Richard, we have not banned this technology yet, and I seriously doubt that a law to ban cloning at the embryonic level could ever pass both houses of the congress. While I admit that my predictive record on impeachment was not so great, I think I am correct here. (I think what went wrong with my prediction on impeachment was that a "stand on principal" by zealots can be contagious among allies of the zealots, if they feel they have been abused in the past and have a desire to get even.)

But this issue is not like that. It really isn't partisan. As Dawn pointed out last year, the version of the bill that attempted to ban full term cloning (and would have included cloning at the embryo level also) was "killed" by none other than that "flaming liberal," Jesse Helms. In stating his opposition to the bill, Jesse Helms specifically mentioned the therapeutic possibilities. Now if that does not give you an idea of how difficult it would be to pass a law banning cloning at the embryonic level, I do not know what will.

It is true that there is a congressional ban on using federal funds to support research involving embryonic cloning. But if you have read my most recent posts, you have an idea how important I think that is. It appears to me that government grants are mainly for research of questions with predictable answers, or gathering additional data to refine the findings of previous predictable research. For example, do we really need another taxpayer supported study on the harmful effects of smoking? Hell, I knew it was harmful twenty years ago. I once went 30 days without smoking and every day was worse than the day before. It was not until I learned about Zyban that quitting actually became an real option for me, and,

in seven weeks, I was able to overcome that terrible addiction. I can assure you that I didn't need more information on the effects of smoking; I needed the drug.)

Well, I don't know. It appears to me that some of my friends think it might be a good idea. Gates claims to be opposed to cloning. But who did more for PC clones? I think he is an exemplary citizen and a generous soul.

Nice to see your handle again, Bill. Welcome back. What about structure as being a requirement?

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. - bill unverferth

This is correct. When Einstein learned the Nazis discovered fission in 1938, he knew what the implications were and alerted Roosevelt. However, in politics and in war, the end always justifies the means. So nuclear fission was successfully deployed in 1945.

As I have stated before, human cloning must proceed. There should be no ethical restrictions in this respect.

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

Dr. Mengele had the blessings of the Nazis, who were not crazy about the Jews. Within this frame of reference, whatever contributions Mengele made to science, by whatever means, were justified.

I'm certain that the Israelis are now conducting scientific studies on the effect of damage caused by rubber bullets fired by their soldiers at the Palestinians.

Everything is relative, so Einstein said.

Cliff Beall - Tuesday, 12/22/98, 1:07:24am (#503 of 505)

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

Thanks, time has not been on my side. Structure begs the question. There will always be someone excluded that should be included. But even at it's most basic form the fertilized egg the complete HUMAN genetic structure is there.

Bernhard Schopper - Tuesday, 12/22/98, 3:18:35am (#505 of 506)

So you are saying that it was GOOD that mengele FROZE people to death to study the effects of hypothermia? Good Lord I hope you have NOTHING to do with any science.

So you are saying that it was GOOD that mengele FROZE people to death to study the effects of hypothermia? - bill unverferth

Everything needs to be taken in its proper historical perspective and applicable frame of reference. To a Nazi German scientist, experimenting on Jews was not more unethical than is to Bill Clinton having an extramarital affair and lying about it.

Everything is relative, so Einstein said.

Yes, I do. I alter life forms. But not on the Island of Dr. Schopper.

Cliff, Congratulations for kicking the smoking habit! I know it requires more than willpower for most people, so I am glad you found something that worked. Where did you hear that bit about grants on the effect of smoking? The Animal Rights folks keep saying that, but no one could get a grant for something that is already been done these days. I haven't seen such a grant application to the ACS in the 10 years I've been here, and I'll bet NIH doesn't fund anything in that area either. Most of our tobacco grants are in behavioral research (which I personally think is too soft to be considered research, but it is in vogue).

I have reviewed grants for NIH and now fill an administrative role in grant review at the Cancer Society. NIH funds a lot of human clinical trials of new treatments, plus translation of basic science into clinical application, and behavioral research. Research with humans is a lot more expensive than lab research, so although 85% of the grants may be basic science, it is more like 60% of the $. The line between industrial and goverment support of basic research has blurrred somewhat since the beginning of the biotech revolution (and all the initial research that led to cloning, DNA sequencing, etc. was funded by the government or by private nonprofits). Yes, it is important to have good preliminary results to demonstrate feasibility, but there is usually a category for novel ideas that allows applicants to accumulate preliminary data. A well-known tactic to get around the need for preliminary data is to accumulate while you are working on a grant on another subject. However, in the case of human embryonic research, that cannot be done because of the ban--thus the reason the researchers sought Biotech support--or the Biotech firms sought the researchers. I noticed that the Koreans claim tohave used the technique that was used by the Hawaiian group to clone mice. I don't remember the source of support for the Hawaiians, but of course

Continued

Applications for research grants are reviewed by volunteer peer reviewers who are experts in the area of the application and rate on the basis of scientific merit. Any conflict of interest is worked out by asking people from the same institution or in very closely related research areas to leave the room during discussion and not vote on the application. NIH also has a second panel, which includes "consumers" who look at programmatic needs (sometimes defined as what advocacy group is screaming the loudest--AIDS, breast cancer). The system may not be perfect, but it has served U.S. science well so far.

bill: A blastocyst is alive, and it does contain a full complement of human genetic material. But that description fits most of the cells of your body. And if somatic cell cloning becomes a reality, every cell will be "potential human life." I can't draw a line on where humanity begins, but it surely is at a later stage than a 7 day embryo. I'm willing to accept Cliff's definition of implantation as the moment humanity begins, since it is practical for research purposes.

I do not believe the Nazis "discovered" nuclear fission in 1938. I understand that it was generally understood that they might be working on it. Enstein was encouraged to write a letter to Roosevelt, which he did. So far as I know, there is no evidence that the Nazis got very far in their investigations.

No it does not.

On the contrary, there needs to be a full open debate on the various implementations of cloning technology. It is my opinion that some aspects should be implemented immediately. Others are questionable, and may need to be delayed until the technology becomes safer. Some are clearly unethical and should never be allowed.

It was morally indefensible.

Genetic structure yes. I guess I was referring to physical structure: a brain, a heart, lungs, liver, muscle, bone. Actually, the complete human genetic structure is in each of you skin cells. Have you ever picked a sticker out of your hand or foot. When you did this, did you happen to dislodge a portion of your skin with the needle. If you did this, my interpretation of your argument is that you have discarded a multitude of complete human genetic structures and, therefore a multitude of potential human beings.

In addition, I have, over the years, read a number of articles about grants and the grant system in the popular scientific press, mainly in Discover magazine. And being a confirmed smoker until recently, I have taken a interest in any research involving smoking and the effects of smoking. I have assumed that most of this research is funded by

Cliff Beall - Wednesday, 12/23/98, 1:54:42am (#512 of 512)

bill unverferth said: Structure begs the question. There will always be someone excluded that should be included. But even at it's most basic form the fertilized egg the complete HUMAN genetic structure is there.

Definitions including structure could eliminate people without limbs, eyes, on heart/lung machines, etc. Even using the argument of self sustaining would mean that Christopher Reeves is not human as he is dependant on a respirator. A child from the moment of conception is human life.

This is rather specious as a skin cell is not a human, rather part of a human whereas a child at whatever stage of development is a unique being seperate in identity from the parents. My previos post denied the structure argument, but pointed out the one structure inherent in all human life, but did not imply that that structure is what defined human life.

I'm just a little confused. If I take a live cell from my body legally I own it as chattel property.

