Dawn, I can speak only for myself. First, I am not a religious man, a right-winger or a radical pro-lifer. I fully recognize that abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But even when I find it prudent to accept abortion, I still do not like it. Second, from my perspective, an embryo is not the same as a fetus, and scientific work at the embryonic stage bother me not. I must admit that the destruction of embryonic cells following an experiment does not make me feel exactly great, but it is actually no worse than what happens in nature millions of times a day.

Furthermore, I recognize, that some people do actually oppose scientific work at the embryonic stage, and that their opposition is sincere. But, it is my observation that usually, sincere or not, the opposition is relatively weak. Everything is by degree. For example, some people oppose birth control. But among people who oppose birth control, their opposition to abortion is generally much stronger and they feel much more passionate about abortion than about birth control.

Actually, some people who oppose birth control, in principle, practice it as a practical matter. This being the case, it does not surprise me that the opposition to embryonic research is considerably less than the opposition one would find, for example, to partial birth abortions.

I guess I missed the deal about the John Hopkins group using aborted fetuses. The BBC article did not specifically mention it and it got by me. But I guess my attitude is that if embryonic material will work, why bother with aborted fetuses. The thing that bothers me the most about processes that use tissue from aborted fetuses is the concern that a "manufacturing process" will be created that uses aborted fetuses as "raw material" for a "product" in a manner and volume so as to "increase the demand" and the "value" of the fetal material--and all that that would mean.

Cliff, I see I forgot to answer your question about the NZ calves--I guess because i don't know much. I was in NZ last month and did hear talk of it, but I believe the group that did it was commercial and therefore not in a hurry to publish the details of the technique. It is probably genuine. The evidence so far is that cloning seems to work better in cattle than any other species tested so far, and groups have used nuclei from other species and got them to form embryos using cow egg cytoplasm. (Haven't implanted these cross-species hybrids yet as far as I know).

I realize you are agnostic (me too), and that you don't object to the use of preimplantation embryos for research or for treatment of disease. However, research on human embryos using federal funds is forbidden at present, because of objections by militant right to life groups and the Catholic church (which opposes in vitro fertilization as well). That is why I thought there would be more objection than there has been so far, and I wonder if the federal ban will be lifted once these cells actually cure someone.

I must admit that the destruction of embryonic cells following an experiment...is actually no worse than what happens in nature millions of times a day. - Cliff Beall

Well said, Mr. Beall!

I think you can expect more objections than you have heard so far. The Catholic church will, no doubt, oppose it. As you pointed out, the Catholic church opposes in vitro fertilization. I do not see where the church's objection has had a terribly adverse effect on acceptance of the procedure by the general public, or even by Catholics. But it will oppose it. The church also opposes the birth control pill, and I, myself, have had some experience with respect to the effectiveness of that among Catholics. My story is as follows: Early in our married life, my wife and I lived in a development between two Catholic couples. As it happened, the young women in the houses on both sides of us used the birth control pill. On one side, the lady was quite modern and insisted she saw nothing wrong with the pill regardless what the Pope thought. On the other side, the lady was a "good" Catholic, and although she did not really see anything wrong with the pill, she felt she really ought to obey the Pope, but did not do so because she felt she simply could not afford another child.

With respect to the lifting of the ban, I think the chances are pretty good it will be lifted at some point. But at the same time, I am not sure I understand the imperative. In other industries, it is generally accepted that private companies exploit potentially profitable technologies. These new bio-technologies obviously have the potential for significant financial reward. It appears to me that private industry is doing very well without the help of the government.

Fetal cell version first. Looks a little PRish to me.

...On one side, the lady was quite modern and insisted she saw nothing wrong with the pill regardless what the Pope thought. - Cliff Beall

I remember when it was forbidden by the Church of Rome to eat meat on Fridays. My stepfather, a devout Catholic, insisted that we eat always fish on Fridays.

Then, one day, the ban was lifted and consequently, we switched to pork chops instead.

On that day I told my stepfather that in order to be wise among the fools, he has to be foolish.

He never got it.

Luis, you said that human embryo research was okay as long as it stopped before the growth of any neural cells. But one of the first things that will be done is to induce the embryonic stem cells (ES cells) to become neurons for the treatment of spinal chord injuries, Parkinson's, Alzhemier's, etc. I'd say that nerve cells outside of a structured brain and nervous system aren't any more special than any other cell type.

One thing that could be done with the human ES cells, and that the scientists were quick to say they would not do, is to create chimeras with ES cells from two different embryos. It is a very common technique in mouse ES work. A mouse born from such a fusion has some cells from one set of parents and other cells from another set--or four parents contributing to the genetic makeup.

Dawn: Please forgive me but I have got to see where this goes with human mosaics, in as much as 3 parent individuals occur "naturally". (4 or more are possible but the odds????????)

Did you catch the CNN report that mentioned the IVF produced true hermaphrodite . Same parents but conjoined zygotes. (Like who pays for the corrective surgery? What are the standards of malpractice? What about intentional production?...)

In as much as no force of religion, law, or custom has dealt with this variant of humanity, and my thirty years or so of investigation of the ideas of everyone from doctors geneticists, lawyers and other "wise" persons, has been met with fear as its conversational inhibitor, I suspect this is a much bigger problem than has ever been addressed outside of perhaps some science fiction circles.

In as much as this is not my chosen field, my thinking can easily qualify under the "crack pot" syndrome. Your ideas are however not so easily dismissed.

Hermaphrodites occur "naturally." It should, therefore, not be surprising that another method of procreation might produce a similar result. However, it is a good thing this did not occur the first few time IVF was attempted. Consider the fallout if it had.

Actually, I would suspect that it is more that they do not know, and prefer not to know. Some things can safely be ignored, and I think this is probably one of those things. And while this possible condition is not as revolting as some things which can not be ignored, such as the condition of hermaphroditism, you have to admit that it also is not the most appetizing thing ever conceived by man.

I don't think so, Carl, and here is why. A true "crack pot" does not allow for the possibility that he or she might be a "crack pot." A true "crack pot" will insist in the absolute rightness of what he or she says and never, never, never admit the possibility of error.

This: "very common technique in mouse ES work," almost got by me, Dawn. The question is: why is this "common"? About eleven months ago, on December 30, 1997, you said:

Am I correct in assuming that this is the technique by which "designer children" will be created? If so, I think I now see what the commotion is all about and why you expected more opposition from the Catholic church. This technology can, and probably will, be used in more ways that I imagined--ways the Catholic church, and other churches, might oppose with some passion.

But, in the end, I do not think it will much matter. People want "ideal" children, and parents readily accept children not of their own genetic makeup, particularly if those children happen to be attractive and smart. Notice that sperm banks are populated with the sperm of relatively smart, handsome men, usually medical doctors or interns. Likewise, egg donors are expected to be beautiful, intelligent females. That is what people want and expect. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would ensue if a woman bore a stupid, ugly child and found the reason was because the sperm bank intentionally collected sperm from stupid, ugly men?

Earlier someone made the point that we are the products of our parents genetic material but our parents dont own us - this is true (most of the time) where I think cloning a person could cause complications is is the clone a person in his/her own right. Cloning organs doesn't cause so much of a problem but for example a clone of me is created - Do I have the right that should I need a transplant due to an accident or health reasons to take it from the clone ?,- the clone is alive and although she would look like me and have my dna she doesn't have my experiences but would have a set of her own and would still be mentally and emotionally an individual.

If human cloning not just of body parts donor eggs/organs but of whole human beings is to be taken up, the clones would need some sort of legal protection to avoid creating an underclass of 'bodyslaves' to be plundered for organs.

