Therapeutic Cloning

[El_Machinae]

See, but my point is that the cells aren't being made into an embryo first. I GET the objection to embryos being destroyed (because a huge number of people think that an embryo is a person). What's being made is a cell that COULD (theoretically, but not practically) be made into an embryo, but so could a skin cell. And I'm sure that no one objects to research being done on skin cells.

 

[bhsup]

Wait, are they are are they not making an embryo? I thought your other post, due to the wording "viable embryo" rather implied that they were making embryos, but that they just didn't consider them viable. Though, you also said, "Massive alterations would need to be done to make it into a viable embryo."

That line, as well as the "nearly impossible", leads me to believe that they are messing around in areas where they have no business being.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there's a great deal of exception to calling it an embryo, because it's not enough 'like' an embryo to really call it that. I could call a block of marble a statue, but it isn't. Not until I do a bunch of work making it into a statue.

It's a clump of cells that looks a lot like an embryo. If you put it into a prepared woman, it will not take hold, and it will die. There's almost no way to 'make' it viable. We could, of course, but we could do the same to a skin cell.

However, it is quite easy to make a skin cell 'look' like an embryo (much like what we want to do with cloning), it just won't be a viable embryo. If any cell can be made to 'look' like an embryo, how else do you determine if it's an embryo, except by saying if it's viable or not?

And the reason why the researchers have business worrying about it is because they are nearly certain that cures to life-debilitating diseases are available.

 

[bhsup]

It's all that "almost no way to make it viable" stuff. Why even go there?

I'd have a lot more respect for the scientists if they'd have more respect for my views. Why not research adult stem cells exclusively? Why not try to push the bounds of what is possible there?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, they're only working with adult cells. Once a cell is cloned is more 'like' an adult stem cell than any other cell. And that means it can be used for any therapies we can imagine for adult stem cells. Edit: To the scientist, any cell can be anything from a zygote to neuron, so we try to classify cells based on what they're most like.

It's also a cost thing. If we're restricted from cloning, then we have to go the more labourious route.

Remember how we can make a skin cell 'like' an embryo? So, if we're restricted from cloning, and we want to do a therapy, we have to take an adult stem cell, and make it 'like' an embryo before we can use it do certain types of therapy. This is lot harder than just cloning the cell, because we can skip a bunch of steps.

The end product is the same (a cloned stem cell), but the route to go one direction is much harder than the other. And when we're restricted from cloning, we're not given more funding to compensate for the increased difficulty.

We often think that the goal is to avoid the creation of an embryo, so we can try to develop these therapies.

It's all that "almost no way to make it viable" stuff. Why even go there?

Honesty. The cell could be made viable (theoretically, but not technically, or morally), but there's no need to make it viable for what we need.

 

[bhsup]

I'll hold judgement for a bit, then. I was meaning to hit the library in a few weeks anyway to really research all of this thoroughly since there is a huge vote coming up in my State regarding this in April. I'll try to do it a bit sooner and get back to you.

EDIT: It's been quite controversial. Even the very wording is causing headaches. Check this out.

EDIT 2: Oops! I really thought it was this April, but looks like it's not until the November ballot. Maybe the court challenges got it pushed back. Can't say I agree with THAT at all, I'd rather see the people of the State decide it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naming things in biology is hard, because every cell is 'like' a series of different cells. The only reason why we call a liver cell a liver cell is it comes from a liver.

So, what do you call a cell that really looks like a liver cell, but was made in a lab? Well, you'd call it a liver cell. But what if you then find a difference? It becomes 'liver-like'.

A cloned cell looks a lot like an embryo, but an embryo looks a lot like any other cell, and a cloned cell doesn't look like an embryo in a lot of different ways too. The real question is, how do you define what an embryo is, if it wasn't made the 'traditional way'?

A cloned cell is more likely to become a liver cell (if you plant it in a liver) than it is likely to become a person if you plant it in a prepared woman. And why would it be wrong to implant it in a woman with a sick liver, since it's her own cells that we're returning to her?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd like to emphasise again that the cell made during a therapeutic cloning procedure is not a viable embryo.

In fact, I suspect that very little research will be done to make the cell more viable.

Edit: is there more to the story than this?

 

[Sidhe]

I cannot really understand, then, why people object.

The cell that the researchers are working with aren't viable (in any way, shape, or form). The current opinion is that making the cell viable (ie., able to grow into a person if implanted) is nearly impossible, and would require extraordinary work in the lab first (on the cell).

I thought the issue with therapeutic cloning was that an embryo was being destroyed. I guess there's more to it than that.

The cell that they use to get the stem cells from is just a cell. Massive alterations would need to be done to make it into a viable embryo. (Heck, a skin cell can be made into an embryo with enough laboratory work).