Then if I cause it to start dividing I still own it and its clones.

If I cause this ball of cells that I own to eventually become a human being at what point do I stop being able to own it.

We are not talking about parents here we are talking about one parent. Me!

We are talking about mono sexual reproduction.

Carl Nicolai - Wednesday, 12/23/98, 9:10:24am (#514 of 514)

OK

Then if I cause it to start dividing I still own it and its clones.

No no-one can own a human being. A clone is not just deviding tissue, it has been specifically altered to be a fetus and as such has a life of it's own. Skin cells that just divide will remain skin cells. Your argument advocates the worst predictions of science fiction and the fears of those who want no human cloning, genetically engineered slaves and organ donors with no civil rights.

When it becomes fused with a donor egg and begins to live as a child, growing eventually into an adult human.

So 1 parent has no right to kill a child nor does 2 nor 3 etc...

Where's the fun in that?

Well lets say I dont require a donor egg.

When does it begin to live as a child?

Carl Nicolai - Wednesday, 12/23/98, 9:31:03am (#516 of 516)

At the point where it begins fetal development, not the development of more differentiated cells of the same type.

A fetus is is now defigned by structure.

I was not aware of that. I was under the impression that the research that produced Dolly was supported by PPL Therapeutics. The research that produced Charlie and George was supported by Advanced Cell Technology Inc. and the research that produced Gene was supported by ABS Global Inc. Also, government grants made no contribution to the development of ES cell technology, which was instead supported by Geron Corp. It is said that the reason ES cell technology was supported by a private company instead of the government was because it was illegal to use government funds, as if this is a great loss. My question is, what is the difference, if any?

If you told me that all discoveries obtained from research funded by the government would be in the public domain, then I would be very interested. But that does not appear to be the way the system works. Whatever the source of funding, somebody gets a patent. Given that somebody is going to get a patent, who is most likely to reduce that discovery to a useful product or therapy most rapidly? I think a private company that makes an initial speculative investment is more likely to have the desire as well as the resources to reduce the development of the technology to a useful product or therapy, than anyone else who might obtain the patent.

Guess who I prefer to have the patent.

I am sure that some people know how to work the system better than others. However, the line between acceptably "working the system" and corruption is sometimes rather fine, unfortunately, particularly when government money is involved.

Years ago, I read an article that dealt with this aspect of the grant system in some detail although I do not remember the source. As I recall, the article was about a former highly regarded scientist (whose name I also do not recall) who was found to have falsified data in his scientific experiments. This was discovered when his research became popular and other investigators attempted to repeat his experiments--and found that that his results were not repeatable. Eventually, the scientist was forced to admit his error, and it was quite a scandal at the time.

However, the main thrust of the article as I read it was the while the actions of the scientist were admitted to be deplorable, the grant system, itself, was also at fault in that it was a corrupting influence. In the beginning, according to the article, the scientist skewed his experimental results only a small amount to make them look more promising and improve his chances of keeping his grant and continuing his research. Basically, he made his experiments conform to the way he believed the results should be. He thought his data was temporarily misleading, and, in the beginning, only a slight skew was necessary to right it.

Having taken that step, however, he later took other similar and bigger steps in order to retain the grant he needed to continue the research he still believed would eventually yield the results he desired. Unfortunately, he turned out to be wrong, and eventually he was proven to be a fraud.

The point the author of that article attempted to make was that the vulgarities of a system of grants can be very political and very corrupting. Given the choice, I think, if I were a scientist, I would prefer that my support come from a private company rather than the government. I suspect that a private company, with a profit motive, as opposed to a political motive, would tend to be more forgiving of problems, stick with the researcher longer and be much more understanding of the process. And besides, consider this: misuse of a company's funds is at most a civil matter, even if one were to be accused of such. In contrast, misuse of government funds might very well be considered fraud, and a felony. Note also that "collecting preliminary data" for a new grant "while working on a grant on another subject" might easily be considered "misuse of government funds."

My question is: who needs it?

Dawn, I believe you have misunderstood. I do not consider implantation as the moment when humanity begins. I consider that moment to be some finite period after attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall. It is my opinion that an embryo that is implanted, but that does not successfully attach has not and will never existed as a human. Also, in my opinion, an egg fertilized within the human female body, is not a human until after it has successfully attached to the uterine wall. A human is not composed of only undifferentiated cells.

Since it appears to me that definable human structure exists within a week after attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall, however, at which time the embryo has become a human fetus, I think it is well to consider the moment of attachment as being the defining moment.

People without limbs or eyes have differentiated structure that is easily defined as human. I have never made any argument of a requirement of "self-sustaining." I do not know why you repeatedly argue against it as it to imply that I had made such an argument. Obviously I can not make any such argument and be consistent since I consider a fetus to be human after attachment, at which time, the fetus can in no way be described as "self sustaining." :-)

Of course Christopher Reeves is human. I never said he was not. But I will say this: Suppose your finger is severed from your hand. It is not a human even thought it contains a multitude of human genetic codes and is separate from your body, similar to the genetic codes of an embryo you call human. Tell you what. When you convince me that your unattached finger is a human, you will have that very day convinced me that an unattached embryo is a human.

Those skin cells are not part of a human after they have been separated from your body. It can easily be argued that after separation from the body, those cells are as much a human as the cells that make up an embryo. (Actually, I would argue neither.)

Cliff Beall - Wednesday, 12/23/98, 11:02:45pm (#522 of 523)

Didn't say you made the argument, I threw it in. So now human is defined by location? Before attachment not human, but at the moment of attachment it is human? There is no change in substance, only location. How?

It appears that you must have not read the following comment I posted only three minutes earlier than the one you quoted: "Since it appears to me that definable human structure exists within a week after attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall, however, at which time the embryo has become a human fetus, I think it is well to consider the moment of attachment as being the defining moment."

Let me elaborate. Structure that defines humanity is developed very rapidly after attachment. Indeed, it appears to me that it has happened within a week, or very shortly thereafter, of attachment. I do not know the precise time that it occurs, and I don't think anyone does. But since the time between attachment and defining structure is relatively short, and attempting to define the instant that structure is sufficient to define individual humanity is difficult, I have said, in essence, give the little critter the benefit of the doubt and assume it to be when attachment occurs.

In answer to Carl's question: "When does it begin to live as a child"? you said: "At the point where it begins fetal development, not the development of more differentiated cells of the same type."

I therefore think it is clear that you accept that the division of differentiated cells into cells of the same (differentiated) type does not constitute an individual human. Can you tell me why you think the division of undifferentiated cell into cells of the same (undifferentiated) type does constitute an individual human? In either case, the cells are all the same type. How can either be a human?

Bill, I have been looking at the last paragraph of my last post, and I think I am beginning to see that there is a valid argument for a difference between the division of differentiated and undifferentiated cells. In the case of differentiated cell, they must forever remain differentiated, and of the same type.

On the other hand, while the undifferentiated cells of an unattached embryo are all identical, and prior to attachment do divide into the same type undifferentiated cells as before (and how can a collection of identical cells of any type constitute a human), they somehow contain the potential to be able to differentiate into all the different types of cells composing a human body.

I guess the question I would like to have answered is why, before attachment, the undifferentiated cells divide true with the resulting cells being identical to the original cell--and why, after attachment, the cells start differentiating like mad, so that within a week, we look and see that indeed a human fetus does indeed exist.

The problem is that differentiation seems to appear as soon as there is a nutrient gradient and attachment provides a very great gradient. There many be some in a blastocyst due to inside outside chemistry.