Someone mentioned God earlier ,I am agnostic, BUT no one has yet sugested women are property because Eve was created from Adam's rib which was his body part so he has the rights to it!!.

p.s someone made the point that here in europe there are experimenting with genetically modified food - this is a highy unpopular move and as yet it IS only an experiment

Good evening. I have a question. Is a chimera producing a deformed or disfigured result? If so, in what way and how?

You would think with the need for at least 24 different sets of genes to keep a species healthy that introducing 4 at a time would be simply speeding up the process. However, knowing that I don't know everything, I thought it would be prudent to ask questions instead of making assumptions. I also wonder if they are thinking in terms of populating other planets with astronauts. If so, then there would be a need to have a lot of genes in just a few people as the space ship could not carry a lot of people and feed them over the kind of distances and amount of time we are then talking about.

If there are any science fiction writers peeking in on this we are liable to see another story.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

I remember seeing a Star Trek series on Genesis. In it they were trying to re-create earthlike conditions on a barren planet. In this case the re-creation was extremely speedy, whereas in real life, it would most likely evolve over a very long time.

I have even found myself wondering what might evolve on the moon or mars if any little organism managed to get past the extreme sterilzation procedures that are used and started developing and mutating. Also, what would happen if we planted a species of plant on the moon or mars on the edge of the ice fields? We would need a species that could survive extreme temperatures and no atmosphere, something that, perhaps, would grow deep underground. Would that only be possible through genetic changes and cloning? Personally, I find it all interesting, the speculations possible.

The real question is are we going to need another earth? If so, how do we populate it?

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Of course not. Suppose you had a identical twin. Would you have the right to take an organ from your twin in that situation?

Very true and precisely the point.

It is my opinion that it will be a cold day in Hell before vital organs will be cloned "individually." Cloning of humans, for the purposes of procreation, may not be far off, however.

When a person is cloned, the clone is born as a baby and grows up into an adult just like any other human being. The only difference is the method of conception.

Since existing law typically does not address "conception" or methods of conception, specifically, but generally refers specifically to the "birth" of individuals, I do not see how anybody could interpret existing law--anywhere--as not applying to clones. Thus it is my opinion that no special protection is needed.

I am absolutely certain it will be true in the USA. Any person born in the USA is a citizen of the USA. Anyone who is a citizen of the USA has the rights of a citizen of the USA. (And I would bet the same idea holds in your country.)

Things are beginning to heat up in the human embryonic stem cell cloning area. I have in my hand a copy of a letter from President Clinton to Harold Shapiro, Chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission asking him to consider this research at a meeting on Nov 17-18. The Labor-HHS appropriations committe has decided to hold a hearing on Dec. 1 to explore these findings more fully. The hearing will have three panels: The National Institute of Health, the scientists who made the discoveries, and the ethicists. Many anticipate that the 106th Congress will be very active in regard to this policy issue (if they can get over trying to impeach the president).

Happy Thanksgiving, all!

I hope you are not ignoring science fiction and movies entirely. I will tell you why. The movies and science fiction have often been the source of new developments in real life.

Not all developments have to be developed out of the last new developments. It is just as possible to create new ideas, more difficult, usually, but still possible.

Truth is stranger than fiction! That old saw would not still be around if there wasn't some kernel of truth in it somewhere. It also required the comparison of truth and fiction. It looks like truth lost out in the comparison.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Just in case you think I didn't see it - the fiction is relating to lies. Lies can be created to fit the facts, whereas truth is just what happened. Many times it sounds strange and unbelievable.

Sometimes science is that kind of fiction, created to fit the facts.

Some of you are totally ignoring the potential in humans to do the unthinkable. I realize that this is not the norm, but it has happened (Charles Manson, etc.). To ignore that fact is folly, foolishness, unwise.

It won't matter much what the president's commission thinks, says or does because cloning has already been approved on humans in other countries. Switzerland, for instance. Anyone who disagrees with their decision can just get on a plane and go to Switzerland to do the work.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Can someone please explain to me President Clinton's concerns on this matter. For a man who can swallow partial birth abortions, in addition to certain other stuff, without blinking, he sure seems to have terrible concerns about the ethics of cloning--even at the embryonic stage. It doesn't make a lick of sense. Does he really think that anyone is going to hold him in great esteem and/or consider him a great moral leader if he questions the implementation of this technology?

The impeachment thing will not last much longer. Expect it to be over by the end of the year. The true believers do not have the votes and, by now, they know it. Watch it more or less just fade away. Most of the same true believers who supported impeachment will oppose this research. I have no doubt but that some of them are sincere in their beliefs, on both counts. But I doubt if they will have the votes to do anything substantial with respect to this either. They did not have the votes last year and I do not see where they gained any votes in the last election.

Cliff, Clinton's letter indicates two things: (1) he is worried about the human/cow hybrid and (2) he recognizes that there is enormous potential benefit from human embryonic stem cells. In regard to (1), I don't think he understands the science (which has yet to be subjected to peer review). If it is real, then this is actually a very beneficial way to get perfectly matched ES cells from the skin of any adult. No union of sperm and egg is involved, and the ES cells won't (and maybe can't) be used to clone a baby. You take a nucleus from a human skin cell, put it in an enucleated cow egg and wind up with a culture of ES cells that are human, except for the cow mitochondria. After many cell divisions, almost all of the cow protein will be diluted away. You can use the ES cells to replace your damaged heart, liver, brain, etc., once we figure out how to cause human ES cells to differentiate (which we can already do to some extent with mice) It seems to me that conservatives should like this much better than using discards from IVF and aborted fetuses.

I don't presume to know what is truly in Clinton's mind on this or any other issue. He can compartmentalize better than anyone I've ever seen. However, if Congress is going to get into legislating embryonic stem cells, they need to have some good background material, and the Labor-HHS panels should provide that.

Diana, I agree that this research will be carried out in other countries if not here. However, I don't want to see US citizens deprived of potentially lifesaving treatments because our Congresspeople think it is immoral.

Not for anything technical, Diana. It is true that the movies may have an effect on fashion, and it is true that it and other entertainment media may have an effect on acceptance of something technical when it arrives. But the only real affect entertainment media can have on technical issues is the manipulation of attitudes.

It has been said that science fiction predicts science. Some are quick to point out that science fiction is sometimes remarkably accurate. One favorite example is Heri Seldon's "calculator pad" with glowing red characters. Remarkable prediction, was it not? As the good doctor said, he even got the colors right. On the other hand, you might want to examine Pelleas Anthor's "Analytical Rule." The "Analytical Rule" is described as being a distant relation to that "kindergarten toy, the logarithmic slide rule," but it is noted that Anthor used the same "wrist flip of long practice" to manipulate it.

Both "predictions" are by the same science fiction writer, from the same science fiction series. This particular author happens to have been a scientist, and a very creative one at that. But I would insist that technology does not unfold the way a novel does--even novels written by scientists. Typically, a novelist works out his ending before writing the novel. Therefore, while the reader of a novel may be surprised by the developments in the novel, and the way it ends, the novelist is not. On the other hand, while a scientist may have an idea of what he or she expects the results of an experiment to be, they are, themselves, often surprised. If scientists already knew the answers to their experiments, they would not have to do the research, they could just write books.

And that, in my opinion, is a very significant difference. Forget the

True. The theory of evolution is an example of this. It fits the facts. Is it really correct? Don't know for sure, but it certainly does fit the facts.

Just because one does not find evil under every rock does not mean that one denies the possibility of evil under a particular rock. I think I understand the possibilities. That is why I think certain laws and regulations--that I just happen to support--should exist.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulation. We just have to make sure it is reasonable. (But what is reasonable, you ask?)

If he doesn't understand the science, I think he should fire his science adviser. Either that or he should start listening. Actually, I think he is just trying to do the "political" thing.

I consider myself a conservative, and that is my position. I am of the opinion that this is a useful technology. I think there are some dangers in the application of it, however, and I think the government should regulate this industry, much as it regulates other industries. I do not support government funding. The reasons are that I think this technology has more than enough potential for profit to gain adequate private funding, and I think the developers of this technology may need, and should have, full access to the courts.

