sides, and start talking.
Re:Sad day for Harvard (Score:5, Insightful)
See, not all so-call fundamentalists live there
The ones with any juice live there. Tell me where you live and I'll drive you out of that, so.
the Puritans didn't leave England because they wanted to dodge the age of Enlightenemnt
Aha yes, well you are making the mistaken assumption that I was talking about the classical age of Enlightnment. I was rather referring to the point in time when significant powers in Europe started giving demented cults of personality the final heave-ho. You know, became enlightened.
I assume that by fundie, you mean somebody who dares say that the Bible is right, how silly of him?
So lets see here, you are saying that this book which contains a variety of often self contradicting stands on various issues, this book can be either "right" or "wrong"? Jaysus. As an historical document, its fairly entertaining. As a guide to how life is to be lived, you could do worse than certain passages. As an ironclad method to decide your every action, you are off your head, and a menace to yourself and society. Hence the crusade.
Do you really believe that it's a sign of freedom for a woman to dress in outfits that don't leave much to the imagination.
I know its a sign of slavery to forbid it, bub. And what the hell is wrong with you, you don't want to see a womans nipples? You think god gave her those as a mark of shame? Demned sodomites. CRUSADE!
And, just so you know it, I'm as opposed to revealing clothing for men as I am for women, so it's absolutely not a case of double-standards.
So you're an equal opportunities idiot. Splendid.
Very often, I hear people rant about how fundies are bad, how you can be a good christian and believe in everything liberal theology teaches.
I am not any kind of christian. I am however a very spiritual person, who lives by what I consider good morals and rules of behaviour. the only time I try to inflict those rules on others is when I meet dullard bible-junkies that honestly need a good infliction or two.
aybe you have faith in both orthodox christianity and subscribe to the widespread belief that the Bible is mostly myth, but that would simply mean that you faith would be baseless (which is stupid)
What the fuck is that? Russian orthodox or Greek orthodox? Or some peculiar vision of "straight" christianity? What a tiny little narrow world you live in, to be sure. I myself am a fan of Diderot; mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Non believers shouldn't argue how the faith of believers work
We have laws that dictate the minimal basics your life's actions should comply too, and for the rest its 'personal choice'.
So if non-believers think its ok to do such research, and its not against the law, then a believer shouldn't argue that its 'against gods will', because thats neither part of the law, nor part of the personal freedom of choice of the non-believer.
If we let go of that basic foundation of 'respecting eachothers differences', then non believers could tell believers to 'stop believing in god', just as much as believers can tell non-believers 'you shouldn't do this because its against my religion', thats a model that just doesn't work!
In days of old the world's religions were for a big part 'the state' and its laws, but in modern times this is no longer true, and in any country i would want to live in, its believed there should be a sepperation between church and state
So while the top posters topic of "if god does exist, then why
Sorry both posters have interesting views, but it just seems so funny to me their both trying to persuade 'the other side' with arguments of their own side
Re:Controvesy? (Score:2, Insightful)
While there are some who have said this and perhaps this has become a prevailing thought in some circles today, the realm of science used to be filled with Christians with a deep conviction and belief in God. Their thought ran, "This is God's work. We should understand it so that we can better understand and appreciate God." Somewhere along the way it became taboo, but this was more of a social change than a religious one. The Bible never discouraged the study of science, and in fact, many of the old testament writers showed a great deal of knowledge about biology and many species of animals.
Agreed. We should rid ourselves of the silly idea that God cannot exist and that everything must be only present within our own three dimensions. I think it would be healthy for the scientific community to have a fair-sized representation of people who believed that God exists just to keep a balanced view. With a one-sided view, new discoveries may be overlooked or missed due to bias.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos
are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really
potential humans.
But assuming that these things could eventually become humans, is having the potential to be
human sufficient to grant them the same rights and protections that humans get?
Do they suffer? No.
Do they even feel? No.
Is this any different from cloning liver tissue in a lab? No.
Remind me again what the arguments against this are. I can't seem to come up with any.
Re:Dodgy consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words: What about the children?!? (blatant appeal to emotion)
Yep, killing someone just because he causes you some inconvenience is illegal.
No, It's not. It depends on the level of inconvenience. You can kill someone if they are about to chop a limb off, or rape you, or if they are about to do the same to someone else. If they are about to kill someone else (which doesn't really inconvenience you at all) you can still kill them.