It is indeed stunning that such programing could occur. The cancer like cells of the child at this stage are invading the host and issuing commands to expand the blood supply so that they can take every thing from the host they need. This is done irrespictive to the harm they may cause to the host.

A truly evil monster, to be sure, until it grows into a child being that the host willingly devotes a signivicent part of its life to volentary nuture.

Yes, it appears you are right. Also, it appears that I was wrong when I said that differentiated cells "must forever remain differentiated, and of the same type." Did not Wilmut prove that if differentiated cells are starved, they can become undifferentiated?

But where is all this programming coming from, Carl? You imply that the embryo is issuing the commands, but how can this be? "Issuing commands" presupposes "intelligence." Does the embryonic cells have the ability to make timed decisions on when the embryonic cells should start differentiating?

You know something: people talk about HTML "programming," but HTML is actually nothing but a system of formats (sequences of ASCII characters) that must be interpreted by a browser before they become meaningful to a computer. The real intelligence is in the browser. The DNA sequences contained in the embryonic cells are roughly analogous to HTML formats in an ASCII file. I do not think it is possible that these commands to which you refer are coming from the embryo. Instead, it appears that the only possible explanation is that the whole thing is being directed by the mother's brain, based, perhaps, on it's interpretation DNA sequences of the embryonic cells.

But where is all this programming coming from, Carl? You imply that the embryo is issuing the commands, but how can this be? "Issuing commands" presupposes "intelligence." - Cliff Beall

No, it does not on the molecular level. Suppose you incur a wound. Cells start dividing to repair this wound. The repair process is programmed in the cells' genetic structure. I believe what happens when undifferentiated cells receive a chemical/physical "signal" from somewhere, they become differentiated.

Footnote: It were the German physicists Hahn and Strassmann who discovered nuclear fission in 1938.

I suspect that the brain and the central nervous system may have something to do with that, Bernhard. Do you know for a fact that if the nerves that normally pass the information about the wound to the brain are severed, the repair continues without interruption?

And where do you think the "signal" originates?

Very true, Bernhard, and I have not problem with factual statements such as that one. But that is not what you said before. What you said before was, and I quote: "When Einstein learned the Nazis discovered fission in 1938, he knew what the implications were and alerted Roosevelt."

Not exactly the same thing, Bernhard. One is a factual statement that happens to be correct, and the other is a political statement of dubious validity. If I were to say that the republicans invented the airplane and you objected, would it be meaningful if I insist that the Wright brothers, two American inventors, both of whom were--or were not--republicans, did the deed? Even if I could prove they were both republicans, would you agree the republicans invented the airplane?

Do you know for a fact that if the nerves that normally pass the information about the wound to the brain are severed, the repair continues without interruption? - Cliff Beall

I don't believe the brain gets involved in this. The body can operate as an entity without involvement of the brain. In case of a wound, white blood cells enter the inflamed tissue. They clean up the debris left by the injury and kill bacteria that entered the wound. Once the inflammation subsides, the constructive phases of healing begins, regardless of whether the brain is alive or not. In other words, the human body, per se, has its own "consciousness" as to the state of its existence.

This is one of the mysteries of nature. For example, how do chameleons have such extraordinary adaptability to aboreal life? The color of their skin undergoes swift alteration in response to changes of emotion, temperature or coloration of the environment. Is it because of their "consciousness" of their surroundings, or because of programmed genetic instructions activated when certain visual/auditory signals are received?

Here is what has happened:

• In 1938, Hahn and Strassmann discovered fission.
• They published their findings

(continued)

• Einstein immediatedly recognized the implications of this study, although at that time, the Nazis did not.
• As a result, Einstein informed Roosevelt of these implications (namely the possibility for the Nazis to develop an atomic bomb.)
• In 1939, the Nazis became aware of the implications of the results of the Hahn-Strassmann experiments.
• In 1940, the Nazis, under the direction of Heisenberg and others developed the blueprints for the first atomic bomb.
• The project was subsequently scrapped due to the inability of attaining enriched plutonium

I was under the impression that without a brain (either natural or artificial), the body will die.

I am not going to say you are wrong just yet, but I will not accept the rightness of your argument without a link to a site that appears to be at least a reasonably reliable source. (Alternately, if Dawn were to confirm what you are saying, I would be forced to accept it. As far as I am concerned, her opinion is as good as any link.)

I was under the impression that without a brain (either natural or artificial), the body will die. - Cliff Beall

A good example would be a comatose or brain-dead state, where the body continues to live either naturally, or by artifical sustenance. I believe the brain in such a case no longer interacts with the body (note that "brain death" in this case does not connote physical death, but rather ceasement of brain activity.)

I obtained my information from Die Deutschen Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Zweiten Weltkrieges (The German Weapons and Secret Weapons of the 2nd World War), which was published in 1956 and written by a former member of the German High Command.

#531: Bernhard Schopper:...I don't believe the brain gets involved in this. The body can operate as an entity without involvement of the brain. In case of a wound, white blood cells enter the inflamed tissue. They clean up the debris left by the injury and kill bacteria that entered the wound. Once the inflammation subsides, the constructive phases of healing begins, regardless of whether the brain is alive or not. In other words, the human body, per se, has its own "consciousness" as to the state of its existence.

I think I have more confidence in my source, to which I have previously supplied a link.

Yes, Marie. And thank you for pointing this out. But I would suspect that the brain is even more intimately involved in the healing process, as well as other processes in the body, including the creation of new life. Once a cell is differentiated, it has a specific function. The question is whether differentiated cells are actually self directing or directed by the brain according to the code specifying the differentiation, and, BTW, how do they become differentiated in the first place?

In understanding a mechanical contrivance, one must look for the "forces" that cause the individual components of the contrivance to move in a particular fashion. If there is no force, there is no movement. If there is movement, there must be a force. It seems to me that the change from undifferentiated cell to differentiated cells in the new embryo is the result of "intelligence" not contained in the cells of the embryo, itself. If this is true, one must look elsewhere for this intelligence. The only possible source of the needed intelligence that I see is the mother's brain. Therefore, I would assume that the mother's brain must be directing the activity of the embryo at the early stage. Does this make sense to you? If so, why so, and if not, why not?

Also if someone is without brain waves, and not on life support, they are dead and no dead body ever fights off and heals a wound. - Marie M.

Of course they are. But life support is nothing more than providing sustenance to a body unable to acquire sustenance on its own.

So, even if the brain is dead, the body will live on when properly taken care of.

This is why we shut off life support to comatose people whose brains have little chance of returning to normality.

It seems to me that the change from undifferentiated cell to differentiated cells in the new embryo is the result of "intelligence" not contained in the cells of the embryo, itself. - Cliff Beall

This is not true. It's an automatic process activated when certain physio/chemical conditions trigger those genes in a cell that in turn trigger differentiation.

This was recently demonstrated by a team which succeeded in manufacturing the nutrients for the petri dish that contained the undifferentiated cells in such a manner, that differentiation did not take place, or was delayed. In other words, the team succeeded in removing those physio/chemical triggers that would have, in a normal environment, resulted in cell differentiation.

FOOTNOTE: In regard to Germany's attempt to produce an atomic bomb, I trust the source from the German High Command. Note that in the link you have provided, it was not ruled out that the Nazis could have developed the plans for a workable fission bomb.

dish and prevent them from differentiating? I believe it happened one or two months ago. According to the article, the reason they could do this is because they developed a new nutrient broth that prevented the stems cells from differentiating.

No I do not remember it, specifically, but thanks for the information that it was in the Washington Post, although the names of the investigators would be much more helpful in attempting to find another link on the same subject.