Dawn, it amazes me to no end that intelligent liberals like yourself would continue to give Clinton the benefit of every doubt regardless. I have to laugh every time I think about it. What does that guy have (except the obvious:-) BTW, would you extend the same benefit of doubt to Jimmy Swaggart? Jimmy and Billy are two of a kind, you know. Both were born with powerful personalities, high intelligence and great powers of persuasion. And they have similar vocations. Another similarity is that both were caught in a compromising situation. But, most of all, they each have this wonderful ability to "compartmentalize."

For the past 18 months I have managed to (mostly) avoid the Clinton fiasco in my comments -- I think I will try to continue!

My earlier comment on this issue (Cliff) was that we should not outlaw technology based on mis-applied fear. I think "reasonable" amounts to ethical/moral applicaations of technology and research, not the base of such. Nuclear Physics is moraly nuetral, a-bombs are not. Likewise; Cloning research is moraly nuetral. Organ harvesting is not. (Smallest nutshell I could squeez that into.)

Well said, Keith. I myself have generally avoided references, on this board, to the gentleman in the white house except in response to references to him by others. But I must admit that it sure was fun, just for once, to spar with Dawn about something on an equal footing. And, in particular, the reference to Clinton's ability to "compartmentalize," was just too tantalizing to pass up. (Isn't it amazing how political jargon can develop and spread so quickly and how even very intelligent people will sometimes pick it up and repeat it without giving any thought to what it really means? I thought the comparison of Clinton with the other great compartmentalizer of this generation would make that point.)

I agree. But let us not disband the FDA now, just when we really need it.

Cliff, what I meant by "compartmentalize" was that people don't carry over what they know in one area of their lives into another. For example, people who oppose birth control believing that God will provide, when pictures of starving children are all around. Or people who won't take prescribed drugs but load up on all kinds of untested "natural" remedies. I didn't mean it as a compliment to Clinton to say he was good at this! B.C. may see cloning as "playing God," since something new is being created, whereas abortion is destroying rather than creating. Humankind has lots of experience with destroying life.

Also, you would think that pro-life people would be opposed to capital punishment and that pro-choice people would be in favor of it. Usually just the opposite is true. And people who are pro life will probably be against cloning and creating life as well. Maybe life isn't really the issue.

Anyway, the Clinton's Labor-HHS panel will meet next week and I must help draft a position statement on human embryo and ES cell cloning for my organization.

Dawn, I have to agree with most of what you said, but I do not think it is inconsistent to support the death penalty for fetuses and other people who are "guilty" of committing pre-meditated murder and other similar crimes, while opposing the murder of "innocent" fetuses and other people. I admit to an inconsistency with regard to my acceptance of some abortions of innocent fetuses as the lessor of two evils.

I have no doubt but that your position statement on stem cell cloning research will be one that I can support wholeheartedly.

In regards to this compartmentalization thing, please understand that I have heard Clinton's defenders use that word in exactly the same way, and I am aware that they point to this "ability" as something to be admired. I, therefore, assumed that you also considered it admirable in the same sense. (That you were one of them.) It is now clear that I made a mistake. Sorry that I misunderstood what you intended.

Cliff,
Were you compartmentalizing? ;-0

I am almost wishing some rabid "antis" would show up here! It is getting to the point where we have little to discuss other than nit-picking each other.

The stereotypical "right-fundemental" position is what we are seeing in "cloning bans." This amounts to micro-managing social ethics based upon arbitrary interpretations of historic moral code.

Being moral and ethical is a good thing, but I don't think Moses, or Jimmy Swaggart for that matter, were preparred to address the ethical and moral implications of late 20th century genectic technology. While I do not favor giving research the total 'free hand' (as one of our departed members did); I do favor carefull consideration of the effects and promisses of new research.

As Dawn is clearly showing; Cloning can be part of a tremendous wave of medical advancement; We should not "ban" its human application(s) because someone fears some fantasy "clone war." We probably should place certain ethical limits though, e.g. "no cloning full-blown people with no expressed rights." (An embryo, rightly or not, doesn't have much in the way of rights whereas a 10 months old from conception human does.)

No organ farms, please. That was one Sci/Fi series that seems all to plausible.

Keith Fosberg - Monday, 11/30/98, 10:34:45am (#429 of 429)

You want absolute, well ok. Human cloning should be completely banned.

What happens is that a unique human is created for experimentation. The survival rate is horrendous (see dolly experiments). Human experimentation is not allowed at all without the consent of the subject, yet these people that are created will be destroyed when convenient and a horrible percentage will be created and die due to the lack of knowledge on the subject.

Cloning of animals I have absolutely no problem with except in the creation of human/animal chimeras.

Just because something can be done is no reason to do it.

You mean when I accept abortion as the lessor of two evils? No I do not think so. While I think a "pure" rejection of all abortion would be a more consistent stand, I think consistency for the sake of consistency can be self defeating. I value ethics, but in some cases I think one has to say, to hell with ethics and do the right thing. If the choice is between a child having severe birth defects and an abortion, I will support abortion every time. I do not consider this as evidence of hypocrisy. Just the opposite. What I dislike the most is "convenience abortion" that could have been prevented with appropriate birth control.

The thing I mainly oppose is a health related industry that would depend on a continuing supply of aborted fetuses as the raw "material." However, if use of fetal material is required only to get a culture started, and there is no connection between those doing abortions and those seeking starter cells for culture, then it is easier to overlook the relationship of this technology with abortion. I agree that genetic manipulation at the embryonic stage is not the same as the fetal stage. I do not oppose the use of embryonic material. It has no relation to abortion if the embryonic material is never implanted. But I think it is even better to use an enucleated cow egg, if it works, and it appears that it may.

Not so fast, Bill. You haven't even begun to examine the issue. Sure, you are opposed to full term human cloning resulting in a baby. Lots of people are.

Now tell us what you think about that.

Cliff Beall - Wednesday, 12/02/98, 12:09:42am (#432 of 432)

I am familiar with the research. My opinion was stated withthe knowedge of stem cell research. As opposed to the stemcells taken from umbilical cords that can essentially develop into any type of blood cell (including blood producing marrow) these stem cells are completely undifferentiated human cells. So in essence you take a newly created person, split them apart into twins and create more twins. Since this is all experimental all of these humans will be destroyed. Hello Dr. Mengele. It's a sad day when people are so excited over the wonton destruction of human life. If the only choice for me was to have my life saved by materials developed in such a manner I would reject it utterly. Killing others without just cause never a good thing.

Bill, the umbilical cord work shows that stem cells can do great things, but there was a 25% graft versus host reaction with the cord blood stem cells. They only have to match 4 out of 6 antigens in cord blood, versus 5 out of 6 for adult donors, but it still isn't perfect. ES cells from discarded embryos would need even fewer antigen matches, and somatic cell nuclear transfer from the person who needs the transplant would be the best of all. (That's why I believe the cow egg/human skin cell fusion is a great idea, if it works). If the cloned cells are used to repair damaged tissue and not to create a new person, I imagine most people needing a bone marrow or other transplant would jump at the chance. I am sure that the "potential human being" wouldn't mind, since she has all of my genes and would think like me, given the opportunity!

Cliff, you were right in assuming that I am a liberal, although I don't like Clinton and think he should resign. Certainly birth control is preferable to abortion, but it sometimes fails. And despite all parents do to teach birth control, many young girls are too embarrassed to use it. Then they go into denial and refuse to acknowledge that they are pregnant. There have been two cases in 14-15 year old girls in my family--one gave the baby away, one had an abortion at 16 weeks. The one with the baby "out there" is in much worse shape emotionally. But this is off topic, isn't it?

