The heart beat did not last long. Now the "sock" has become smaller and the foetal tissue almost undetectable. There is also some placenta separation. It's over. We will schedule a D&C as soon as practical.

We are thinking about doing a carotyping but wonder to what end. We have decided to try again and not save the cells of this one but defiantly go for the stem cells next time.

New right of passage. As in: "Well son now that your 21 your mom and I think it's time you assume responsibility for your own stem cells. Here is the company where they are stored and the access ID code." ;)

I really hope the scientific progress in this field can not be blocked by this vocal minority. I think they are scared because some of their basic assumptions about life are being challenged. Lucky we have seperation of church and state.

BTW there is an unbelievable amount of information about C. Elegans. I think I'll use it as a base for learning molecular biology. I'm thinking about putting up a special server dedicated to this fascinating project.

Carl: Sorry things didn't go well, but hope future efforts succeed for you. You are right about C. elegans--a fascinating little worm. There is also a lot known about Drosophila (fruit fly), which may be the next organism with its genome sequenced. Whenever the Senate gets back to business, the human embryo cloning issue awaits them, and the opposition is having plenty of time to prepare their case. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit to try to block federal funding of the research, even though the government lawyers stated that in their opinion, stem cell research did not violate the ban on embryo research. Congress will have to pass a law one way or another. I hope they listen to the scientists rather than religionists, but I am not too hopeful.

And from fair England who just voted Gutenberg the inventor of the millennium even though his "movable type press" had been used in China 600 (count em) years before he was born we get the following stories.

It's going to get very real.

To T. Chase - Tuesday, 01/26/99, 7:29:06pm

Well I think that in this crazy cloning world anything is possible. Not only should we worry about the potential Hitlers but also the other "bad seeds" that history has produced. I tend to think that this technology is still in it's early stages and that the scientists have yet to REALLY understand some of the ramifactions of their work. Let's just hope they temper their work with long calculated thought and careful consideration.

PS. It's nice to see that someone else posting here. The previous postings have been on "ingnore mode" to the rest of us.

Thanks!

Oops....IGNORE

Sorry

TB

The line."Researchers have worked with mouse embryonic stem cells for years, but only recently have scientists been able to isolate human embryonic stem cells, a result that has profound implications." indicates that classification of types of cells and just what differentiation means still has a long way to go before any type of "good law" can be written. IMHO

Could you, for instance, use umbilical stem cells to form human eggs.

Could you use them to form a parthenogenic "zygote"

The question seems to be how many ways can you clone a human.

Carl, I have read that article several times, and I do not have an answer. It certainly seems that human embryonic stem cells have the potential for significant advancements in biology and comparable potential for mischief, as well, and no clear way of differentiating the two. It all seems to be a matter of interpretation and degree. I tend to agree with Dr. Lee Silver that embryonic stem cells are the moral equivalent of embryos. In addition, I agree with Dr. Silver that research with human embryo cells should be permitted, and like him, I dislike the "winking and nodding."

Now that the impeachment thing is finally over, I assume Congress will finally get around to writing legislation in this area. It appears that the ethicists have been hard at work debating the ramifications of this technology. I think it will turn out okay. But then, I didn't think the house would impeach the President. And after the House impeached the President, I thought the senate would make short work of acquitting the President--and it took a full month. Shows you how much I know about politics.

It appears that the U.S. Congress intends no proactive steps with respect to cloning. It appears that they only react to headlines. The next headline is likely to be the cloning of a human. If it is successful, all will be well. If, on the other hand, the human clone turns out to be a monstrosity, the U.S. Congress (and other similar bodies in other countries) will become very sanctimonious and enact all sorts of restrictive laws with respect to cloning.

I agree Cliff.

Recent advances in stem-cell reaserch will probably tarnish the scary sci-fi glow of cloning in any case.

Who is going to think much about cloning when they can re-grow a tired heart?

I guess it depends on the method(s) that turn out to be possible. If the heart can be "regenerated" without cloning (or more to the point, without the discarding of embryos created from cells, or whatever, for the process, but not selected for use in the process).

It is my supposition that the actual cloning process will not raise many objections once it has become a successful process (if it does become a successful process), but the problem of the "discarded" embryos, inherent in the process, will be a continuing problem for some people.

I think that about covers it.

Personaly -- I am not going to get too uptight about an embryo of a week or two in appearant age, it is just that I can not cleanly and precisely deliniate between this stage and the stage where we are discussing a "little person."

I would suggest a course wherein we err towards the side where we are less likely to accidentaly slaughter a bunch of "little people."

How do you feel about the moment when the embryo attaches to the uterin wall as the defining moment--whether fertilized in vitro or in vivo.

Before that, assuming an invitro fertilization, intervention is needed.

From this point on, however, no intervention to keep the embryo alive is needed. From this point on, if nothing is done, nine months later, a child is born.

I am a fan of implantation also, but generaly draw rasberries from both sides of the debate when I bring it up!

That was very funny, Keith.

:-)

Somehow, I would like to get the nice converstation on cloning and related technology we are having on the Science and Religion board moved over here, but I'm afraid to disturb it. Maybe the best thing to do is leave it alone. What do you think? It is reasonably on topic over there, I suppose.

I think what they are talking about is called parthenogenesis and has been done with frogs for a long time.

I have heard that some females long to reproduce this way.

I read the article on the mice with jellyfish cells that glow in the dark. I think that it is pretty neat, and could lead to some useful discoveries.

One thing, though. Imagine a worker in a nuclear power plant wants to play a prank on his boss. He gets some of those mice, and times it so that they are released in a dimly lit basement area JUST IN TIME for the inspector to arrive. Perhaps he places a blacklight bulb somewhere to make sure that they glow perfectly, with a few other props;-) The boss and the inspector walk by, and see a dark corridor where there is glowing green fluid dripping from a pipe, and glowing green mice running around!

Both the boss and the inspector would have the shock of thier lives. Hopefully, most nuclear plants have a level of security that would end up making such a stunt impractical, though.

Well, here is the latest news I have seen on this:

Cloning is fine with me.

No, that would be idiotic. There are far more benefits to be gained from research along these lines.

I don't care, why aren't we cloning people now? Research along these lines hopefully will advance all arenas of genetic research, disease research and medical research. This could greatly reduce the need for animal models in research.

Like Eric Meslin of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, I agree that "the research's potential benefits for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's outweigh the ethical concerns that prompted a broad ban on government funding of any embryo research four years ago." However, I have a basic disagreement with the idea of a "consensus forming that it is permissible to conduct this type of research on embryos left over from (in vitro fertilization) procedures where they would have been discarded in any event." I think it is either permissible to create and/or use embryos for stem cell research and applications, or it is not.

Apparently, we, as a society, have determined that it is permissible to create embryos for the purpose of IVF--at least, there is no law against it--and, of course, some are left over. Typically, these embryos are refrigerated indefinitely or they are discarded. Using these left over embryos for stem cell research sounds inviting, but it begs the issue. The question is: is it morally permissible to use embryos to create stem cells? It seems to me that if it is morally permissible to use embryos, it must also be morally permissible to create embryos for that purpose.