(Also, would it be fair to mention that I would be much more impressed with a link to a Scientific American or Discover article than one from a general purpose newspaper like the Washington Post. And, also, is it fair to mention that a link to an article in "The Scientist" is about as good as it gets.)

Thanks for the link. It was interesting and appears to make some sense. Actually the thrust of the article, as I read it, is that Heisenberg purposefully avoided making the bomb since he did not want Hitler to win.

In saying this, it does not confirm your assertion that Heisenberg submitted a workable plan for an atomic bomb in 1940 to the Nazis. Instead, it indicates that Heisenberg might very well have developed the bomb under different circumstances, but that he purposefully avoided the construction of the Nazi bomb by telling his Nazi superiors that much more enriched uranium was needed than was available. (In essence, he told them it could not be done, when--perhaps--he knew better.)

Assuming the Farm Hall quotes from this link are accurate, it would appear to me that the conclusions from this source may very well be better than those from the source I found. One has be careful of axes that need grinding, and so forth, but, really, the idea of Heisenberg as a theoretical bumbler, as presented in the link I found, does not make much sense. Heisenberg was a great theoretical scientist.

CNN;"We are determined to mount a global effort in opposition to human cloning," said Jeremy Rifkin, a writer on biotechnology issues.

The people who want to ban human cloning are mad or perhaps insane given the economic and political forces on this planet.

Prohibition of human cloning will be about as effective as prohibition against alcohol was or the "War On Drugs" is now.

Also, would it be fair to mention that I would be much more impressed with a link to a Scientific American or Discover article than one from a general purpose newspaper like the Washington Post. - Cliff Beall

You need to remember that news of any kind are reported first in publications such as The Washington Post before it appears in a scientific journal. The integrity of the Post, when it comes to reporting news is impeccable. I will try to locate this article.

FOOTNOTE: RE: German Atomic Bomb - According to this book I mentioned, the Heisenberg team did indeed present a design of a workable fission bomb to the German High Command in 1940, because it was ordered to do so. Note that Heisenberg was out to save his butt when he was imprisoned in England, so we really don't know if he was sincere in his statements. It might very well have been that he would have constructed the bomb if the right material had been available at that time.

I see a large rights vrs. ethics conflict emerging.

Cliff & Bernard: The above is the URL for the article describing Gearhart's work with growing the ES cells. the blastocyst isn't totally undifferentiated--the outer layer is the trophoblast cells that will become the placenta, and the inner cell mass consists of the cells that will become the embryo..or the ES cells if they are removed and grown in the special culture medium that keeps them undifferentiated. You can tell from this article that if the ES cells are supplied with the right growth factors, etc. they will differentiate into beating heart cells, neurons, etc. By the way, my last year's PDR medical dictionary still says that an embryo does not become a fetus until eight weeks of gestation. That was an arbitrary decision made by embryologists years ago, but is still being taught as far as I know. To me, implantation is synonymous with attachment. Cliff, how do you define implantation? I would guess that a brain dead woman could give birth. I vaguely recall that this has happened. She would need a stomach tube, and a heart lung machine, but I believe that is all that would be required. Kidneys, liver, digestion, and pregnancy would function okay. Whatever signals come from the mother in response to the developing embryo don't come from her cerebral cortex. But I would guess that you need a functional hypothalamus (the primitive brain) and pituitary gland.

Cliff, I appreciate your vote of confidence in my scientific knowledge! I wish you could appreciate the necessity of federally-funded research, too. I forgot to mention last week that studying the genetic changes produced in response to smoking could also lead to an earlier detection method for lung cancer. Most of the lung cancers today are being diagnosed in former smokers (because so many people have quit, there aren't as many smokers), and chest Xrays are almost worthless. True, Gerhart's, Wilmut's, and others work with cloning were funded by private industry. However, the tissue culture techniques, the structure of DNA, the discovery of the bacterial enzymes that cut at specific sequences, the DNA sequencing technique, the early work with mouse embryonic stem cells, are just a few of the basic federally funded discoveries that laid the foundation for the final "Breakthrough."

When you consider how many thousands of researchers have depended on government support, it is surprising that there have been only a few instances of scientific misconduct. I'm not sure which you are referring to--I can think of four. (1) Bob Goode's "painted" mice back in the 70s; this was done by a postdoctoral fellow in the lab who subsequently dropped out of science--eventually the creation of chimeric mice was shown to be possible (with mouse ES cells). (2)1970s "transfer factor" for transferring immunity from one person to another--this was a fraud, no doubt about it, but the scientist was not well-known (3) Mid 1980s Nobel laureate David Baltimore's associate was supposed to have fudged her data, but both she and Baltimore were subsequently cleared and the experiments have finally been repeated. (4) Bernard Fisher's Canadian collaborator included ineligible women in the clinical trial of tamoxifen. A reanalysis showed that even omitting the Canadian data gave the same results, and Fisher had assumed that his colleague followed the rules. Fisher sued a lot of fol

Carl, you would be amazed how good a stand "on principle" feels--or maybe you would not since, of the two of us, you are the principled one :-) Come to think of it, I think I should be saying that to myself. I do agree that conflicting stands "on principle" can lead to war.

I disagree. The "potential perpetrators" against a ban on cloning have something to lose. But I have argued this point with you before, and I am sure I will again.

That is what my link said, Bernhard. It was your link that seemed intent on resurrecting Heisenberg's reputation. You can't have it both ways. My opinion: I think some of the statements by Heisenberg may be somewhat disingenuous, but I think the section starting with, "Later on the night of August 6, when Hahn and Heisenberg were alone" rings true. Hahn is asking, why are you saying this now when you said that before, and Heisenberg has to explain. At that time, I think Heisenberg was much too preoccupied with answering the questions posed by his friend to be concerned about the possibility of microphones in the room.

He did have the right materials, but told his Nazi superiors he did not. That is why Samuel Goudsmit thought he was a bumbler. However, if he indicated as much sophistication in the Farm Hall transcripts on the subject as Hans Bethe thought he did, then I tend to agree with Bethe that it is quite possible that "he had kept much of this understanding to himself during the war."

I take it that you are referring to my ideas about ethics. Yes, and I would point out that this is an organization that has something to lose, specifically, their reputation. Organizations such as this one are very careful for their reputation.

Dawn, you said a bunch in a very relatively short space. It will take a while to digest all of that.

Cheers.

Or what?

We live in a world where information, land, and the ability to control the efforts of the population are the only things worth fighting about. Even the vital commodity of oil is vanishing as a critical necessity as ever more vast quantities of it are discovered.

The discovery of how the genetic code works and utilizing it to produce products is the economic frontier of at least the next several hundred years.

We now have a situation where many non government sponsored scientists can make a significant amount of money. This is new in our history.

To be sure there have been a few research scientists sponsored by "clean" money in the past but not many compared to those supported by funds generated by the forcible extraction of tax revenues.

This failure to consider the total ethics of scientists in the real world of information generation and usage can be look at as un ethical by the revenue producing public.

Cliff: Sorry I missed the transition to you in the last post.

He did have the right materials, but told his Nazi superiors he did not. - Cliff Beall

This is nonsense. Germany never had the resources to produce sufficient fissionable material (either enriched plutonium or enriched uranium) to manufacture an atomic bomb. What I stated was that the Heisenberg team had produced the plans to develop the bomb.