I don't see how anyone whos into life could be against any of this biotech revolution stuff. Look, I'm 35 years olds, look younger than my age, and absolutely love to do outdoor sports, adventure, and go clubbing just as much as I did 10-15 years ago. I really see the biotech breakthroughs, particularly the stem-cell regeneration work, as being my ticket to an indefinitely long, youthful life-span. I really do think that this stem-cell research will lead to this in the next 10-15 years! And you people are hung up on so-called religious and "ethical" concerns? Get real! Do you really expect me to forego my chance at immortality just to please some religous or politically-correct "bioethics" people?(I would use stronger language, but CNN would delete my post).

I could care less about what the religious people have to say about these technologies. If it really gets down to it, I'll use whatever technologies to stay young and live my life over any embryo, right-to-life people anyday. Even if I have to buy it on the black market or go to Thailand to get it. The religious and bioethics people haven't a clue!

Okay, Bill, I accept your credentials as a "rabid anti." I have respect for opposing points of view including your point of view. I am sure it is sincerely felt. Understand, however, that I disagree with you and will argue strongly against what you have said.

If you have been following the discussion, you will know that I am generally opposed to abortion, but that I have no problem with the use of embryonic material for the purposes under discussion. My reasoning is as follows:

Once an embryo is implanted and attaches to the uterine wall, that embryo has already become a potential person in the sense that no additional effort is required to cause the birth. I consider it unethical to interfere with a viable life such as this, and in general, I oppose abortion. However, unless or until the embryo is implanted, there is no chance for a live birth, and, in my view, there are no ethical problems.

One of the objections I have heard about in vitro fertilization (and the same holds for cloning) is that the in vitro process involves "discarded embryos," and this is described as a "wanton destruction of life." But in truth, the process is roughly the same as that used by nature. In both cases, in vitro and nature, non-implanted "humans" are discarded.

But this is the very nature of life, Bill. Would you insist that women never have a period since having a period means that a potential human is killed. Could one not make the argument that a woman having a period represents the death of a possible human being in exactly the same sense as discarding an embryo during an in vitro or cloning process? If we have such concern on the one hand, should we not have equal concern on the other hand. When a woman is about to have a period, should it not be incumbent upon her to hurry up and find a male to fertilize her egg to prevent the death of this potential human?

Does not most women kill a potential human every month? Is this not essentially the same thing you are railing against? If it is not, what is the difference?

Yes, Dawn, but it is what makes abortion such a tough issue. I do not think a fourteen year old has any business giving birth--much less raising a child. I think this is another one of those cases where one has to say to hell with ethics and do the right thing.

Kurt, I do not see a problem with what you want to do. I do not know whether it will work or not, but I see no specific ethical problem.

Cliff Beall - Thursday, 12/03/98, 2:59:03am (#437 of 437)

Ok a fertilized egg is a person, an unfertilized is a half diploid cell. The egg cannot reproduce hence is not a living organism.

In the lab though the 'discarding' (killing) is intentional and deliberate. Morally speaking intent counts for a lot.

Kurt there was a medeval woman who thought she would live forever (real story forgot name) by bathing in the blood of virgins. She killed many before she was caught & walled up in a tower. Congratulations you are her heir. I will not live at the cost of the lives of innocents.

Neither can a fertilized egg outside the womb since it does not have a source of nourishment. It is only after the embryo is implanted and attaches to the uterine wall that a continuing source of nourishment--absolutely necessary to sustain the life--is establish. Until it attaches to the uterine wall, the embryo has no chance at becoming a viable living organism. Once it has attached, specific actions must be taken to prevent the continuation of that life. I think that difference is rather fundamental.

It is no more deliberate than a woman's specific decision not to have sex and, as a result, deprive the egg in her body from having a chance at life. You do not demand that women be required to avoid having periods in order to avoid loss of life, but you seem to be saying that if a doctor fails to implant every single embryo available to him, the discarding (killing) is "intentional and deliberate." I would argue that implantation of embryos in the in vitro process to create a new life that otherwise would not have existed is a very deliberate process, but failure to implant an embryo is not. Seems to me you have it backwards.

That is a cheap shot, Bill. The ES cell research to which Kurt refers is likely to involve embryonic manipulation and possibly some use of fetal tissue. It is unlikely to require the blood of virgins, however

Cliff Beall - Thursday, 12/03/98, 5:27:02pm (#439 of 439)

Dependance on any form of support does not define a human being. Christopher Reeves would die without his ventillator yet he is still human.

There is a great moral difference in inaction which does not cause a life to come into being and the deliberate destruction of a life that has started.

So these embroyo's have had sex right??? The ES cell research deliberately destroys humans hence it is an accurate analogy.

Bill,
How about using somatic nuclear transfer with non-human eggs for ES work?

In this case you have half of the required cells to grow a cow combined with the genetic code from an adult human cell. I don't think there is too much chance that this is a potential "anything" in terms of an expectation of eventual live birth!

Back to the main thread: I happen to share Cliff's "point of humanity" as regards implantation. I argued this on the Abortion board for a while, and succeeded in making everyone angry. (Appearantly one only wins friends by stating an extream opinion on that board!)

How about emryos initiated through ex-vitro? (Cool term?) If eggs are donated (not pleasent, I understand, but some will do it for the $$) and fertilized with donated (for some reason this donation is easier to solicit) sperm, but completely outside the body; Is there any difference (to you) in the moral implications?

Keith Fosberg - Friday, 12/04/98, 9:37:41am (#441 of 441)

I'm still puzzling over this one... trying to asess all of the implications. These are not easy decisions to make... I'll get back to ya.

No, a person concieved is a person concieved. It is due to the elimination and wants of experimentors that I oppose in-vitro fertilization as well as abortion.

I suppose, then, that you would say that without the support of the earth's atmosphere, we would be human nevertheless. I say that without the earth's atmosphere, we would not exist. And if we did not exist, it seems to me that we could hardly be defined as human beings.

I fully agree with that statement. But it is beside the point. With respect to in vitro fertilization, the "destruction" is not "deliberate." What is deliberate is the fertilization of an egg, and subsequent implantation of that fertilized egg in the hope that it will attach and grow into a person that otherwise would never have existed.

Other embryos exist as a result of the procedure because a number of eggs are normally collected and fertilized, from which the healthiest are implanted in hopes that at least one may grow. This is a similar process to the one used by nature in the sense that, in nature, a significant number of eggs that are fertilized are spontaneously aborted, either because they do not attach correctly, or due to fetal defects. (If nature did not take this type of corrective action, we, as a society, would probably be overrun with people born with "birth defects.")

It should also be understood that in vitro fertilization is a very difficult procedure. In most cases, if the doctor actually attempted to implant every single fertilized egg available, as you seem to desire, most would die anyway. The question is, why implant the obviously less healthy embryos, most of which will die if implanted? Why not pick several of the healthiest in hopes that one of those might attach and grow? It just simply makes sense. You may find something wrong with that if you wish, but I do not.

Embryos do not "have sex," and ES cell research does not "deliberately" destroy embryos. In most cases, there is simply no reason for keeping these embryos alive, and no means of causing them to grow into a person anyway. The real point is that when the scientists do nothing, the embryos die. In your example, if the medieval woman had done nothing, the virgins would have lived. I think there is a great deal of difference.

Keith, I am beginning to seriously doubt that that will work. As near as I can tell, there is no evidence that it will, and I can not imagine why it might. Dawn seems to think it may be possible, and I know the hazards of disagreeing with her on anything related to biology, but it does not make any sense to me. Maybe she needs to "explain" it to me again.

Hopefully, we are better than that here. BTW, I have really enjoyed the debate with Bill so far. He has been quite civil to this point and a lot tougher in his arguments than I expected that he would be. Thank you very much for gaining his interest.