My main objection to the use of only "left over embryos" is that it creates a market in "left over embryos." As long as there are enough existing "left over embryos" to fill the need, everything is fine. But what happens when more are needed than may be readily be available? Will it then be possible to create additional "left over embryos" to fill the need? Of course it would be, but now we are getting into the realm of interpretation of law: which embryos are lawful and which are not. This is a legal game we do not need. I think we need to decide the issue once an for all.

<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/clone/wornaway.html">this</a>

The telemere issue is very interesting. It appears that a telemere therapy (which Geron is currently developing) may be a major breakthrough in curing human ageing.

Cloning is just an enabling technology specifically for the production of immortal stem-cells in order to make regeneration (and rejuvenation) possible. This is why Geron Corp. bought the patent rights for the cloning of Dolly. What the cloners of Dolly specifically did not do, but geron Corp. is doing, was to restore the telemeres on the Chromasones of the cell used to grow Dolly.

As you probably know, the adult human body (that is, you and I) has the stem-cells necessary for regeneration and rejuvanation. The problem is that those stem-cells are not immortal like the embryonic ones. Hence the need to develop a telemerase therapy to immortalize them in order to make the use of embryonic stem-cells obsolete. Contrary to an opinion expressed on this board before, the adult stem-cells have been shown to be pluripotent, that is, differentiable into any tissue, depending on which growth factors (HGH, IGF-1, etc.) you spike them with.

The telemerase therapy will be applied only to the adult stem-cells in your body and it will have to be an in-situ therapy (that is, like a shot or pill that you take). The reason for this is that it will work much better that way and be much less expensive that the current approach of harvesting cells from your body, cultivating them in a lab, and re-injecting them in your body. This current approach is hideously expensive ($100,000-$250,000) and thus, out of financial reach of most of us who plan on paying for our immortality ourselves (I don't plan on my insurance to pay for me to live forever).

Once the stem-cells in your body are immortalized, then regeneration/rejuvenation of your body (and mind) then becomes a matter of taking the proper growth factors (will probably be pills) at the proper time (there will probably be a recipe-based schedual).

Cliff, although I agree that it is no more unethical to create embryos for research than it is to use the embryos leftover from IVF, this is not a country that is known for taking quantum leaps. We are incrementalists. I'm hoping that we can determine the potential of the HESCs with the lines and embryos we have, then if it looks as if we need to create them specifically--say for the particular set of desired antigens, the public may be more understanding. Right now I am embroiled with explaining the procedure to a group of Catholic women who have been recruited by the Catholic Bishops to protest lifting the ban on federal funding. Not an easy task, but they have a lot of mis-information, and it helps to say that these leftover embryos would be destroyed in any event, and that God or Nature fails to implant at least half of the fertilized eggs that are produced. The Patients Coalition survey, which you questioned, asked specifically if people would support research on embryos that would be destroyed otherwise if it meant the cure of the various diseases. The Bishops, on the other hand, got opposite results by asking if people would support research involving the specific creation and destruction of countless human embryos.

Eric, a lot of people find somatic cell nuclear transfer even more objectionable than using embryos. Unless it is done routinely, the cells might not be available when needed--it will take time to grow them, differentiate, etc. We don't know if the HESC will be rejected or not, but it is probably possible to make them antigenically neutral through genetic manipulation (we can do it in mice). But I'm glad Geron is going ahead with their research. Because of the latest Dolly news, they'll need to add telomeres to the somatic cells before they clone them. Sounds easier than it probably is.

Kurt, giving telomerase as a shot that will only go to stem cells is an enormous challenge. We are nowhere close to being able to deliver the

You may as well try to hold back the sea with your hands. To even consider "banning" the practice of cloning shows a real lack of understanding about how the real world works. The most that can be accomplished is to obstruct open research in our own country, which will lead to a technological lag in the world market where the products and end-uses of this important technology are likely to spawn whole new industries.

Will humans be cloned, whether we like it or not? Of course! So what?

I suppose you could say the same for bank robbery. As long as there are banks with money, I suppose there will be bank robbery. Why bother trying to ban it? It is going to happen whether we ban it or not.

Actually, bank robbery is much more likely to occur in the near future than human cloning. Who would want a cloned child physically unable to live out a normal life?

I am not sure we need a specific law against human cloning. I would guess that anyone actually capable of performing the procedure would be familiar with the associated problems. As long as those problems persist, I would think it very unlikely that anyone would attempt the procedure on humans.

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 06/06/99, 2:51:14am (#625 of 625)

Bank robbery is hardly an appropriate parallel for many reasons, as I'm sure you knew when you used it.

A more approapriate parallel (although a bit too recent) might be if we had banned genetic engineering. This technology can be used to manufacture organisms and substances (benevolent or malicious) but it is evolving into a new industry that will benefit all of us. Certainly banning its use (as some argued for) would have slowed the legitimate research organizations from working, but the practice would have simply moved off-shore, or gone underground since it is an increase and use of knowledge.

Knowledge can be beneficial, and it can also be misused. Since the tools necessary for either application are the same, how will you know which is being practiced? If fact, how will you even know that something is happening? because this does not require a large industrial complex.

Regarding human cloning: The question is not will this eventually happen, but when will it happen? Problems may exist today, but these barriers are fleeting benchmarks at most.

Michael, I think Bank robbery is an appropriate enough analogy with respect to the point you attempted to make. Certainly, it is something that will be done whether there is a law against it or not. But just because it will be done anyway does not necessarily mean that passing a law against it is useless.

I do not agree that genetic engineering represents a "parallel" to cloning in any sense. Indeed, the purpose of the researchers in Scotland who cloned Dolly was genetic engineering. To them, cloning was simply an alternate, perhaps more efficient, method of producing human proteins in the milk of farm animals for therapeutic purposes. To accomplish the production of human proteins in the milk of farm animals, genetic engineering is required. Actually, in some ways, cloning is so closely related to genetic engineering, it is almost the same thing. And now it appears that successful human cloning will probably involve the direct application of significant genetic engineering.

Remember that the real action remains the production of human proteins in the milk of farm animals. That is technology we can use now. Of secondary, but increasing, importance is stem cell research that may eventually have a positive therapeutic application. Of only slight importance is cloning as a reproductive method.

Cloning is good...as long as it is done on the livestock so that there would be more food for the world's ever-growing population. I'd also suggest that it should also be done on wildlife, especially ENDANGERED wildlife. You know, like pandas, mountain gorillas (?), and tigers (I like tigers...they're such lovely creatures). Might also be useful on plants, especially plants with invaluable medicinal properties which can also be the possible cure for AIDS.

It is simply, for me, out of the question to clone the human being. I mean, who needs a twin on a late date?

Hazel, I disagree. I think that human cloning, when the technology is ready, would be quite acceptable. I think there needs to be some rules with which society can live. I do not agree that we have to accept whatever anyone and everyone may decide to do with the technology. But, basically, when used properly--and when the technology is ready, I see not significant difference between cloning as a reproductive method and IVF.