Now Cliff, let's drop this subject. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Dawn, that is quite a pointed question to ask a non-specialist, like myself. I must have gotten to you more than I intended. But you have to understand that I love to argue, and I typically never get a real chance to argue with you because you are such an expert on biology and I am such an novice. Then, suddenly, before my very eyes, I saw a chance to argue with you on roughly even terms, and I could not resist.

To me, implantation means delivery of the fertilized eggs through the vagina to the uterus. It is what the scientist or the doctor does. Attachment is something that occurs in the uterus after the scientist or doctor has done "all that he or she can do." It is my position that unless one or more of the fertilized eggs actually attach to the uterine wall, at no time was the woman ever pregnant, even though a number of fertilized eggs were, for a period of time, present in her uterus. Therefore, I see implantation and attachment as two separate things that occur in sequence.

Okay, I will give it all up completely after you answer this one last question: Why do you say that the mother would need a functional hypothalamus (the primitive brain) and pituitary gland?

(I had not assumed involvement of the cerebral cortex, but had assumed from the beginning that the necessary programming to direct the changes in the embryo would reside in the primitive brain, if it existed. It is that portion of the brain that takes care of the other automatic things we do without thinking--like breathing, for example, is it not? Given this, how is my suggestion not a reasonable hypothesis?) Okay, I asked two questions. The way I see it, if one can not ask one good question, two bad ones should suffice :-)

Trying to make me feel guilty huh? Well, it worked. I am aware that the effects of thirty-five years of smoking are not going to be eliminated merely by quitting at this late date. And yes, I am very interested in what you scientists are able to do about what I have done to myself. I may be an arrogant cus, but I am no fool.

I suppose one thing I ought to say is that I am particularly impressed that at the hearing, a vice president of Geron Corp, Thomas Okarma, along with other panelist, suggested that "NIH funding is essential if these goals are to be feasible, and is especially crucial for the completion of the necessary basic research that private companies are rarely geared toward." (The goals to which they referred were the elimination of Parkinson's disease and possibly other diseases in 5 to 12 years.)

It was Goode. Now that you have mentioned it, I remember seeing a picture of spotted mice. I wish I had the article now. I suspect my memory is probably faulty in a number of respects, and if I were to again read the article, I might very well come away with a different attitude. But who knows.

People will gladly die for honor.

A recent article in Scientific American makes the case that much of the "vast quantities" of which you speak are false. Currently, we have a glut of produced oil on the market. But it is a temporary situation. I suspect that in ten years, there will be three reasons to wage war: land, honor and oil. If a clone war occurs, it will fall under the category of "honor," but I think a war over oil is more likely.

Would you say the information age is being superceded by the biological age?

But probably worthy of only a footnote.

I do not think this will be a problem, but, of course, I have been wrong before. I am still chaffing about that impeachment thing I thought would not happen.

The most interesting to me is:

"Information" has only been scientifically defined since the 1949 paper by C. E. Shannon. (A Mathematical Theory of Communication)

It was later expanded by Evans in a proof for his PHd thesis which utilized the elements of the field of chemistry.

I have no doubt that the fields of thermodynamics and information theory will be unified eventually but that is not the issue.

The issue is the gains that are possible using the vastly more efficient forms of molecular coding over the primitive magnetic storage we now use (at least 10E17 away from theoretical) vrs. the Genetic Code that spawns life itself and can improve our ability to make massive gains in life improvement. ( DNA is at max 10E7 from theoretical)

It is the combination of the information age being applied to biological life, via the genetic code, that can strip off some 10 orders of magnitude of inefficiency.

This, I'm sure you will admit, is a massive increase of power that humans can achieve over the reality that keeps them impoverished in the richest planet known.

Okay, I will give it all up completely after you answer this one last question: Why do you say that the mother would need a functional hypothalamus (the primitive brain) and pituitary gland? - Cliff Beall

She doesn't. There have been documented cases where brain-dead pregnant (human or animal) females gave birth.

As I have stated it before, the body does not need the brain to function.

In the past several days, I have come to strongly suspect that the mother's brain may have something to do with the timing of embryonic cell differentiation. The reason I suspect this is that it does not appear to me that the embryo, itself, would be capable of sensibly deciding when this differentiation should take place.

In looking around for information that might shed light on this suspicion, and wondering which part of the mother's brain might most likely be responsible if the suspicion is true, I found that most references indicate that the Medulla Oblongata, the most primitive portion, is responsible for heartbeat, digestion, respiration, and other involuntary movement. In the beginning, I had supposed that this most primitive portion of the brainstem would most likely be the origin of an appropriate signal to the embryo.

However, Dawn mentioned that the mother would probably need a functional hypothalamus and pituitary gland in response to the developing embryo, and, of course, when Dawn speaks, I listen. This portion of the brain regulates the production of various hormones by the pituitary gland which, in turn affects the production of other hormones by other glands. Since it now seems likely to me that any signal from the mother to the embryo would might most likely be hormonal, I now suspect that if such a signal does arise from the mother, this would likely be the mechanism.

The former is much more complex. I do not believe you will be able to provide me a link to a brain-dead woman who conceived while brain-dead and carried a child full term while brain-dead. I do not think that is possible.

I do not believe you will be able to provide me a link to a brain-dead woman who conceived while brain-dead and carried a child full term while brain-dead. - Cliff Beall

Of course not. People are not kept alive once brain death has been ascertained. However, there have been cases where comatose females were raped, became pregnant and delivered healthy babies.

It is possible that the reproductive processes are controlled by the autonomous nervous system, which is not affected by the brain.

Cliff, my PDR medical dictionary defines "implantation" as "Attachment of the fertilized ovum (blastocyst) to the endometrium, and its subsequent embedding in the compact layer, occurring 6 or 7 days after fertilization of the ovum." What the IVF and the cloners do is "insert" the blastocyst into the uterus--but it may or may not "implant"--which is the same as attachment. Implantation occurs even in natural pregancies.

Bernard, I am not a neurologist--but I always assumed that brain dead referred only to the cerebral cortex, because that is where the waves in the EEG come from. I suggested the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland because that is part of the feedback loop for hormonal stimulation, but after re-reading Blainskys Introduction to Embryology, I would guess that they are not required for more than a week or two after implantation (or attachment). Once the blastocyst attaches, the placenta starts to form. The placenta produces its own hormones that keep the pregnancy going, and the hormonal signals from the hypothalamus-pituitary axis arent needed. Cliff, if you think about it, a fertilized chicken egg doesnt need any signals from the mother in order to go through a complete differentiation program. All the mammalian mom provides is a source of nutrients (no yolk) and oxygen, and a nice warm environment to grow in. If such an environment could be duplicated in the laboratory, we could probably have Brave New World.

Carl, thanks for creating the html link to the ES cell site. I had lost my instruction page, but now I have found it. I dont create links often enough to remember how to do it---my memory is failing in my old age! But dont tell CNN, who now and then ask my opinion on research, as you can see Right Here

Hmm--for some reason, my html commands did not make the link--and all of my apostrophes are missing too. Maybe it has something to do with trying to use IE 4 with Windows NT. Well, if you are interested, go to today's (Wed) CNN Health story about Salmonella and cancer.

I suppose it is possible that it is affected by the father's big toe, by gravitational association :-)

Fair enough. Sorry about my confusion of terms.

As I understand this, you are saying that the biological processes undergone by the mother require hormonal stimulation. Note that I would like for it to also include the possibility of a signal to the embryo, but in view of your following statement about the chicken egg, I do not believe I can assume you intended that.

Are you saying that all the cells contained in a freshly laid chicken egg are all undifferentiated and identical, and that the cells start differentiating after the shell forms? In my simplemindedness, I would have thought that the presence of the yolk might indicate that significant differentiation has already taken place.