In nature, a fertilized egg that does not attach to the uterine wall is generally considered to be "spontaneously aborted." My question is, if a sperm fertilizes an egg, but the egg does not subsequently attach to the uterine wall, is this really a "conception"? In other words, has the woman really conceived: "become pregnant with child"?

I would tend to consider attachment to be part of the conception process. Certainly, a woman does not become pregnant with child until after the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall.

I think even you would agree with that.

I suppose you will insist, that a conception has occurred, even without the attachment, and I suppose you can point to the terminology of "spontaneous abortion" in support of your position. If so, I would say it is meaningless, since without attachment, a child is not--and can not be--born.

In consequence, I find that I must fall back on the argument that in the IVF procedure, the doctor has no means of causing the excess embryos to grow into a person. I now believe I can not truthfully say that the excess embryos would probably die anyway, and I will not use an argument that I believe to be false.

But, on the other hand, if a surrogate mother is not available in which to implant the excess embryos, it seems axiomatic to me that the the doctor can hardly force the issue.

In consequence, I find that I must discard the argument that the excess embryos would probably die anyway, even if implanted, and fall back on the argument that in the IVF procedure, the doctor has no means of causing the excess embryos to grow into a person only. This may seem to weaken my argument somewhat. Still, if a surrogate mother is not available in which to implant the excess embryos, it seems axiomatic to me that the doctor can hardly force the issue.

Cliff Beall - Saturday, 12/05/98, 12:18:12am (#444 of 447)

Actually there is a movement to adopt emproyos starting. In response to the cavaleer treatment of them in the lab. But like the bad old days of slavery these individuals are considered property.

Hey I try ;)

Cliff Beall - Saturday, 12/05/98, 12:55:32am (#445 of 447)

Until the child passes from the body or dies naturally she is 'with child'.

Attachement is really closer to the growth process as it is vital to continued growth. Conception happens when the sperm enters the eg and the two half diploid cells become one human cell, then two, then 4 then etc...

[cont'd] and I suppose you can point to the terminology of "spontaneous abortion" in support of your position. If so, I would say it is meaningless, since without attachment, a child is not--and can not be--born.

But that does not mean that a human has not been created does it?

Well, at least we have progressed from deliberate destruction to cavalier treatment of embryos. Also, I note that you did not contest my objection to your supposed analogy.

I certainly see nothing wrong with "adopting" an embryo, and actually, I see nothing wrong with the concept of ownership of embryos. Embryo are just collections of undifferentiated cells. They are not people. They have no brain, no heart, no fingers, no toes, none of the things that define a person. Look, I own the cells in my body, and it is my understanding that I can sell them if I so choose. Years ago, when I was in the U.S. Navy, I knew a guy that periodically sold a pint of his blood for additional "drinking money." I assume this sort of thing is still being done. While it is not something I personally did or would do, I think the guy had a right to do it if he wanted.

Basically, as I understand it, adopting an embryo involves paying the electricity bill to prevent it from being unfrozen, since once it is unfrozen, the cells making up the embryo will die. (You can correct me if I am wrong.) Anyway, with respect to ownership of these embryos, it really doesn't matter. In the unlikely event that one of these "adopted" embryo is ever implanted, grows into a person and is born in a particular locality, it will have the same rights of citizenship as any other person born in that particular locality. (This ownership will not continue after a child is born.)

I do not agree that an embryo is a child, but never mind that, for now. In your opinion, is the woman "pregnant"?

Yes, I know that is what you believe, but my question is: "when, in your opinion, does the woman become pregnant"?

A second question: "when does one become a person"? It has been noted that Genesis appears to imply that it is when one starts breathing after birth. Genesis specifically says that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul."

If you are a Christian--and I assume you are--you have to give consideration to this scripture and it's implications. As an agnostic, I do not. It is reasonable enough for me to suppose that the author of Genesis was mistaken and that one becomes a person (living soul) much earlier. I personally think it is shortly after attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterine wall when the cells start differentiating into the separate organs that define a separate entity, approximately a week after the fertilization of the egg. At this point, conception is complete and the woman is pregnant with child. This is what makes sense to me.

Folks,

an article in today's Washington Times states that Dr. Seed has secured 75% of the US$ 20 million to construct a laboratory in Japan that is capable of implementing animal and human cloning.

The article also states that it will be his wife (instead of him,) who is going to be the subject of the human cloning experiment.

Hmmm. Clone wars with the Japanese. I don't think so.

They are however on the cutting edge of this technology. With a resurgence of their former economic prosperity they may soon have the clout to tell Europe and the US to bugger off about their ethical and environmental concerns.

What else does the article say, Bernhard, and do you have an online reference? Does it say where the support is coming from?

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 12/06/98, 12:00:50pm (#451 of 455)

When a child is concieved in her body.

?A second question: "when does one become a person"? It has been noted that Genesis appears to imply that it is when one starts breathing after birth. Genesis specifically says that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul."

You are a person when you are human, i.e. at conception.

The negotiation of personhood is a slippery slope. If someone doesn't breathe are they not human? Someone on a heart/lung machine does not breath yet they are human. Somone on total lifesupport is human. someone with no arms and legs no sight, vision or hearing is still human. The process odf birth too is simply a change in location how can a change in location change your status from property to human?... and on the embroyo adoption, they are adopting the embryos to have them implanted within themselves or others. THis is not just a let's keep them frozen drive. All humans have the right to live (not be killed) born and unborn.

Hmmm. Clone wars with the Japanese. I don't think so. They are however on the cutting edge of this technology. With a resurgence of their former economic prosperity they may soon have the clout to tell Europe and the US to bugger off about their ethical and environmental concerns. - Carl Nicolai

Actually, according to this article in the Washington Times (sorry Cliff, they didn't put it online - the Times is a much more primitive publication than the Washington Post is), the Japanese government has condemned cloning for ethical reasons, but Japan's scientists want no government interference in this respect. Evidently, they have more clout than U.S. scientists have.

As far as Seed is concerned, his group has already purchased land to build the "factory." It will consist of an animal and human cloning lab.

Fair enough. Now let me see. Fertilization occurs when the sperm fuses with the egg to form a diploid zygote in the fallopian tube. Three or four days later, the fertilized egg leaves the fallopian tube and enters the uterine cavity. But assume that for some reason, the outer layer of blastomere cells fails to secrete the enzyme needed to erodes the epithelial uterine lining and the egg is thus unable to attach to the uterine wall. Unable to attach, it eventually dies and is discarded by the woman's body. Or maybe it is discarded first, and then it dies. Either way, just to make sure I have understood your position correctly, tell me precisely when you think the woman become pregnant, and when you think she stopped being pregnant--and why?

Okay, if someone has been dead for a hundred years, are they still human?

Well, some thirty years ago, my wife and I had a child. My sperm cell belonged to me. (If not to me, pray tell me who it belonged to.) My wife's egg belonged to her. (If not to her, pray tell me who it belonged to.) When my sperm fused with her egg, the combined fertilized egg belonged to us together in common. (How could it be otherwise?) But when our son was born, he was, immediately at birth, a citizen of the United States of America, having all the rights and privileges of any other American citizen. Does that answer your question?

Cliff Beall - Monday, 12/07/98, 8:48:44am (#458 of 458)

When the egg is fertilized she is pregnant (the child is concieved & within her body). She stops being pregnant when the child dies or leaves her body. Pregnancy is being 'with child'.

bill unverferth said: The negotiation of personhood is a slippery slope...someone with no arms and legs no sight, vision or hearing is still human.

Okay, if someone has been dead for a hundred years, are they still human?

From the moment they are concieved to the moment they die they are human.

bill unverferth said: The process of birth too is simply a change in location how can a change in location change your status from property to human?..