I am sure there was a time when IVF was simply out of the question for a lot of people, but it is accepted by most people today. I think the main reason is that they put the first IVF child on TV, and when people first saw that little girl, they very quickly lost all reservations they may have had. She was beautiful. The same thing can happen with the first clone child, if the technology is right before it is done.

Cloning is precisely of the same nature as In Vitro Fertilization. If we morally allow one, then we must morally allow the other.

I would prompt people to think though of the moral character of cloning and of in vitro. They are certainly one and the same--it is simply taking the reproductive process out of the realm of man and woman and into the realm of test tube, where it was never meant to be.

In modern society, people see children as a personal right; children are chattels of their parents. Else we would not have abortion, and the true "rights of the child" would be recognized. In the end the question simply is whether or not we wish to follow moral guidance or whether we think we can do just fine without it. I shall simply remind all of Aristotle: the ends do not justify the means. Be mindful of consequences before you perform actions, or pay to have actions performed.

Hazel, the problem with your "save the endagered species" idea is that cloning will just screw them up worse. A tiger clone would have the same genetic make-up as another, so when they breed you get inbred tiger babies. That's bad news for a species. Why do you think people try to marry OUTSIDE the family? It is feasible for the cloning of cows, let say, which would not breed, just live their life and be slaughtered for food. Or maybe those plants which we would only harvest (I've never heard of inbred plants!). It would also be a VERY poor alternative for repopulation of endagered animals because there's already few enough of them which makes the gene pool already thick enough. I think that's about it. I would appreciate any criticisms as I am only 18 and not well versed in this subject. Thanks.

Ben, I have tried to think of a "criticism" of your analysis, but can not. I could be wrong since I am only 57, but I think you have it right. However, I will mention that, in the future, it may be possible to genetically alter clones in such a manner as to avoid the "inbreeding" problem, and thus it may be possible to save endangered species using cloning technology. In addition, in the meantime--until that technology is developed, it may be possible to keep certain endangered species alive so they can be "saved" later.

This reminds me of something I read a little before my time even. It had to do with the invention of the automobile (or maybe it was a train--I can't remember exactly) and the assertion by the author--something to the effect--that if God had intended us to travel as fast as a car can go, he would have made horses that could run that fast.

I guess I am not sure why you say IVF and cloning were "never meant to be." Not meant to be by whom, and why, Nathaniel?

Being somewhat uninformed myself could someone with some idea of what is going on answer a few questions or coment on a few probably wrong statements.

How could two clones inter breed? wouldn't they both be the same sex? That is if they were cloned from cells from the same animal.

My understanding is the doner egg is first strippped of its genetic material so both halves of the dna material come from the same cell.

Don't they usualy use doner eggs from cows? As they are large and easy to strip the dna from.

Maybe the human clones are an attempt to get rid of women. Just figure out how to get the cow to carry the fetus.

(Actually, <a href="http://cnn.com/NATURE/9905/31/mouse.clone.reut/">this page</a> )

Cliff--Thanks the link you provided helped. I am still somewhat confused but learning more all the time. I have to wounder. As the DNA is removed from the donor egg as I thought. Is the source of the egg really critical? Or is the egg just a source of useable food for the developing cells. I have to wounder also if enginered cells using some human DNA in Animals works and it seems to be true how long befor someone decides to go for the whole ball of wax. There is a hog farm near my home that is enginering human cells in the hogs. All hogs from the farm are sent to a rindering plant for disposal. I know people who work at the farm(a university owned farm) truckers who haul the hogs and people who work at the rindering plant. How much truth there is to the stories I hear I cannot say but hogs with human ears skin and other body parts are unnearving to say the least. Especialy when you consider the rindering plant ships it's product to a lipstick factory.

Dr. Mehngela would be proud of those in favor of cloning.

If we now have the ability to clone sheep(roslin), which we know are mammals, then it should thoretically be possible to do the same with humans. I think that we can all see the bennefit in having a clone of ourselves for spare parts(so to speak). Our lives could be extended indefinatly. I would have to predict that the rights of clones would then become an issue. That may just be not too far in the future. Virtually every part of the body can be transplanted from a suitable donor, so when science can learn to re-attach a spinal column the rules of life's game are going to change drastically. These things would probably be in the testing stages if the laws were no so stringent on excluding human cloning experimentation. You can bet that the tests are being performed somewhere in secret and this will eventually be something that we all have to consider. If we can cheat death, would that be ethical or not?

And the benefits of robbing a bank for the extra money would be obvious, don't you think, Billy? Just think how nice it would be to have all that extra money :-) I recently pointed out on this very board that it is ridiculous to try to outlaw bank robbery. People are going to do it whether it is legal or not. Anyway, it is probably already happening in secret. We can't stop it.

Actually, I would suppose the rights of clones would be no more an issue than your rights or mine. Why make a big deal about the rights of a human being :-)

Seems like a reasonable enough question: is killing a human being for spare parts unethical :-)

Actually, Billy, I would think the method of reproduction would be beside the point. In order for you to benefit in the manner you have suggested, it would appear to me that you would have to kill the clone (human being). That is murder in any state in the USA, and also any other country of which I am aware. If there were a colony on Mars, I would imagine it would be against the law there also.

I would therefore suspect that acting in this fashion would likely tend to shorten one's life instead of lengthening it.

Ethical or not, I would not advise it.

Robbing banks and cloning yourself are not directly comparable. In the first instance you take the property of another and in the latter you do not. If it is a clone of your physcial body and it has no consciousness of its own, then it is not a human being, simply a body...your body.

What do you mean: "If...it has no consciousness of its own"? Of course a clone will have a consciousness of its own. A clone will be born of woman just like any other human being and will be a unique individual human being just like any other unique human being.

True, a clone will be genetically identical to the cell donor...much as identical twins are genetically identical to each other. Clones will be unique human beings just as identical twins are unique human beings.

To kill one's clone for "spare parts" will be as much a crime as a twin killing his identical twin for "spare parts."

No new laws are needed to put someone on death row for that. Existing laws will suffice just fine.

Not necessarily. Especially not if just parts are cloned, obviously.

At first it will have to be done that way but that will not be the end result.

I find it amusing that you support the death penalty BTW. Since you think killing killers is okay, why don't we harvest their organs?

As of now there are no laws regarding the legal rights of clones, but that may change relatively soon. This is a near future issue. First of all is a clone an extension of yourself; or is it a seperate entity entirely. Surely the clone would have a sentience of it's own and therefore it would have the same wants and needs as any other human being. Over time it's personality would develope along the same nature vs. nuture lines as anyone else. Consider this though; what if the clone were mentally disabled in some way and the body was supported by mechanical means. Would it still have the rights of any other human? Would it be fair to keep the body alive and pilage it's healthy parts to replace worn out ones? After all, a clone would be an absolutely perfect donor. If ethical values are overlooked, then maybe the imortality option is not to far off in the future. Suddenly science fiction is not so fictional. Oh well, blame it on Marry Shelley.

Gosh, that was a quick response.

Where did you get the idea I support the death penalty for killers who deserve to die?

You said:

Eric, the technical obstacles to "cloning an organ" are tremendous. It is my guess that before that happens, other superior options will present themselves--such as in vivo regeneration technologies.