You make it sound so simple, but if what you say is true, why is premature birth so hazardous? Can not medical science provide appropriate nutrients, oxygen and a warm environment to the child, if that is all that is needed? Brave New World has not happened yet, and I am of the opinion that it may well be impossible.

I have actually never created one from scratch. I keep a copy of a link and paste the new address into my "template" each time I want to make a link. I have done so many links by copy and paste that I hardly have to think about it now. I think I could now do one from scratch, but I don't bother because I would have to think about it, and it is easier to continue to insert the new address into the "template."

Cliff, an unfertilized chicken egg is just one big cell. The yolk is nutrient material, and not part of the embryo. The shell is the cell wall. If the egg is fertilized, the blastodisc is present as a small white spot on the surface of the yolk by the time the egg is laid. Perhaps you could see this more clearly by thinking about frog or fish eggs that are fertilized outside the mother's body. Obviously, the mother's brain isn't involved in any differentiation here. There are some instructions preprogramed in the egg, in the messenger RNA sitting on the ribosomes, but the rest of the differentiation program is encoded in the DNA of the embryo.

As for preemies, their whole physiology changes once the placenta detaches and their lungs fill with air. But it might be possible to create an artificial womb that would allow growth of the placenta (which comes from the embryo, not the mother), supply the fetus with nutrients and remove wastes. Still, the natural way is infinitely cheaper and usually poses no undue hardship on the mother. I don't predict a lot of research activity in this area.

Lets see what the ethical "goon squad" of religious nay sayers has to say about human cloning now.

My position as in mar of 97 is to keep government out of the human cloning loop.

This is a prospective parent / doctor decision, at least as far as reproductive purposes are concerned.

What do you think Cliff?

He He Dawn you have to have more gonads than any government official since Attilla the Hun (SP?).

Great article and post. LOL

Making the news is one thing, but explaining what it means to the unwashed masses on a public forum is something else. FOFLMAO

Sorry I ment to ref. my last post to

I suppose it is possible that it is affected by the father's big toe, by gravitational association :-) - Cliff Beall

I like your sense of humor!

K.O.

Of course it does! What I said was ridiculous. Another bad association, and another knockout punch. Yeh Gads, am I ever a loser today! Hopefully, the sun will rise and there will be a tomorrow. I am ready!

Well, I guess I am good for something after all. Hot Dog. Actually, I found the site earlier from your description but had to leave before I could post a comment. I really enjoyed the picture of you and I hope it is deemed acceptable if I mention--every so shyly--how attractive you are.

Yes, the article did make that statement, but the thrust of the article is that cloning somehow creates "weakened" individuals that tend to die either before or shortly after birth. This is worrisome, and I would suspect that relative success in cloning will continue to depend largely on the skill of the practitioner. The process appears to be quite intrusive and the lightest hand will have the most success. Let us hope for light hands.

I don't know if it is possible.

One thing I am curious about are the patents that PPL obtained for "starving the cloned embryos as a method of dedifferentiating the cells." As far as I know, that is the only known method that works. Does anyone know from which countries PPL obtained patents. For example, did they obtain one from Japan. Seed is supposedly building his lab in Japan. But if PPL obtained a Japanese patent, PPL could shut him down, unless he has already obtained, or is able to obtain a license from PPL to use the method.

Thanks, I like it, But I would have left off the smiley if I had dared. But if I had, someone would have thought I was serious. I get into enough trouble as it is.

Cheers

Dawn, I was having problems posting due to server problems and I got confused and the rest of my intended compliment was unintentionally not included. Here it is now:

Congratulations of your CNN TV interview. CNN could not have done better. You are, without a doubt, my favorite scientist.

More research supported by private industry?

Who pays for the trials and who gets the patent and the profits from this product, if it is successful?

Note, however, that I am just asking. I did not say I disapprove. Actually, I would not mind someone making a profit since a profit would be an indication of success against cancer.

The problem is that as a former smoker for thirty-five years, I might need the stuff in a year or two. Tell them to hurry.

Cliff, thanks for the compliments. I'd rather be called attractive than compared to Attilla the Hun. What did you mean by that, Carl? I'm not a federal official, but work for a nonprofit voluntary health agency headquartered in Atlanta--which makes it easy for CNN to ask our opinions from time to time.

Vion Pharmaceuticals is a biotech company set up by scientists at Yale in 1993 to exploit any commercially viable products. It is a good example of the academic-industrial collaborations that have become common in the last 20 years. When I was in grad school in the 1960s (thanks to the federal government), working for industry was synonymous with "selling your soul." That has obviously changed. The government pays for research that doesn't have an obvious application, or for clinical trials that industry can't or doesn't want to do. In the Salmonella case, most of the early work was supported by the feds, then when it became clear that they might have something, the researchers applied for a patent and money from Vion. I'm not sure Vion has posted a profit yet--but they have lots of venture capital. The trials will probably combine the resources of the government and the corporation. The stockholders of Vion will get rich if it works out, and Yale will benefit as well. Industries want the government to continue to give grants, since 90% of all research leads nowhere. It just isn't possible to tell on the front end which 10% is going to give the desired results. If we knew, then it wouldn't be research, it would be engineering.

Even the scientists who are supported by Geron want the government to take a more active role in setting up standards for ES cell cloning, and they would like to get more labs involved in working on the basic biology of the cells, and how to get them to differentiate, etc. So there may be strings involved when and if the cells are released for experimental purposes.

Thinking about Goode's patchwork mouse reminded me that the same phenomenon is now possible with humans. The original reports were a fraud, but after mouse ES cells were cloned, the phenomenon itself was validated. You can take ES cells from one strain of mouse, insert into the blastocyst of another strain, implant (or whatever) in a surrogate mother--and voila! A mouse will develop with chimeric genetic characteristics. Four parents, if you will. I don't object to human cloning at all, but I do feel there needs to be a set of ethical guidelines, much as the Asilomar Conference in the late 1970s established the guidelines for gene cloning....until they realized it wasn't as dangerous as first thought.

Yes, things change, and not always for the better.

Fair enough. Also, I would note that if the government is going to insist on clinical trials prior to release of a product, it would seem appropriate to me for the government to share the cost for them.

Now here, I have a problem. I am of the opinion that any technology developed from research supported by the federal government should either be declared public domain, or any patent on the technology should be assigned to the federal government. Period. This idea of a scientist getting a government grant, doing research, making a discovery, and obtaining a potentially profitable patent on the discovery made while under the grant smells rather like corruption to me.

Look, I work in the engineering department of a private company. When I was first hired, some thirty-five years ago, I signed an "inventions" agreement. Any patents obtained for my inventions are obtained in my name, but are assigned to my company. I think this is appropriate. I get recognition as the inventor, and my company gets a return on its investment in me.

Likewise, I think that if the people make an investment in the work of a scientist, the technology should benefit the people, not enrich the pockets of "insiders." I would note that people went to jail in the Savings and Loan scandal. This is beginning to look and smell the same as that to me. I suspect that all you would need to get major scandal started is for an ambitious prosecutor to start digging around.

Fair enough. But in some cases, it appears to me that private companies have sometimes been involved in very speculative research that the government did not choose to support. For example, Geron funded the stem cell research of both Gearhart and Thomson. While it is clear that the NIH could not have funded Thomson's research, who derived cells from embryos created by in vitro fertilization, it most certainly could have funded Gearhart's research, which obtained the stem cells from fetal tissue taken from terminated pregnancies. (Seems backwards to me, but--whatever.) My question is, if the NIH could have funded Gearhart, why did he instead obtain funding from Geron?