No. What was the difference in your child in the 5 minutes before birth to 5 minutes after birth that made him different. He (if the child is a she I apologize) was human in the womb human outside of it. What is the difference other than location (leave the state outta this as there were humans before there was even a concept of state)? Or do you believe we can own humans?

Keith, Cliff: Until Advanced Cell Tech, Inc. publishes some hard data, we won't know if the cow -human fusions work to produce human ES cells, but I believe it is possible. Cow eggs seem to be good at getting the developmental process underway, and others have reported using primate somatic cells and achieving the blastocyst stage with enucleated bovine eggs. When sperm meets egg, none of the sperm mitochondria enter the zygote, but in an enucleated cow egg/somatic human cell fusion, there will be a few mitochondria supplied by the human cell...although many more from the cow. Mitochondria only code for 24 ribosomal or transfer RNAs, and 13 proteins. Most of the mitochondrial proteins are encoded in the nucleus, so by blastocyst stage most of the cow stuff will be gone, even from the mitochondria. Will the human mitochonria take over, or will the hybrid mitochondria function"? I don't know. The blastocyst consists of about 130+ cells, an outer layer of cells that attaches to the uterine wall, and an inner cell mass--the embryonic stem cells. The outer layer is removed (and destroyed) to culture the ES cells, which scientists hope will be immortal and capable of induction into various human cell types, such as cardiomyoblasts, beta pancreatic cells, neurons etc. Of course, a human blastocyst created from a donor human egg and the somatic cell of the person needing the transplant would be best source of all for ES cells, and that is why most scientists want to continue this type of research, but stop short of cloning.

Question for Bill: If it turns out that every cell of your body is a potential human being, what then? Would the fusion of the enucleated egg and the donor skin cell become the point of "conception?" Clearly, we can't consider every somatic cell as some sort of sacred entity.

Bill, although I am decidely a pro-choice person, I do agree with you that a zygote is different from an egg--or even more obvious, from a sperm. (A lot of those get "wasted.") Whether conception and fertilization are the same thing or not is a matter of semantics and philosophy, and you and Cliff will never agree. As for myself, I see a great deal of difference between a bunch of undifferentiated cells and an organism with recognizable structure. Implantation is an easy point in time to define, whereas "recognizable structure" is almost impossible! Development is a continnum, and it is very difficult to pick the point in time when "humanity" begins, at least it is for me. But it is somewhere beyond implantation.

I assume ther are no federal laws yet on what to do with leftover embryos. The physicians usually try to fertilize all of the eggs that they harvest, and pick the ones that do best. There is no good reason to implant seven! At least not anymore, as the technique has improved. If there is going to be a take, it doesn't matter how many are inserted into the womb. The overall process is not very efficient, but that probably has more to do with the age of the prospective mother and her eggs, if donor eggs aren't being used.

The current congressional ban on using federal funds for research clearly applies to the creation of ES cells from human embryos, but the Nat. Inst. of Health is asking for a legal opinion on whether or not research on the ES cells created through private funding can be supported with federal dollars.

Could I get you to explain why you believe that. To me pregnancy has to be more than the mere location of a zygote. How can the mere location of a zygote define something as fundamental as pregnancy? If a woman put a fertilized egg in her mouth, would she be pregnant? It would be "within her body." What is the difference?

Location can be pretty important, Bill. I know you must think so since you choose to define pregnancy in terms of the location of a zygote :-)

But seriously, Bill, the concept of ownership is a legal issue that must involve the state. You can not avoid it. Leaving the state out of the discussion makes absolutely no sense, and if you were to give it some thought, I think you would see why.

The state (society) defines ownership. Our society permits the ownership of land, for example. Some societies do not. Most American Indian tribes did not permit private ownership of the land. They believed it should be owned in common by all. Our society does permit ownership of land, but does not permit the ownership of the air. (Our society does grant "water rights." For example, the city of San Diego pays a lot of money to a particular family for water from the Colorado River based on a "claim" granted to an ancestor.) I therefore think I told you correctly. I own my cells until they become the cell

cells of another citizen. Upon his birth, my son became a citizen. Upon becoming a citizen, he immediately became the owner of those cells that formerly belonged to me and my wife.

I do not think it exists before attachment.

Cliff, I hope the Senate Labor-Appropriations Committee agrees with your definition. The three scientists who testified this week are eager to have the ban on federal funding for human embryo research lifted, and hope that the National Institutes of Health no only fund stem cell research, but that they be held accountable for the development of specific guidelines, oversight mechanisms, ethical consideration and appropriate peer review for the conduct of stem cell research. Otherwise it will be done in secret outside of the public scrutiny. John Gerhart of Johns Hopkins has apparently induced his ES cells (obtained from 7 week aborted fetus) to differentiate into neurons. Parkinson's will probably be the first disease to be treated with this therapy.

Since the ES cells have been separated from the blastocyst, the scientists argue that they don't have the potential to become human life (although I would guess that if they are re-introduced into a blastocyst, that they, like similar mouse cells, could grow into a complete organism if implanted).

The Conference of Catholic Bishops believe that Congress must not permit this type of research to go forward. They believe that alternate mechanisms of research will enable the same outcome at a future point in time--but they don't know what those mechanisms might be. Their position is that Congress will be making moral decisions about how the nation viewed the creation and destruction of embryos. I gather that they don't even want Congress to fund research on the ES cells after they have already been created and are growing in culture.

To be perfectly frank, I am not sure I want the government directly involved. When the government gets directly involved in things like this, it quickly becomes the defender of procedures it should be policing, and the government has so much power that it can do practically anything. Who polices the government when it goes off the deep end? I think the government has, and should have, a legitimate oversight function, and should stick to what it does best.

Anyway, I have no concern about this research being done in "secret." Private companies know that before a therapy, based on this technology, can be brought to market, it has to have FDA approval, do they not? How are these companies going to gain FDA approval if they fail to publish their studies. It seems to me that this is a pretty good stick, and I think it is enough to keep them honest.

I know you disagree, but, you know: that's cool.

This deal about not having to use additional abortion material--that is what I like about it.

Now that the Japanese have gotten eight good clones from one cow, Dr. Seed will have his day soon.

Me thinks.

Eight good clones, huh?

Guess you didn't hear that half of those eight died after live birth, supposedly unrelated to the cloning.

The CNN report neglected to mention that four of the eight died after birth, but the reports from both the Boston Globe and the Washington Post mentioned it. Supposedly, the death of half of the live births was unrelated to the cloning method, however.

Specifically, the Boston Globe reports that the japanese scientist transplanted 37 nuclei from cumulus cells and 88 nuclei from the oviduct cells into cow eggs whose nucleus had been removed. About half the 37 embryos made with cumulus cells and about one-fourth of the embryos created using oviduct cells appeared to develop normally. (The cumulus cells are from the ovaries of a cow and are similar to the mouse cells used by scientists at the university of Hawaii to clone their mice.)

Then they implanted 10 cells, presumably the ten most active normally developing embryos, into surrogate mother cows. Eight of those pregnancies led to live births, 4 of which later died.

Give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about human cloning does it not?

CNN, I really do miss that delete button. It is irritating as hell to notice an error in a post, just entered, and be unable to delete and repost. A few days ago, I decided I didn't much like the wording of a post and rewrote it. But after posting the rewrite, I discovered I could not delete the old one. So there they were, the old and the new posts, side by side, saying essentially the same thing, looking silly as hell, and me helpless to do anything about it. Any chance of getting the delete button back any time soon?

Then they implanted 10 cells, presumably the ten most active normally developing embryos, into surrogate mother cows. Eight of those pregnancies led to live births, 4 of which later died...Give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about human cloning does it not? - Cliff Beall

Wasn't it you who once said nature is selective when it comes to deciding what lives and what dies?

What is the difference between 4 still births and 4 births that die later?

With respect to cattle, none of which I am aware. You were the one who said: "eight good clones from one cow." How about 4 apparent successes out of 10 chance.