Also, I probably ought to admit that I was joking about "killers who deserve to die." I actually oppose the death penalty. I see no good reason to kill prisoners when we have prisons that can hold killers for life and thus these killers pose no danger to society. I think the death penalty made sense a hundred years ago when the prisons were considerably less secure, but not today.

But the death penalty does exist in this country, and it is my guess is that it will continue to exist for the forseeable future. And people who "harvest" organs from clones will be subject to existing laws against murder.

Billy, not only will a clone be a separate entity, he/she will viewed as a separate entity by society. Clones will have birth certificates just like anyone else. Twins are genetically identical. We don't say that one is an extension of the other. Each are unique. Likewise, clones will be considered to be unique.

You're probably right, but can you see the incredible potential that cloning creates. Does that poetential supercede our basic moral laws? Its a question that will soon need to be addressed. Let me put it to you this way: What do you think Einstein would have been able to accomplish if he were alive for another 50 years plus?

That is what they said about cloning in any form not so long ago...

Then you have nothing to worry about. If superior options come up, the ethics of cloning will be acadmemic debate only.

Actually, probably about the same as he accomplished in his life as it was. I have to be careful here because Einstein actually made major contributions to science when he was well into his forties. But Einstein was very unusual. Most major contributions by scientists are usually made quite early in life. For example, every significant contribution by Newton was made by the time he obtained the age of 25. After that, there was not a single significant contribution to the field of science by Newton. Therefore, in that regard, whether he lived to the age of 26 or 96 is relatively inconsequential.

True. But the technical obstacles to cloning by the nuclear transfer method of which you refer were of a theoretical nature. Solve the theoretical problem and a breakthrough is possible. Nature takes care of the rest. When you attempt to clone an individual organ, you have to take care of things that nature normally handles.

There is a theoretical problem to cloning individual organs in that nobody knows how to do it now, but we may assume that creating the specific cells needed for an organ from stem cells is likely to be worked out. But once the "breakthrough" is achieved, the real problems begin. For example, how do you provide nourishment to the organ without a circulatory system. How do you provide oxygen to the organ for vital life processes without a respiratory system. Also, how do you keep the vital life processes going without a brain to regulate those processes. How do you prevent disease and infection without an immune system. How are waste products discarded.

Okay, lets face it. All of the things I have mentioned, and others that will arise, might appear to be achievable. But only at great expense. Therefore, I do not see an ecconomic imperative for the procedure even it were to become theoretically possible.

I have no ethical problem with human cloning for reproductive purposes. I think it will be done eventually, and I will support it when the technology is right. Also, the production of human proteins in the milk of farm animals for people needing those proteins is a great idea. In addition, I think stem cell research should be encouraged since it also has great potential for health benefit of people in general. Some may have an ethical problem with some of this, but not me.

It is only when you make statements like: "If it is a clone of your physcial body and it has no consciousness of its own, then it is not a human being, simply a body...your body," that I object.

A clone will be a human being like any other human being. To even consider "harvesting" the organs of a clone is most repugnant to me. Deciding a clone can be sacrificed for the benefit of the cell donor makes as much sense to me as deciding to sacrifice one twin for the benefit of his brother

A body without a consciousness is not a human being...it is a body...that consciousness is what makes a human a human.

I'm sure you are aware that a brain-dead person is legally dead and their organs can be removed for transplant...does that bother you as well?

I have no problem with the removal of transplantable organs from legally dead people provided permission is granted by that person while still alive. I personally have no objection from someone benefiting from the use of an organ of mine after I am dead and have no use for it myself, and have made appropriate provisions for such donation should it be found desirable. However, I have respect for the desires of people who do object. It is my opinion that no one should have the right to decided for someone else what use will be made of their organs after they are dead.

Each individual--including clones--should have the right to decide for themselves.

One exception is that parents should have the right to donate the organs of their minor children who have died. (However, if the child is dead because the parents have murdered the child, the parents should have no rights, whatsoever, including their own freedom.)

Correction: Parents who kill their own children should have the right to a fair trial to put them away for good. I will grant them that.

Anyone here have an opinion on the recently announced revelation that cloned human embryos have existed since November (although none were allowed to continue past 12 days)?

Well, lunch is over. More info on the cloned human embryos can be found in BBC Online's Sci/Tech section.

What is your opinion, Jaco.

Me? I think the Korean scientists who did this were "testing the water." I think they will do it as soon as they think the public is ready.

Personally, I have no problem with the creation of human embryos by the nuclear transfer method, provided the embryos are not implanted and brought to term. I currently oppose the implantation of these embryos because I do not think the technology is ready. When the technology has been demonstrated to be ready, I will support bringing a clone child to term.

It is my opinion that cloning by the nuclear transfer method will eventually become an additional valid reproduction option.

Hi, Cliff--I didn't realize that this board had any recent messages before I posted something on the Science & religion that is probably more appropriate for here, since it concerns the human embryonic stem cell cloning. I've been working with a patient's advocacy group to get Congress to understand what this is all about, but there is tremendous opposition from the Catholic bishops Right to Life Coalition as well as fundamentalist Protestant groups. The House and Senate leaders are definitely against lifting the ban on federal funding, and they say that the opinion of the NIH legal team that research with cells created from embryos by private industry violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Ironically, the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique would yield stem cells that are a perfect match (although it is uncertain that an absolutely perfect match is needed--umbilical cord stem cells are better than adult bone marrow stem cells when it come to being tolerated by the host. However, in an emergency it is questionable whether or not sufficient numbers of cells could be made in time. Some people oppose using embryos, others are against somatic cell transfers, but most that oppose one form of cloning don't like the other either. Research could go a lot faster if it was open to all scientists, but unless Congress bans the research done by private industry (and this is a real possibility) they will charge ahead anyway and in secret.

Dawn, with respect to your letter writing, and your work with a patient's advocacy group, I fear it is a lost cause. When I first heard that the NIH bioethics panel had suggested that researchers working on government grants could work with left over IVF embryos and not violate the existing ban, I literally felt sick. I still can not fathom what these supposedly intelligent people were thinking. They certainly were not thinking straight in my opinion.

I continue to believe an honest campaign to get the law changed to permit this research in light of the possible benefits would have had a chance. But to "re-interpret" the law as the NIH panel did was an open invitation to congress to "tighten" the law. Actually, It looks to me as if they were intentionally trying to anger the congressional leadership. Maybe they thought that if they could get the congress to overreact, they might have an improved chance of getting the membership of the congress changed.

But there is no assurance that tightening the existing law will hurt anyone's chances of being re-elected, and the net result is that it may now be possible that congress will impose a ban on private research as well.

If scientists are mystified by the objections by either the congressional leadership or the theologians, I am not. Of course, they have the opposition of the theologians. I think they had a chance to overcome that, but to intentionally anger the very people they needed to persuade made no sense to me at all.

Dawn, if U.S. congress does ban the private development of the stem-cell research, do you personally know people in Geron and other companies doing this research? Because my business partners in Taiwan are interested in biotechnology and have contacts in Taiwan's national laboratories as well as private companies. We specialize in technology transfer, mainly in semiconductor and other process technology, but are interested in biotech as well. If you do know these people, we would be interested in meeting with them.