Sounds like a mess. Patents can sure slow things down, and they can also increase the cost of a product. Having a twenty year monopoly, granted by the government is a rather powerful thing. The holder of the patent can literally bring things to a complete halt for the life of the patent. However, in this case, I see nothing amiss.

The theory is that patents are granted by the government so that technology that might otherwise remain secret will--twenty years hence--be made available to the public domain--which anyone can use. It is a great theory and it works. Geron funded the research and deserves assignment of the patents. However, in this case, Geron, as well as the scientists, wants the government to finance the developing of this technology that (temporarily) belongs Geron by virtue of the patents.

Actually, I think that this is probably okay. The development of this technology will be expensive. The cost might bankrupt a small company like Geron before the benefits are obtained and the cost of any resultant therapy might be exorbitantly expensive for patients who need it. And, anyway, there is a clear benefit to society.

But, with respect to basic research financed by government grants, I believe there should be no patents. Publishing of the research data is required by the grant, as well it should. So why is the government granting patents to scientists who make discoveries while on the grant system? Geron obtained rights to patents in return for funding. Should the government be different?

Sorry about mistaking your employer. I guess I am just used to seeing all reasonably large organizations as acting the same.

I find courage a very admirable quality in human beings and note there are not many people in your sometimes sensitive position who will speak to the general public as openly as you do.

It is unusual and could lead to criticism of you for being as open as you have been.

I really appreciate you giving us help and direction in learning about such a complex and valuable field.

Sustained intellectual power combined with a serious humanity is very attractive to me.

Perhaps that is why I also like Barbara McKlintock (SP?) so much.

I find courage a very admirable quality in human beings and note there are not many people in your sometimes sensitive position who will speak to the general public as openly as you do.

It is unusual and could lead to criticism of you for being as open as you have been.

I really appreciate you giving us help and direction in learning about such a complex and valuable field.

Sustained intellectual power combined with a serious humanity is very attractive to me.

Perhaps that is why I also like Barbara McKlintock (SP?) so much.

http://www.gene.com/ae/WN/SU/beebacteria1198.html

That really is a great link Cliff. If you look at the whole site there is something for everyone. Great for students.

http://www.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/part_ii_5.htm#inventpat

Thanks for the link, Dawn. Wow, now that is what I call paperwork. Did I ever mention that I hate paperwork? Actually, it appears to me that most of it is based on the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.

Under "Availability of Research Results: Publications and...", it says: "...notwithstanding, NIH recognizes that certain research findings may result in inventions. Grantees have the prerogative to protect these inventions, as long as they abide by the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, as implemented in 37 CFR 401."

Under "RIGHTS IN DATA..." it says: "In general, grantees own the data generated by or resulting from a grant-supported project."

Under INVENTIONS AND PATENTS, it says, "Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 12591 (April 10, 1987), all recipients of NIH research funding (i.e., all NIH grantees and contractors and consortium participants and other organizations receiving funds under NIH grants and contracts, whether small businesses, large businesses, or non-profit organizations) are subject to the same invention reporting requirements and regulations."

Pretty clear that what the Yale scientists did was legal as hell. But it still rubs my craw the wrong way. Sort of reminds me of what Will Rogers said about congress: something about "when congress makes a joke, it is a law!"

Not much news around here, is there? Maybe when Congress gets around to discussing lifting the ban on human embryonic stem cell cloning things will perk up. There is an editorial in the Nov. 26 New England Journal of Medicine by Rob Parkman concerning the use of placental/umbilical cord stem cell transplants to replace bone marrow transplants in cancer. The blood forming cells, which arise in the bone marrow, are severely damaged by the doses of chemotherapy needed to eradicate tumors, so the idea is to give the chemo, and then repopulate the patient's marrow and blood with the new stem cells. The problems that arise are not that the patient rejects the transplant but that immune cells from the transplant reject the patient's tissues--a condition known as graft versus host disease or GVHD. Surprisingly, using the patient's own stem cells that have been mobilized from the marrow with an injection of granulocyte colony stimulating factor doesn't work as well, suggesting a graft versus tumor effect with unmatched cells. Parkman says that the placental stem cells from unrelated donors who are matched at one, but not both of the two major HLA tissue types may provide the benefits of a graft versus tumor reaction without GVHD.

Now this is me giving my opinion and not quoting.. Embryonic stem cells don't express the HLA antigens that are responsible for graft rejection, but as soon as they start to differentiate into tissues, they do. The ES cells could be manipulated in vitro to express the HLA types of the recipient and not the donor, and therefore they would not be rejected. This hasn't been done in human ES cells yet, but I think it has been done in mice. Otherwise you would need a panel of ES cells with various combinations of all the tissue types--this would be easy enough to do by collecting eggs and sperm from people with the appropriate tissue types and creating the ES cells one wants. It seems to me that using fetal cells would be more problemati

Reasonable. They are in the code, but not expressed until differentiation. I think even I can understand that.

Makes some sense, if one knew how to do this. I don't know, but I would suspect that this might be difficult.

Yes, if you were to collect all the combinations and could type them (perhaps by causing a portion of each sample to differentiate so that it's type is expressed, or by whatever means) so you know what you have, it would seem you might have a direct solution to the problem. Obviously, you should be able to type the patient's cells so you can match them appropriately. This looks like it should work!

I agree, and, in my opinion, this is backwards as hell. The idea that using aborted fetuses for research and pharmaceutical purposes is legal, but the use of embryonic cloning for the same purposes are not, is just plain ridiculous. I oppose technology that might tend to encourage additional abortion, and I dislike the use of fetal tissue for any purpose for that reason. But if embryonic cloning might offer the solution, I would support that.

Ok in the next several days it is going to be decision time for my family.

My wife is carrying the second "fetus" that has failed to achieve a heartbeat.

We are now at 6+ weeks. After 7 they tell me there is no chance that this will become a human being. It is implanted but apparently to late or not well enough to continue development.

It could be because of genetic error or distance. We have one virtually perfect child however so it looks like an early implantation problem. Could be a roll of the dice however. (we do have a lot of genetic distance between us)

The safest thing to do, when every one is certain, is a D&C.

This is going to result in a lot of cells, some in a very primitive state of development (stem cells).

Do we spend the resources to save them for future use?

How do we determine what the various types can be used for?

Last time we just threw everything away. Now I know more about the possibilities.

Dawn, Cliff, what would you do?

Carl, I am so very sorry to hear that and feel for you and your wife. I am not certain what I would do if I were in your position since it would depend, to some degree, on the circumstances.

However, all things being equal, I think I would do as you did the last time and would advise you to do the same again. The reason is that I suspect it will be easier, on an emotional level, for your wife to let go and go on if you do not try to save the cells. You, of course, know your wife and I do not, and you are in a much better position to judge what she can handle emotionally than I. But it is obvious that her emotional well being must be your primary consideration. And I think most women will recover more completely from a traumatic situation such as this must be for her, if she is allowed to make a clean break with the trauma.