Hey, not bad, compared to earlier success (mainly failure) rates. But, truthfully, is even this the kind of odds that we desire for human cloning?

I am very curious about whether the four calves that lived came mainly (or entirely) from one or the other type of cell.

With respect to your question as to what I might have said about nature being selective when it comes to deciding what lives and what dies, I don't know. I sounds almost like something like something I might have said. But I think I would be more likely to use the word capricious.

With respect to cattle, none of which I am aware. - Cliff Beall

And with respect to humans, there should be none either.

Recall that prior to modern times, still births and infant deaths were quite common. If we could produce one good clone from three attempts, I would call it a success.

You know, Bernhard, it is a funny thing. I grew up on a farm, and every spring, the new calves were born. I remember losing a calf or two to cold weather once, and I remember a breech birth once which required a vet. Otherwise, I do not remember any problems. The calves were simply born as expected.

This appeal to times prior to modern times makes no sense to me at all. We are living in modern times. Why should we want to go back. What kind of sense does that make. One healthy offspring in three? That doesn't sound very good to me for either cattle or humans.

This appeal to times prior to modern times makes no sense to me at all. We are living in modern times. Why should we want to go back. - Cliff Beall

It was meant to be a comparison. Let's say in the 1800s, a woman, during her fertile lifetime, produced four successful births and 16 still births. How different would this be if we were to produce four successful human clones from a "litter" of 20?

In other words, if four clones are what is desired, and if it takes 20 attempts to achieve this goal, the rest can be discarded without any moral qualms. If nature does it, so can we.

Okay, I see what you mean, Bernhard.

But I disagree. I think we should wait until cloning success is roughly comparable to IVF success rates. The way things are going, I don't think it will be that long. Why purposefully give your opponents in this matter an argument that they would not otherwise have, and that will be incredibly difficult to counter?

Cliff, there will always be arguments such as this. Even when cloning has been "perfected," it will be a matter of economics to provide multiple attempts rather than one attempt, to save time and money.

Suppose a couple wants one child. The cloning factory will make, let's say, 10 attempts and the first embryo successfully developed will be this child. So what are they going to do with the other embryos? Throw them away, of course.

No implantation so Cliff should not mind. (I would guess)

That is right, Carl. And I would not be upset if someone implants such an embryo and a healthy child that somebody wants and will love is delivered.

But, in the interest of the advancement of this technology, any investigator who performs this operation should be reasonably certain that the technology is ready and that a healthy child will be the result of the experiment. Until then, I suggest caution.

The Koreans have done it and Japanese are soon to follow. There are no ethical restrictions in their country.

Cliff, it looks as if you may be wrong about the Senate having time to discuss ES and cloning research. I'm not sure why you think that academic researchers should be cut out of doing ES research by denying them government grants. I hope that the NIH legal team decides that ES cells, once created, don't fall under the congressional ban...but this will probably be challenged in the courts unless the ban itself is lifted. I am somewhat concerned about biotech companies paying egg and sperm donors a pittance and then patenting their genetic material and getting rich from it. On the other hand, should the donors be richly compensated for something any fertile person could do? You are right, it appears that the ES cell lines are immortal, and so one will not have to go back to source materials once they have stored enough of them, and that is good news.

Bernard, are you implying that the Japanese and Koreans are not ethical? They may (or may not) have different standards from Western standards, but I believe that every society has its own code of ethics. The Korean researcher who produced the clone is quoted as saying he won't go any further than the four cell stage unless "a social, moral and legal consensus was reached." However, I'll bet anyone who is rich enough and wants to clone him or herself will soon be beating a path to Korea. It might pump up the SE Asian economy.

I am wondering if anyone is working on cloning extinct animals. Wooly mammoths have been found frozen in Siberia as have other pre-historic animals. A mammoth embroyo could be cloned and transplanted into an elephant. Certain habitats could be set aside where people could see these animals. Also we would learn a lot more about them if we actually had live ones.

Yes, ES cells are immortal, but you can't use ES cells from another doner because of the rejection problem. That's why human cloning research is so important. The objective is to take a cell from your own body and clone it to generate the ES cells that are genetically compatible with your own body. I think the rejection problem is an inherent problem of genetics, and I really don't want to modify, and possibly damage, my immune system in order to accept ES cells from another doner when, instead, I can have my own cloned.

However, it gets better than that. Our bodies have stem cells in them but, unlike the ES cells, they are not immortal (at least I don't think so). So, the trick is to immortalize them using some kind of telemerase therapy that works only on the stem cells(you don't want to immortalize your regular body cells), then apply the appropriate growth factors to regenerate/rejuventate the tissues that you want to in your body. I strongly suspect that this is the kind of thing than Geron Corp. and others are developing right now. We should know in the next 3-5 years.

Best Regards

BTW, the Japanese and Koreans have thier own standards of ethics and in some ways, the are more luddite than we are. For example, the Japanese have only this year recognized cessation of neuro activity as a criterion of death (something the U.S. medical profession did in the 60's). Also, there is an extreme cultural reation to organ transplants in Japan. That's why there have been several publicized cases of Japanese people traveling to Los Angeles for organ transplants.

Best Regards

Bernard, are you implying that the Japanese and Koreans are not ethical? They may (or may not) have different standards from Western standards, but I believe that every society has its own code of ethics. - Dawn Willis

According to an article in The Washington Times, the Japanese government believes human cloning is unethical, but Japanese human cloning researchers demand that their government should stay out in this matter. Evidently, these scientists have more clout than comparable compatriots in our country have.

I believe it's either going to be the Koreans, or the Japanese (perhaps Dr. Seed's laboratory near Kyoto), who will bring forth the first fully-developed human clone.

Dawn, I figured you--considering your great wisdom--would be able to avoid a "told you so." Guess I was wrong about that too:-) Okay, so I was wrong about it all ending before Christmas. I admit it. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part, and I must say that I am very disappointed in the republicans in congress. It seems to me that they are about as hypocritical as the democrats were in '74--and that is saying something. I have been listening to the debate. It seems to me that the republicans are really hell bent on a payback for all the democratic investigations of recent republican presidents. For their part, the democrats are upset, mainly, because they are not being allowed to vote against "immorality," like they would like to, and think they should, but must, instead, vote for or against articles of impeachment which, for political reasons, they can not vote for. Sort of puts them on record as being weak on family values. My heart really bleeds for them :-) BTW, who passed that stupid Special Counsel law, anyway?

Nevertheless, all this will end shortly after the first of the year. The republicans absolutely do not have the 67 votes in the Senate necessary to remove the president from office, and Hillary will make sure the democrats stay in line. I predict that biotechnology will get plenty of attention in 1999.

Okay. Please answer this, when a academic researcher, working on a grant, makes a discovery, who gets the patent? A company which supports research typically get the patent, when discoveries are made. Seems fair to me. After all, they are the ones paying for the research. So when the people support research with the

with their tax dollars, how come the people don't get the patent? They paid for the research.

It sounds to me like it is probably pretty well covered.

I am strictly opposed to the patenting of genetic material. I think only technology should be patented. A company that discovers a useful technology should be able to patent it, and should be able to make money from it provided the use of the technology does not break the law.

I wonder if that balances being wrong on impeachment?

This appears to me to be contrary to what Dr Gearhart said, and I want a second opinion. Dawn, is that true about the "rejection problem"?

The republicans absolutely do not have the 67 votes in the Senate necessary to remove the president from office, and Hillary will make sure the democrats stay in line. - Cliff Beall

Don't bank on it. But let's drop this subject. It has nothing to do with cloning and NOBODY in the world would ever want to clone William Jefferson Clinton. With the exception of pork producers, perhaps.

As far as ES cells are concerned, they are not being rejected by any body.