I think if the U.S. bans this technology, it could be a good oportunity for Taiwan's biotech industryto get a leg up on the U.S. industry. Please reply in this board, or to my email address at [email protected].

For Cliff Beall:

I respect your view on this issue, but you only stated the GOOD side of what's gonna happen when cloning people becomes standard procedure. Sure, we can bring back Einstein, but what next? Let us suppose, that by the time cloning becomes legal, that his friends and loved ones are gone. What is there to look forward to? And are you sure that his brilliant mind would be the same as it was many years ago? What if there was some glitch in the procedure? The scientists might end up with a veggie Einstein. And if it is successful, what will he then contribute to a society that already has it all, huh? Who knows what advances we may have made by then in science. I'll appreciate any comments on this one from all comers...

For Ben Rosenfield:

I don't think the gene pool could be THAT thick. And I also don't think that the people who will clone these endangered species will match them in the same "gene pool" of the family of the original. I don't think that the people taking care of these animals are that DUMB. And they don't have to make too many clones from one animal. Like you said, the gene pool is already thick enough. What they will do, however, is send the clones out to other wildlife reserves and have them matched and mated with their kind. Dolly's (the sheep) handlers, if I am not mistaken, made sure that she didn't mate with a closely related ram, to ensure the survival of her offspring. I don't think the farmer Johns of the world would appreciate the fact that their future herd of cattle will come from one cow or bull, the latter which is for breeding. And by the way, I'm eighteen myself. ^_-

Hazel, I fear that you have misunderstood my posts. I do not advocate nor have I ever advocated "bringing back Einstein" by the nuclear transfer method. Current technology would not permit this anyway, but even if it did, I would advocate no such thing.

Please click below:

to re-read my response to Billy Bray on this subject. (Billy wanted to know what Einstein would have accomplished with more time.)

I think cloning will be eventually be a valid reproduction option in certain cases were other options are not available or less desirable for one or more reasons. I do not recommend it to populate armies nor brothels, nor do I promote it for the purpose of scientific advancement in the manner in which you suggest.

This seems to be a major concern for some people, but it bothers me not in the least. It concerns me not that Dolly was cloned in Scotland. I support advancement of the sciences. I could care less where that advancement originates. If people in Taiwan do great things, more power to them. This is one world.

Cliff, this is a real post on my part because I was asked about three weeks ago by one of my partners if I had any connections in the U.S. biotech field. Our parent company is a food processing company involved in chemical processing as well as is located near Tainan Science Park in Southern Taiwan. They are interested in biotech, expecially medical biotech.

Anyhow, I told my friend that I did not currently have any contacts in the U.S. biotech field, but that I certainly would try to establish some. Hence, my previous post. The only difficulty is that I would need to talk to someone in the management structure of either Geron or ACT, since these are the only companies doing stem-cell work in the U.S. that I know of (there's one in Australia). I have in mind some kind of joint-venture deal. It is something I want to pursue.

BTW, what I would personally "bring to the table" in such a venture is that I am a process automation engineer, have some sales and marketing background, and also can do technology transfer (that is, have some knowledge about structuring these kind of business deals). The point is, we create the future. And I will find a way to get involved and develop this technology if it is banned in the U.S. There is alot of market for this technology outside the U.S. and it is pure arrogance for Americans to think that they are the only market (as well as the only technically capable people) in the entire world. It is precisely this arrogance that was the motivation for the riots in China in May when we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

I guarrantee everyone on this board that this technology WILL be developed. The only question for me is whether I end up with an equity position in the business deal that develops it (of course, I need to get a managerial contact in Geron and ACT to talk to them).

Free Yourselves

Kurt, not everyone in this country believes only Americans are technically capable. As I have previously pointed out, Dolly was cloned in Scotland--and there was not a single American around when it happened. (So much for only Americans being technically capable.) However, it does appear that the current developing stem cell technology is an American original.

If you ask me, I think it is highly unlikely that private stem cell research will be banned in the USA. I strongly suspect, therefore, that if Taiwan wishes to be a player, they will need to do the basic research necessary to develop the technology--as opposed to acquiring it already developed.

I still think the NIH and the scientific community missed a golden opportunity to get the law changed restricting the use of federal funds in this research. I am sure it must have felt good to stick their collective tongues out at the congress, however unwise it was to do so. Nevertheless, while it is quite possible that the current law banning the use of federal funds for this research may be "tightened" as a result of what the NIH did, I think it is highly unlikely that private research will be banned. I really can not imagine that legislation banning private research could possibly pass the congress in the first place and I think it would be extremely difficult to get enough votes in the congress to override an almost certain Presidential veto of any such legislation. (After all, this is "American Technology," is it not?)

It is increasingly likely that forces in the US government will consider advanced bio technology information as being owned by the US .gov, weather privately developed or not and will implement additional laws to restrict it's dissemination in the interest of "national security".

I refer you to the recent (20 year) history of the development of cryptographic technology.

Many individuals and companies have had to either hire foreign nationals, or develop this technology outside of the US in order to sell it freely.

It is only by the extreme dedication of the people involved in the human genome project that the genetic information about humans is freely available. This could also change.

Hi Carl. Nice hearing from you. However, I think I disagree that the threat to lay claim to biotech information will come from the US government. I think the real threat is from private biotech industry in the form of the new rules for the patenting of genes which they continue to fight for--and win! particularly in the USA.

<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/reports/pat/pat002.htm">The patenting of life</a>.

<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/reports/pat/pat004.htm"> What is a patent</a>?

Okay, I agree to some extent that as you say: "It is only by the extreme dedication of the people involved in the human genome project that the genetic information about humans is freely available." But I do not think the problem has to do with any attempt by the US government to take it over. Instead, I think the problem is the predilection of the US government to bow to private industry to grant patents that should not be granted. The biotech companies scream that without "protection" they will not expend the funds to "discover." But I think they are asking for something for which they have no right.

However, it is very clear that the US government has taken their side and has already started trying to export their "claims" in the form of "agreements" for the "protection" of their "Intellectual Rights." Al Gore has already explained in some detail the need for other countries to respect our "Intellectual Rights." This is exactly what he is talking about.

According to the Greenpeace article, it appears that there is still a chance that the European Union will show some sense. I certainly hope so.

On the other hand, one of the great things about patents is that they run out. I mean, wasn't it terrible how IBM patented all those software routines some twenty years ago, so only IBM could use them. I guess it isn't so terrible any more. And somehow, the computer industry survived :-)

Cloning cannot be banned .What can be banned is money and fame making by fraud. Goat cannot talk. But human can. Human cloning is not possible.I have quality proof like cloners .I have found biodata on cloning (human or goat) given by the God in officially given book as well as link of rising anti- God movement , bank balance rise of poor and huge banking activities. You must bear in mind that in research -cloning, antibiotic, cancer or news only final formula or a single ingredient which work counts. Quality reply from researchers (Uk -Canada Research Institutes) desired .