IMHO it's simply an example of religous intolerance for the most part, they've been arguing against it for so long they object to it whether it involves life as they understand it or not. Fortunately the scientific community are not living in the dark ages, so eventually they will win the rest of the Philistines over

Man should not be allowed to play god, I don't know why and it may save millions of people and cure the plagues of our time, but damn it your just wrong, the preservation of human life is just not part of Gods plan!!!!

It's the same with the condom thing in Africa, it's just religous mumbo jumbo, if they really were Christian they'd be trying to prevent suffering and disease and to make the world a healthier place, they're not, simply ignore them; it's like a fly buzzing around your ear, it's annoying but it will do you no harm. The sad thing is of course it may mean the unnecessary deaths of alot of people, thankfully with enough will the idiots don't get a say.

 

[Kozmos]

Woaaah thread nercomancy,,,,reminds me of m/

 

[El_Machinae]

I just listened to a seminar on the topic. Changing laws is soooo slow ....

As well, VRWCAgent has a vote on this coming up, and I'm hoping to show both sides of the debate.

 

[GenMarshall]

If it results in the killing of human life (IE using the embryo), then I am still going to have to object against it.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

It doesn't matter what our individual opinions are. Cloning will be researched and pursued somewhere as curing disease and making money from improvements due to genetic engineering is too valuable to ignore.

The only thing any country can do is prevent themselves from being in on the advancements and benefits thereof.

Many scientific fields were originally opposed by various religions, but never successfully. As the population learns the rewards of new knowledge the complaints of the religious are simply ignored.

 

[Shaihulud]

Yes, but remove his higher brain function. I don't want to have to feel guilty about him when i start harvesting his organs for my use. I somewhat supports therepeutic cloning, but im afraid that this option will be available only for rich old arseholes to live forever.

 

[Sidhe]

If it results in the killing of human life (IE using the embryo), then I am still going to have to object against it.

That's the point stem cells are simply cells that can diferentiate into any cells. You can harvest them from the dead or living, for example bone marrow and certain other tissues can be made to behave like other cells, to become say brain cells or liver cells, or pancreas cells, research is being used to make cells with stem like properties that don't even require harvesting of tissues from embryos, research which would of never of happened had the religious got there way. It's just a shame bush had an ear to the God squad when the laws were past, something they are now thankfuly trying to remedy.

It's "Frankenstein" science, man should not be in control of the thing with the oh you know what I mean DNA and cells and stuff.

Yes, but remove his higher brain function. I don't want to have to feel guilty about him when i start harvesting his organs for my use. I somewhat supports therepeutic cloning, but im afraid that this option will be available only for rich old arseholes to live forever.

The research is intended to lead to cures for degenerative illnesses such as MS, Diabetes damage caused by heart attacks, regeneration of brain matter post stroke or brain injury. Cancer cells are pretty much stem cells too so research in the area could lead to cures for certain cancers and also gene therapy is a major area of study, the insertion of gene sequence into the DNA to prevent disease such Cystic Fibrosis. The potential is pretty endless.

 

[Hornblower]

My (yet to be conceived) children will have their stem cells harvested from the cord etc. and stored in a medical bank for future use. Hopefully they would never be needed but the option would always be there for them.

 

[Kozmos]

^^^
Now that sounds like a good idea.

 

[ironduck]

I really don't understand the objections either from people who say it's not a religious issue, not a spiritual issue, but simply about 'life' that shouldn't be 'meddled with'.

I tried many times in the other thread to get an explanation for why a zygote was a human being from a biological viewpoint when any other individual human cell or a sperm cell and ovum next to each other are not. Even when the sperm has penetrated the ovum it's still not a human being until the chromosomes fuse. But as soon as they have fused it's for some reason 'a human being' from a biological viewpoint according to these people, even though no mitosis has taken place yet.

The explanation I keep getting is that 'if there's no interference then 9 months later there will be a baby born'. But there is so much interference and processing to go from that single cell to a baby that it's just mindnumbing. Where is the biological reasoning for 'no interference'? I see the religious and spiritual objections, but biologically?

 

[ironduck]

It doesn't matter what our individual opinions are. Cloning will be researched and pursued somewhere as curing disease and making money from improvements due to genetic engineering is too valuable to ignore.

It matters a lot because the more people object the slower the research will take place which again means that many many more people will not benefit from this.

We're talking about serious, serious diseases that are not being cured.

 

[El_Machinae]

My (yet to be conceived) children will have their stem cells harvested from the cord etc

This is a very good idea. These cells are very useful for the child (and maybe family members, it you're lucky) if cancer rears its head (the cells can be used to recover from the chemotherapy).

I have a friend who refused to store the cord blood when her daughter was born (we have a free service in Canada). The other day she found a lump in her breast. It's really sad.

I don't want to have to feel guilty about him when i start harvesting his organs for my use.

You're kidding, right? We grow the cells from the cloned cell - we won't grow a body. You knew that, I'm sure.

The cells created during the cloning process are not viable embryoes. We aren't trying to turn them into viable embryoes. Doesn't that make a difference?