Carl, I too am sorry to hear of the situation facing your family. My first baby was stillborn, and the decision to cremate him before I saw him was made my by first husband--obviously many years ago. But Cliff's idea that getting rid of everything means that you never think about it is false. I think I thought about it even more, but probably because I wasn't involved in the decision. It is fortunate that you do have one healthy child; I went on to have two children, but I believe the loss would have been easier to take if I had had a healthy child already. Are you thinking of harvesting the fetal cells with the idea that your healthy child might need them someday? From your message, I gather that your child is of mixed race, and you are concerned that he or she might have problems finding a good tissue match if needed. The odds are slim that your child will ever need these cells, and in the US I believe more parents are being encouraged to donate placental or cord blood that would probably work just as well. That may not be true in Taiwan. How much are they charging to collect and store these cells? If it will be a financial hardship, I wouldn't do it, simply because it is so unlikely that they would ever be used. The lifetime risk of being diagnosed with leukemia is a little over 1%, and the risk before age 20 is 0.08%.

Cliff, it isn't too difficult to get the genes you want into the ES cells--the hard part is getting rid of the genes you don't want! But it has been done with mice ES cells (Scientific American March 1994 has an easy to read article about this "knock-out" technique). If mouse, why not man (or woman)? I definitely agree that ES cells offer a much better way than using fetal cells, for scientific as well as ethical reasons.

There is an interesting article in this weeks "New Yorker" about the genome sequencing project in Iceland. A biotech company has been set up to sequence the genome of everyone in Iceland, and as many of th

ClifF and Dawn thanks for your comments.

You are correct Dawn in your assumption that my thinking is that having closely related stem cells might prove valuable to the child we already have some day.

The other possibility is to see if the problem was genetic or an implantation problem.

Tomorrow we will see what is possible here and at what cost.

I don't know just why I'm so interested in those cells. Maybe just curiosity.

I hate to go through all the problems of trying to have a child and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Also a D&C is not going to be pleasant for anyone.

Oh well! You can't win if you dont play.

Today I visited a IVF clinic here in Taipei. There are about 40 of these in Taiwan. As well as IVF they offer sperm sex selection services. Seems a lot for an island of 21 million people.

The age of marriage here has climbed to 27+ years and as a result there is all ready a virtually zero population growth and a lot of problems.

To isolate and cryo sore human cells is about 300 US$ for the preparation and 150/mon. storage.

30l of liquid Nitrogen costs about 50 US$ and and a mid pressure liquid nitrogen 30l tank goes for 650 US$.

Most of the cloning R&D is related to farm animals. When I ask about storing human cells the first question they ask is weither I wanted to clone bone stem cells to treat leukaemia.

Carl, do you have to buy your own nitrogen tank and keep it full? If so, I don't think it is worth it--nitrogen evaporates fairly fast, and you would need to fill the tank every week. I'm not sure that the cells from a six week D & C would be usable, but I don't know. I don't think that the placenta would be large enough to provide sufficient stem cells for blood cell precursors, which is the only procedure that works under current knowledge. The primordial germ cells could probably be teased out and grown as ES cells if you were at Johns Hopkins and had access to Gearhart's technology. But if it is possible to use the cells to diagnose the reason for failure of the pregnancy, you might want to do that.

Sorry I was contrasting the cost of having them stored at a clinic to buying the liquid nitrogen myself.

The low pressure (a few hundred psi.) liquid nitrogen tanks are well insulated and are pressurized enough so that the temperature inside the tank can be much higher than if stored at atmospheric pressure. This retards the evaporation rate. The tanks are self venting to maintain the pressure.

By themselves a 30 litre tank will bleed off in about about 2.5 months so maybe one month of using some of the nitrogen to cool the small very well insulated cell container with liquid nitrogen at room pressure and a much lower temperature.

I've used this system before for rapid cooling of electronic parts (temp. shock test) in the aero space industry.

I don't have a clue about what kind of cells I'll get but the doctors at the clinic can teach me. Maybe there will not be anything worth keeping.

Cliff along the philosophical side it does not seem that implantation is enough to decide that a group of implanted cells is a human being.

My wife and I are certainly not going to emotionally attach ourselves very much to even a potential child until we see a heart beat.

In ancient China they did not even name a child until one or two mounts after it was born. This was reasonable given a much higher infant mortality then.

Dawn and Cliff: We were all set to do a D&C but thought we would do one more ultra sound.

We now have a heart beat. Real small fetus but it has some degree of independent life.

We will give it another week and see.

I find myself bending more in your direction of thinking Cliff. I still don't think implantation is the key feature because other cells can implant and grow, but a heart beat gets very real.

The IVF and cloning people (assisted reproduction) are definitely injecting some new moral and ethical questions into the game.

I am convinced that any law that attempts to prevent or hinders people from bearing their own child can not fly. Especially not in a free society with armed citizens and serious restitute of law. Come to think of it just having free access to the Internet might be powerful enough.

A successful human cloning will blow such a law right out of the water. Better not to make it in the first place.

I feel that the passions and irrational feelings some people have, are creating an extreme polarization between the people who see immense benefits of cloning certain cells, and the luddite type mentality that believes human kind will be enslaved by this work.

They in effect say that all human cells are their property and only they can determine what their uses shall be.

I think they are suffering from the Frankenstien complex and should run, not walk, to their nearest mental health care professional.

Forty two years ago in junior high school we had a visiting professor lecture our science class about genetics and I ask a question about how cells differentiate from a zygote.

His answer was basically "we don't know".

It appears that the only explanations devolve around nutrient gradient and the proximity of other cells. This of course does not answer the question of how the organs know how large to grow. (let alone what shape)

In any event the differentiation from zygotes that can transform their clones into any type of cell, to cells that can not bend to produce any other than themselves seems to be a gradual process that may take many years in some cases, never in others.

It seem that there is still a lot of classification that is required. I think that the cytoplasm is the key to this work in that I view it as the factory that not only produces the output product of the cells but determines, which RNA gets sent to itself to be used. In some cases this information comes from totally outside the cell.

The information exchange between the enviroment, the cytoplasm, and the nucleus seem extremely veiled to us at this time. In spite of all that we know, a truly rational observer would have to conclude that our form of life is not possable.

Carl, I hope all goes well with your wife's pregnancy. Heart beats are emotionally moving, but I prefer brain and nueral network function as the point at which a group of cells becomes human. It is our advanced brain, after all, that truly differentiates humans from other animals. Both the egg and the sperm are alive, so it isn't a question of when life begins to me, but when human life begins.

I am sure that some fundamentalist groups will begin a lawsuit to block federal funding of embryonic stem cells research and persuade their congresspeople to support legislation barring federal funds for stem cell research. The new head of the FDA says she hasn't thought about it yet, but will seek advice. She got some pretty pointed questions in her job interview!

The scientists are saying that once created the ES cells can't become human beings on their own, and that is true. But, as far as I can tell, the cells could be put back into a blastocyst to make either a human chimera or (if the blastocyst could remain intact after destroying the original inner cell mass, and I don't know if this is possible) a human bearing the genetics of the ES cell. I see no reason for anyone to want to do this anyway. But the luddites will bring it up.

Here is what may seem like a strange question, but I really am not "cloning" around, this is a serious question. Remember the movie "The Boys from Brazil", where multiple Hitlers are cloned, could that happen? If the technology to clone people is developed soon or is already developed, could there be DNA from Hitler somewheres that could be used to clone him? I personally find the idea to be horrible and scary, but I wonder if it could happen. I have read that the Russians found Hitler's body and saved some parts of it such as his skull, I wonder if they have some parts of him in jars someplace, and would that supply enough DNA for cloning. Of course, even if he was cloned, without the environmental influences (such as Hitler living as a homeless person several years after being rejected by Art School, and being temporarily blinded after being gassed in World War 1) you would probably not have the same psychopathic evil mind. A Hitler clone might just become an artist or architect. I'm interested in whether anyone has read anything on this, could there still be Hitler DNA around somewheres to make "The Boys from Brazil" possible?