Cliff, you're right in that there is alot of basic development work to be done before the stem-cell technology can be commercialized. That's why the Taiwan industry is in the process of setting-up a government/industry group to do the development work, since the paypack period (3-5 years) is too long for normal business to be interested. Also, the Taiwanese (and mainland China) have made the establishment of the basic research capacity (not just applications) in biotechnology a high priority.

My point is that there is a very slim possibility that my partners and I could personally profit from this technology (as well as reap the obvious medical benefits). A slim possibility that I will certainly pursue if at all possible. My other point is that I know what I want out of life and what I want to become (self-image is everything) in the future. Given the fact that I have spent nearly half of my adult life living internationally and can find a measure of personal happiness no matter where I live, I do not depend on any single nation-state (or religion) for me to fulfill my life's dreams and goals. It is pure arrogance (not to mention insulance) to suggest that the purveyers of any particular nation-state or religion to claim that they own my life and my future.

Cliff, as you can tell, my hostility towards governments in general is matched only by my hostility towards religion. I have no desire to convert others to my way of thinking. I only demand that other recognize my sovereignty from thier belief systems.

I will have everyone in all of these boards know that the Chinese do not share the christian-based "squemishness" that so many in the West seem to do about developing human biotechnology. And that there are many different belief systems and cultures around the world. This translates into lots and lots of technology-transfer opportunities for yours truly in the coming years. You can bet your bottom dollar that I will be exploiting every possibility that

Kurt, I have not a single problem with anything you said in your recent posts. There is nothing wrong with a reasonable profit from one's labor as far as I am concerned.

Also, your point that the Chineze (and others) "do not share the christian-based 'squemishness'" of many in the west for this technology is well taken, I think. As I have previously pointed out, I am for the advancement of science, and I do not care where it comes from, provided it is of benefit to people in general.

However, I will also make the point that I support advancement of science for the general benefit--not selective development of technology for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many. (For example, if Greenpeace helps prevent an unfair advantantage for the few (certain biotech firms who wish to patent life itself), at the expense of the many, I will support Greenpeace, in those instances even though I generally oppose the anti-technology stance of Greenpeace.)

Cheers

Great posts.

One thing I have not seen (er, read) in these most recent posts is the concern with aging. To use a specific example, Dolly the sheep was cloned from an older sheep. Dolly did not live long, but died of old age. This is because the DNA taken from the older sheep still had "old" genes. These genes do not start over as being young again, but rather the living entity being cloned has a much shorter natural life span.

The company Geron (a biotechnology company), is a leader in unlocking the mysteries of aging. So far, by adding the protein tankyrase, another protein named telomerase is allowed to continue adding bits of telomere. Telomere cap the ends of chromosomes, and the amount of telomere determine natural life span. Every cellular division, shortens telomere, to a point when telomere no longer divides and as a result, the living entity dies.

Talks about cloning a Wooly Mammoth seem more nostalgic than realistic. I'm interested in knowing how old this Wooly Mammoth is.

-RR

According to the article, nobody knows if her actual physical lifespan will be shorter than the 13 years typical for a sheep.

(According to <a href="http://cnn.com/NATURE/9905/26/dolly.clone.02/">this source</a>)

Cliff:

Thanks for pointing out that Dolly is still alive. My information apparently was misinforming.

From what I have read in various sources, including article abstracts on aging and cloning, my recollection is that a living entity cloned from an older living entity tends to live a shorter life, because the DNA that is cloned, still only has the same length of telomere, thus the strong possibility of the cloned entity to die at an early age of old age.

This information is not a product of my own research, rather this information has been recycled and re-presented in my own words.

-RR

This is why the Dolly experiment is so interesting. Because it will difinitively tell us if telemere shorting really the cause of organism ageing. My prediction is that it is not. If it is, and that the first product that Geron is working on is a telemere-lengthening therapy; we could have multiple-century life-extension in humans in 3-5 years.

Since I think most of he problems of human aging is in the non-dividing tissue (heart, brain, etc), a telemere-lengthening therapy and the stem-cell regeneration therapy will allow us to completely circumvent huamn ageing, even if we don't know what is the fundamental cause of celular ageing.

Based on this and other biotechnologies, I truly and honestly believe that we will achieve indefinitely-long human life-spans in the next 20 years. I look forward to a time when I wake up in the morning and feel my life as an open horizon streaching into the indifinite future. A time when I feel no time limits, not even the sense of time as I feel it today. Where I feel that any dream that I have is possible to achieve. I know exactly the feelings and emotions that I will feel when I read that we have achieved physical immortality in the morning paper. The ultimate form of personal liberation.

I have felt this way in my heart since I have been a child, and especially since I was in college. To this day, I still do not understand why most other people do not seem to share these feelings.

Free Yourselves

Kurt, I don't think most people ever seriously think about dying. As for the way I "feel," I am 57 but I "feel" essentially the same as I did when I was a child. I "feel" like me. I don't feel any different than I ever have specifically. Why should anything else be any different. When I am sick, I feel sick. But I do not feel old. I look in the mirror and I see the wrinkles. But I do not see them in myself the way I see it in people I see that I haven't seen in a while. That is when I notice aging the most--in other people. And that gives me no real hint that I am soon to die. Intellectually, based on the life span of my parents and my grandparents, I suspect I have, perhaps, another 20 years.

If your guess is right, there may yet be hope for me. Otherwise, I imagine that I will just "wake up dead" some morning about twenty years from now--whatever that means.

Cliff:

I am 22 years old, and think about life/death at least once per day. I dunno why specifically, probably a net result of past experiences making me more aware of what life and death is (or might be). This has inspired me to actively read more on the subject of aging and cloning.

With advances by Geron and other companies, perhaps individuals could live hundreds (or dare I say thousands) of years. To be sure though, dying of old age is not a concern of mine, as much as dying of a disease/ailment or other non-natural cause. Currently, I am following cancer treatment research, which I believe will have a far greater impact on human life span, than will telomerase/telomere.

Perhaps cloning will have a direct impact on cancer treatment, in the removal of the infected organ(s), and replaced by a non-infected organ(s) from the same tissue to reduce the probablility of the body rejecting the cloned tissue.

-RR

Thanks for the link. The basic objection to Green peace (piece?) is their fundamental philosophy.

From the link:

Technology and by extension technologists are not a part of nature they are intruders.

In fact humans and even other animals and plants have been influencing the very evolution of all life forms since life started.

They continue:

This is absolutely false to the extent of maliciousness. Patents are much more limited than this. They relate to specific clams of "invention". The fact that some companies wish to extend their legal power, and occasionally do so until case law prevents it has been going on since patents started.

And conclude with:

Cliff you and I are both inventors and know the difference between discovery and invention. One of the qualifications for a claim is that the invention must not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. As more and more people acquire expertise in genetic engineering, more submitted patents will fail this test.

Their last statement however is somewhat true. Not just for Europe but indeed the rest of the world. The basic problem is that no fixed set of rules can prejudge the advancements. Therefore we may safely predict that bad law will be created and have to be modified.

From the inception of this board virtually everyone here agreed that the "LAW" was and would be

---(cont)---

A recent article about the burial ground in Russia of anthrax and many other biological war materials that is now posing a hazard makes the point precisely.