It's called "justifiable homicide" and it happens pretty damn often.
Babies are either people or their not, you seem to want them to be elevated to have more rights than the humans that can support life on their own. One can infer from this that you believe in some type of higher moral purpose to protect the infant above the rights of the individual that will be forced to act like a life support system for it for nine months.
So what church did you say you went to again?
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
So we can breed cattle to kill them, but cloning them directly would be wrong?
No, I have no problem with either. You mean that I am okay with the killing of innocent animals to reasonably provide for human needs but not the killing of innocent human beings? Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
Not young humans, potential humans. These things aren't humans yet and, since lab created embryos are generally not even viable (wouldn't survive to full term), these things aren't even really potential humans.
When do they become humans? When the "scientists" from Harvard tell us so? You are right that they are not viable yet (cannot survive outside the womb at this point), but that is not to say that they are not humans. Babies today are viable much, much earlier than they were 50 years ago, because of medical technology. According to your logic, that means that babies at six months were not human then, but they are now. What if babies who are not viable now (and therefore not human, you would say) become viable 50 years from now, thanks to advances in medicine? Would they be therefore be human?
How many friends friends have you had that have miscarried after a few weeks? As they cried over the loss of their babies, did you reassure them that they had only lost some "tissue," no different from, as you say, as "liver"?
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, maybe that's okay for you, but it's not okay for me.
Re:Morality? (Score:3, Insightful)
The embryo's life doesn't outweigh the adult's; it is worth the same. Your question is much like asking why the life of a homeless man--with no family, or home or even guarantee of survival (they freeze to death all the time)--outweighs mine, for I'm established in society, love and am loved, have built up a life and would be missed by at least a few. Why, I should be able to kill the homeless man if doing so advances me! I might want that few bucks he's been collecting, or the food he's eating--or perhaps I just don't want him sitting on my step.
The answer, of course, is that his life doesn't outweigh mine, nor does mine his. We are both equal in the eyes of the law, and if I killed him so that I could keep his corneas onhand in case mine go, that law would punish me. Why should it be any different for someone who kills humans for medical experimentation?
Re:Wait, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
We either lose the genetic research race or we win it. Shutting the doors won't stop the research, it will just make we scientists do the research in other countries, which will then get the glory of the Nobel Prize.
It's time to pay attention to the reality of research - it can be done anywhere with sufficient power, a good building, and the scientific funding.
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't understand the difficulty here. When do we determine life *ends*? When the brain no longer functions, correct? So why not use the exact same metric to determine when life begins?
Re:Controvesy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Over time, though, those losses added up. People began to realize that if we were able to understand so many of the mysteries that we once believed were solely the domain of the gods... maybe *all* of the mysteries of the gods were capable of being understood. When that happened, religions got scared. They slammed down hard as a defensive measure.
So, NO, the way that religions turned away from Science wasn't just some curious social shift caused by mysterious factors. It was a direct response by religion against an encroacher upon the base of its power.
This is really just a straw man. Find a mainstream or even published atheist who is of the "strong" variety who claims to know that a God or god-like things cannot exist somewhere in the unknown places of existence. I (and most intellectually-grounded atheists) would be willing to brand such strong atheists as crackpots who are just as guilty of illogical thinking as the most raving Islamic fanatic. So in reality, there aren't many (if any) scientists out there claiming that God *cannot* exist in some form or fashion. That whole stereotype is mostly a concoction of religious types who want an absurd-sounding target to shoot at.
Re:One person's view... (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree that viability is the point where technology can sustain a fetus (or embryo, but that would be quite a trick -- embryos have neither red blood cells or alveoli in their lungs). Viability is when the fetus will survive without technological intervention. With technology we can turn sperm and eggs into a baby (with the help of a biological gestational unit).
Note that I'm not saying that viability is necessarily a good way to determine when abortion is okay.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
I miscarried at 6 weeks. The tissue and blood that came out of me was not a baby. I did not cry.
Women who cry over a miscarriage a few weeks in would cry just as much if they had gotten their periods a few weeks prior. That is to say, they are crying because they wanted to be pregnant now, and they're not. What comes out looks nothing like a baby, and could never be confused for one.
Re:Thank God (if you like) for "superstition" (Score:2, Insightful)