Very funny, Bernhard. Also funny is how you said to drop the subject and then came up with a real zinger. I congratulate you for your style, but I do not agree. I think it has relevance in the sense that needed discussion in the congress on the ethics of cloning is being superceded by this impeachment thing. It has been a long time coming, with seeds that go back twenty-five years, but never mind who started this type of slash and burn politics. For it to run it's course, I think the republican majority in the senate must quickly compromise to put an end to this rancor and get back to the deliberate resolution of real issues, including biology and cloning.

I understand by this that you are saying that Kurt is incorrect and that rejection of ES cells is not a problem. On the other hand, I can not be completely sure that this is your intent because the phrase: "are not being rejected," seems to leave open the possibility that the intent may depend on the definition of the word "are." Please clarify.

For it to run it's course, I think the republican majority in the senate must quickly compromise to put an end to this rancor and get back to the deliberate resolution of real issues, including biology and cloning. - Cliff Beall

There should be no debate on the ethics of cloning. There is no room for ethics when it comes to scientific processes. There was no debate on the ethics of utilizing nuclear fission during WW II.

As long as cells of any (animal) organism are not specialized, they should not be rejected in humans. This is my understanding.

Great question. I'm not sure anyone knows. The imune system is said to be almost as complex as the "mind".

Just what level of complexity can it differentiate?

Bernhard, it seems to me that part of what you are saying is that what you do is your own business. I am in general agreement and would admit that if it does not involve (1) me or (2) mine, (3) the common environment, (4) the public purse or (5) the health and safety of any human being, then what you do is entirely your own business and none of mine.

Bernhard, you generally make some sense, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying that because there was no debate prior to the first use of nuclear fission, any such debate would have been improper? The reason there was no public debate prior to it's first use was because the technology was secret. But there has been plenty of debate since then. Is the debate that has since occurred improper? How about "peaceful" uses of nuclear fission? Are these uses outside the bounds of debate since they are "scientific processes"? Also, how about biological and chemical weapons. Would you shut off debate on the utilization of these types of weapons because these also are "scientific processes"?

Cloning is, of course, much less dangerous to society than nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and, probably, the "peaceful" use of nuclear fission. But I insist that the ethics of it's utilization should be publicly debated. Public debate of all public issues, particularly those involving the health and safety of individual humans, is the very cornerstone of democracy. Do you not believe in democracy?

Kurt, umbilical cord stem cell transplants from unrelated donors have been found to "take" very well in bone marrow transplants. Embryonic stem cells do not express the major histocompatibility antigens on their surfaces. So theoretically a ES cells from any human source should work, although I predict they won't be totally universal--maybe a panel of ES cell types, analogous to blood types, could be developed. ES cells grown from your very own donor cells would be perfect, if this becomes possible--but you will still need human donor eggs (unless the cow thing is for real) Geron is definitely working on telomerase gene therapy, but I don't think they as yet make ES-like cells that are pluripotent, just immortalized ones.

Cliff, one of my major faults is wanting to be "right." My husband, bless him, has learned to laugh about it, so I am glad you were also amused. Patent policy has changed a lot over the years. It used to be that academic researchers signed away all patent rights to their university or other non-profit institution. The government or agency that supported the research didn't get anything (and neither did the researcher). Then biotechnology came along, and researchers began seeking company support and negotiating patents with the institution. You study patents a lot, so I am sure you are more aware of current laws than I am. The Cancer Society has been asked to change its patent policy, because it is more strict than the federal one. We used to only allow licensing for five years, then ten--I guess the government allows even longer periods. Our goal is to get the treatment or whatever to the public at the most reasonable cost, without overly penalizing the people who developed the drug or whatever.

I believe that the company with the ES cells intends to patent the cells, as well as the technique. The technique doesn't mean a lot, if once you get the cells you can grow your own. If the government lifts the embryo research ban,

Cliff, I firmly believe that science should not be subjected to ethical censorship since such censorship would impede scientific progress.

A good example is Galileo vs. the Church of Rome.

However, I do agree with you that the application of scientific processes (e.g. nuclear fission bombs) should have ethical reviews.

Essentially what I am saying in reference to human cloning is that there should be no restrictions to develop and "perfect" the human cloning process, but restrictions based on ethical considerations could be applied as to how human cloning is being implemented.

Natural laws operate without ethics. It is in our interest to uncover the laws of nature so that mankind can benefit from them. No restrictions should be imposed upon someone who has embarked on a journey to delve into the mysteries of the universe.

Wanting to be right is not a fault and you said it correctly. Actually, I was just having some fun. Having been proven wrong, I needed to respond in a somewhat clever way. My only concern was that you might think that I actually took it seriously. Therefore the smiley.

Actually, I do not know much about patent policy in this area except with respect to matters previously discussed on this board and articles in popular science magazines. I don't know why I even mentioned it now, except it reflected an opinion, which I am scarcely inclined to withhold. I have absolutely nothing against academic researchers, and wish them well. Having said that, is it fair to mention my reservations about the grant system?

If my understanding of the grant system, is reasonably correct, I think it leaves a great deal to be desired. Supposedly, academic research has to do with pure science issues that private industry might consider too risky. Right?

The problem is that obtaining a new grant is largely dependent on "positive" results of prior investigations. (A favorite, nowadays, I am told, is to obtain a grant to study the effects of smoking. Studying the effects of smoking is safe, easily predicted, and always leads to another grant. I can mention that now since I quit smoking several months ago :-)

But nobody in his/her right mind would ask for a grant for something really speculative. First, the chances of getting the grant is more problematic, and, even if obtained, would be the kiss of death for future grants in the event the investigation turned out to be fruitless.

Sometime ago, I read an article that pointed out that "Dolly" could not possibly have happened in this country under the grant system because a scientist making application for such a grant would have been laughed out of the country.

I do not know if that is really true, but I note that Dolly, Gene and George, were all supported by private industry as was the ES cell investigation by Dr. Gearhart and others. Of course, provided it was legal, grants for ES cell research would be now be available to large numbers of academic scientists. My question is, what would have been Dr Gearhart's chances of obtaining the series of grants necessary to have done his investigations before he was able to prove the concept. And remember, this might be considered the type of pure science that private industry supposedly might consider too risky.

The technique means a lot if it is patented. If the technique is patented, the patent holder can prevent anyone else from using that technique, or cells obtained using that technique for a period of twenty years. The patent holder can license the technique, if he/she wishes, but there is no requirement that he/she do so.

On the other hand, if the cells are defined as cells derived from the patented technique (and I do not see how they can be otherwise defined), I am not sure what a patent on the cells is supposed to do for the patent holder that the patent on the technique does not already do. If someone else obtains cells using the patented technique, regardless of any difference in the cells, the patent is infringed. But if someone conceives of and implements another technique for obtaining similar cells, the patent is NOT infringed regardless how similar the cells are--and they are never exactly the same.

I think that if it does not involve (1) me or (2) mine, (3) the common environment, (4) the public purse or (5) the health and safety of any human being, then what you do is entirely your own business and none of mine.

Bernhard Schopper - Sunday, 12/20/98, 5:55:48am (#490 of 497)

Tell that to the victims of Dr. Mengele. Whenever there is experimentation going on ethics must be involved.

HAHA, geeze what histories have you been reading? There was plenty of debate on the bomb, it's just that only a very few knew of it.

The Koreans have now successfully cloned human embrios. Because of our ignorance and superstittion we will allow a very profitable industry that will produce cures for alzheimers disease and diabetes to be developed overseas while we ban them.

I guess it is a good thing the religious nuts don't have anything against computers of Bill Gates would be burned at the stake.

Menegele experimented on real people not blobs of protoplasm.As much as your religion wants it to be so an embrio is not a person.

Richard Wolf - Monday, 12/21/98, 8:04:50am (#499 of 499)

It is a human life, I know of no other criteria to be a person.