Some of the agents had been genetically altered to become even more hazardous than their natural progenitors.

The US War on Drugs team has come up with moulds that attack specific plants that produce illegal drugs.

It in not inconceivable that countries could wage secret economic war on each other by introducing specific animal and plant pathogens to their competition. Indeed companies could do so against, for instance, new breeds of corn their competition invented.

Cryptography is relatively benign compared to bio technology.

Living in Taiwan I totally concur with you.

There is a lot of very quiet work going on here both by US firms that are not hampered by western attitudes and laws and, by the Taiwan national laboratories and individual Taiwan companies.

There are many companies that are the chemical equivalent of Radio Shack where anyone can buy equipment and supplies.

In as much as most advanced bio tech. equipment is computer controlled Taiwan is in an excellent position to build it.

The recent introduction of new strains of Hoof and Mouth disease from a couple of years ago and more recently a few weeks ago from mainland smuggling has spurred intense interest in genetic disease identification and control.

For 40 years Taiwan was HM free and in a few weeks their pork industries were laid waste to the tune of some 100s of millions of US$. They are not going to get caught flat footed again.

I personally think that in vivo regeneration techniques are more likely to be the treatment of choice in the future. Growing individual cloned vital organs to replace existing defective organs would seem to be enormously problematic and the surgery required in that scenario is most disagreeable :-)

However, some animals can regenerate a leg or tail that is lost. Why should the human body, equipped with a human brain, not be capable of selective regeneration of any organ in the body, except perhaps the brain itself, provided appropriate proteins are made available to the appropriate site, and appropriate instructions are sent from the brain.

Unfortunately, Carl, it is not true. Greenpeace is precisely correct when they say that patents have been extended to discoveries in the United States. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned my "rude awakening." On Apr 15, 1998, Dawn posted the following:

I responded:

However, when I subsequently checked the patent out (ref. 5,654155), I found that she was correct and that I was wrong. Oncor-Med did indeed do exactly what Dawn said they had done. In short, they patented the discovery of the sequence, and therefore, the sequence itself. As a result, I was forced to admit that she was right, and that I was wrong--and I can tell you I was not happy about that state of affairs :-)

For your information, the abstract for the Oncor-Med patent reads: "A consensus DNA sequence has been determined for the BRCA1 gene. As has been seven polymorphic sites and their rates of occurrence in normal BRCA1 genes. The consensus gene BRCA1(^(omi)) and the seven polymorphic sites will provide greater accuracy and reliability for genetic testing. One skilled in the art will be better able to avoid misinterpretations of changes in the gene, determine the presence of a normal gene, and of mutations, and to classify tumors."

Okay. I guess that is a possibility--and perhaps a valid reason for governments to regulate the technology to prevent abuse :-)

I am not sure I understand how you can say this. I am sure they will try to prevent it, of course, but how can you know for certain that another accident may not occur.

Cliff:

Could you please elaborate on what "in vivo regeneration techniques" are?

-RR

Robert, I don't know much about it, but sometime ago, someone on this board mentioned it. I did a search and found the internet practically alive with research being done by practicing scientists. Some are researching the liver because of it's well know regenerative properties. But it seems that everyone has an angle, and there are any number of things being looked at. It seems to me that with this much research going on, some of it is bound to bear fruit. It certainly appears to me that this is an area that is being researched a great deal more than cloning--for good reason. It holds more promise. The following are six links I found in a few minutes that I thought looked reasonably promising. I am sure I could fine a greater variety of links if I spent more time, but I think you will get the idea. Take a look and see if you agree.

Cliff, Myriad Genetics bought out Onco-Med's BRCA1 patent. However, they've discovered that women aren't as interested in being tested as they thought they would be.

Within the next week or two the House will vote on whether or not to lift the current ban on federal funding of human embryo research. It looks as if they will vote to maintain the ban, and extend it to the cells that have been derived from embryos. Stem cells derived from aborted fetuses don't fall under this ban, so that can continue. The Senate's position is uncertain. The White House says it will veto a bill that prohibits human embryonic stem cell use (but would like to put a moratorium on derivation). I don't know how much we can believe Clinton, but the Republicans are anxious to paint Clinton and Gore as baby killers.

One reason the cancer community is so interested in embryonic stem cells has to do with the fact that the blood cells and immune system cells, as well as the cells lining the gut and the hair follicles,(all rapidly dividing cells) are killed by cancer chemotherapy. In the last decade, bone marrow stem cells from the patient or from matched donors have been helpful in allowing high dose chemotherapy and re-population with stem cells that haven't been exposed to drugs. Cord blood stem cells don't have to match as well as adult bone marrow, and there is every reason to assume that embryonic stem cells would be the best of all. With the proper growth factors, the embryonic cells might also be used to replace the lining of the gut and mucous membranes as well as blood cells. Since the patient's immune system has been destroyed, there won't be much of an immune response from the host, and because the transplanted embryonic stem cells would be immunologically "naive" (if the situation works as it does in mice)there would be little graft versus host reaction, which is one of the main toxic side effects of current adult and cord blood technology. Also, since cancer is believed to be a disease of stem cells, this type of research could provide a lot of basic information about the disease. But the promise of this research for neuronal diseases and diabetes is even greater than for cancer. It would be nice to have as many minds as possible working on this, which is why I'd like to see federal funding. But even without federal funding, industry will go ahead. And I assume that research using stem cells derived from fetuses will continue since that doesn't come under the same law.

For transplants that don't involve destroying the patient's immune system, the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique would provide the ideal source of cells without resorting to embryos or fetuses--but then, there is objection to that because it might lead to human cloning. If embryon

I think I have had a change of heart with respect to the NIH legal team opinion. I think now that it was best that they gave the opinion they gave. I think it is an absolute contradiction to continue to allow the use of cells from aborted fetuses without quibble, but go absolutely bonkers over the use of cells derived from embryos. At least the opinion by the NIH legal team moderated the contradiction somewhat. And I really don't think a law will be passed either way this year. If the Senate's position is not certain by now, I would guess that such legislation is not going to be passed into law this year.

However, just in case, I would recommend that the NIH not pass out any government money for embryonic research until after this legislative session has ended.

I suppose I will never understand how can one possibly be concerned about the ethics of cloning or using embryos for possible therapeutic purposes while passionately supporting "abortion rights," but I guess that is a separate question.

Well now you people with your fascinating conversation have got me to thinking again. (not sure that is really a good idea, but oh well)

If memory serves correct an animal zygote can be divided into 8 cells and still have a good chance of producing healthy twins.

Lets say someone just does 4 and implants them for a while, saves the best 2 to be born and aborts the other 2 for spare parts. Or one for spare parts and the other to sell to pay for the assisted birth. (once aborted it is legal chattel)

Or create 2 and save the best one.

I haven't read anything about physical separation as an illegal cloning technique.

Is some one going to write a law against having assisted identical twins?

Heck they do something like this with IVF independent fertilizations all the time. Right?

"once aborted it is legal chattel"

Interesting! In order for government funding of stem cell research involving embryos (except for those obtained from left over IVF) to be legal, the embryo must first be implanted and then aborted. Hum. Makes perfect sense. Why didn't I think of that?

Cliff, Carl, this issue is even more weird than you can imagine. The right to life groups say researchers should only use spontaneously aborted fetuses, but these are not always aborted at the right stage to collect the germ cells, and often the spontaneously aborted fetus has a lot of problems and might not be usable. And obviously collections can't be planned in advance. It has been estimated that more than half of the fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously, before implantation, but when this happens the woman doesn't usually know she is pregnant and the zygote is so small it would be hard to find amidst all the other stuff in the menstrual fluid. But this is the only way you could get cells from the embryonic source via abortion. It isn't clear yet if the stem cells from embryos are equivalent to those from fetal germ cells as far as their potential to develop into all tissue. The research to compare the two could be done with the cells that are already in culture--but this is not the kind of research the biotech companies are interested in doing.

Carl, what you suggest--saving one of the cells from the four-eight cell stage embryo for possible organ transplant later is certainly doable. When couples have known genetic defects and are trying to pick an embryo that is free from them, a similar technique is used--the "polar body" from the first cell division is analyzed and only embryos free from the genetic defects are implanted. Identical twins on purpose through IVF is also possible, and has probably been done.

Cliff, I would guess that most people who support abortion rights support embryonic stem cell research as well, but I don't have any data. I did attend some focus groups in Chicago last week where participants were asked to select the 3 most important ways the govt could help "solve the cancer problem". Of eleven options the response most frequently selected by members of each group was, " allowing scientists to conduct research that has great potential to expand knowledge about cancer, even though some people may have moral differences." In discussion, one group actually identified stem cell research as an example. These small groups cannot, of course, be considered "representative," but I expect that it is the perspective of many, perhaps most, people concerned with controlling cancer.

The "morning after" pill works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Yet we don't hear strong objections from the Pro-life community on that one (except WalMart, who refuse to carry it). Go figure.

I am sure you are right that "most people who support abortion rights support embryonic stem cell research as well." But where are the people who would support embryonic stem cell research but who tend to oppose abortion as being a much greater ill. Surely, I am not the only such oddball.

Then again, maybe I am. It is clear that "choice" has been sold to the general population, not abortion. Nobody likes abortion, but "choice" has come to be considered so fundamental a right as to overcome any concern for ethics. Ethical considerations of abortion are absolutely beside the point. The important thing is "choice."

How can people be so concerned about the ethics of cloning or the ethics of the creation of embryos for research purposes, while denying even the existence of the possibility of any ethical considerations with respect to abortion? They don't think of it as abortion, they think of it as "choice."

In the absense of something as fundamental as "choice," however, ethics may be examined--for embryonic research, for example.

Cheers.

Cliff, I don't believe that you are the only person who sees a preimplantation embryo as qualitatively different from an aborted fetus, or at least I hope not. But from a legal point of view, abortion is legal and fetal tissue research using federal funds is legal. IVF is legal, but federal funding of research on human embryos and possibly cells derived from them is not. Researchers would much rather use the embryos, but the rights of the embryos (for those who believe that embryos have rights) do not conflict with the rights, and therefore the choice, of the mother. The NIH Bioethics Committee recommended that parents not be allowed to create embryos to be used for, say, a life-saving transplant for one of their own children. Yet giving birth to a child in the hopes the bone marrow will be a good tissue match for a sibling or a parent is perfectly okay. And happens more often than you might suppose. I wish someone would explain to me why keeping an embryo frozen indefinitely, or even dumping it down the drain, is preferable to using the cells to save lives of living, thinking, people.

While this was a "natural" extinction the extinction of the Huia bird was caused by man and therefore it's revival represents a moral justice rendered by man for it's earlier errors/sins.

It seems even the "don't touch nature" types approve of this one.

In answer to CNN's question "Will cloning goats lead to human cloning experiments?" I think the opposite will occur.

I think after we clone humans successfully our society will have absolutely no qualms about cloning any other animal extinct or not.

Combing the cloning of humans with interparitanial (sp?) ectopic(SP?) pregnancies (male mothers done in the Soviet Union in the 1960's) and 3 to 6 parent children (done it with mice in the early 1980's ) and you have an open door on anything you want to do with animals.

All in all the advantages are too great the job too easy.

As little as a few mounts ago I was worried by the neo luddites. Now I feel like saving their words as a soon to be extinct intellectual species. No one is going to believe the arguments they used. (We all know that if you travel faster than 100 miles an hour your heart will stop, Right!)

On a scientific level, cloning is fascinating, and it's incredible that scientists have been able to do it. However, caution should be exercised. Cloning is a sure fire way to wipe out an entire species, believe it or not. If everyone (whether human, robin, jaguar or corn stalk) was the same as everyone else in its species, one single virus could wipe out an entire species because there wouldn't be even small or minute mutations or differences that, scietifically speaking, mean survival. And, I have to admit, I don't think I like the idea of there being another one of me, for instance, running around on the Earth. I like the idea that I am unique. If someone is too self-absorbed and would want someone just like him or her, look in a mirror and be satisfied with that. It is the differences between us that make life interesting. Life would be pretty boring otherwise. We shouldn't get too carried away. Cloning is one of those areas that it's nice to know it can be done. But that doesn't mean it should be done.

While I understand the distinction you draw, Carl, I am not sure I agree with it. Who is to say that because an extinction was "natural," it was desirable? Also, how is that an extinction is "unnatural" or a "sin" simply because it was caused by man. We have purposefully attempted to eradicate certain insects. Is this a sin?

I think those who oppose IVF will continue to oppose human cloning--after it is done, as before.

I think the more of this kind of thing you do, the more ammunition you give to those who have cloning in all its manifestations made illegal. Besides, I do not know why anyone would want to do this anyway. Can you explain the advantage? I can not think of a single reason for doing this except as a means of thumbing one's nose at society.

I think the neo luddites are alive and well. Just publish the results of a human pregnancy of a cloned human child with three or more parents--or if you feel really confident, something that is part human and part ape--to get them really riled up, and you will get an idea of their numbers and their political power.

I think these weird possibilities are things we need to avoid.

Melinda, cloning is currently a very difficult, expensive process. I think the chances of a species being overrun by clones is probably nil--with the exception of an attempt to save an endangered species--in which case you may have to take some chances.

Well today humans usually have a choice. I sort of believe that the waste of anything is not a good idea and blowing off an entire species is a real bad idea.

Well it is as close to a "sin" against the gifts of nature that I can think of. My morality basically demands that I don't destroy anything I can not create or recreate without good reason. Living things also. Even if they dangerous or inconvenient.

Seed banks and cell banks along with genetic information banks are a real good idea.

Oppose is one thing. Lets just keep the gun play out of it OK?

Well they need all the intellectual ammo they can get. Most of their case is just too easy to argue against. Multi thousands of years old religious ideas and such.

Sure. Space colonization for one thing.

If society says "man will never fly" and I can invent an aeroplane then that kind of "thumbing one's nose at society" is exactly what is indicated if not required.

I say "remember Barbara McKlintock"