Lead Into Gold: More IPSC Advances Announced
Do you wonder why the stem cell dispute that was supposed to propel Democrats into the White House is now a non issue? Credit the Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells that can be made from normal skin cells. After this astonishing breakthrough was announced, some among "the scientists" continued to insist that cloning was necessary because the IPSCs might cause cancer. That excuse is withering on the vine. From the story:
The main obstacle to using "reprogrammed" human stem cells--the danger that they might turn cancerous--has been solved, claims a US company. PrimeGen, based in Irvine, California, says that its scientists have converted specialised adult human cells back to a seemingly embryonic state--using methods that are much less likely to trigger cancer than those deployed previously. The company also claims to be able to produce reprogrammed cells faster and much more efficiently than other scientists. Right now, the hottest area in stem cell biology is that of induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, which have the ability to develop into several different tissue types.It is always wise to take such press releases issued by companies that may be looking for investment capital with a grain of salt. Still, while we are not home free yet, the foundation of the cloning agenda is cracking under our feet. If scientists want to clone, pretty soon they will have to honestly explain how they hope to use the technology to learn how to genetically engineer the human race, use cloning for fetal farming, and permit reproductive cloning. The stem cell excuse won't fly for much longer.
Labels: Lead Into Gold
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:02 AM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
"Do you wonder why the stem cell dispute that was supposed to propel Democrats into the White House is now a non issue?"
Its the Neocon stench of all those who reek of voting for Bush 2 times that will remind Democratic voters turn out for election day.
Stem Cells dont need to be USED as a social issue the way Swiftbating and Gay Marraige were used to brainwash mindless Americans into supporting a corporate fascist thug in the name of moral change.
Stem cell viability can stand on its own ground without being a political tool.
A breakthough this big would likely be published in a major journal - have any links to papers?
IPSC is a wonderful technology, a technology that was discovered by allowing scientiest to conduct EMBRYONIC stem cell research in the first place. If opponents to ESCr had their way from the start, the keys to unlocking these CLONED IPS cells would never have been researched.
Yes IPSC are CLONES, ahhhh the big bad word!!
If scientists want to clone, pretty soon they will have to honestly explain how they hope to use the technology to learn how to genetically engineer the human race, use cloning for fetal farming, and permit reproductive cloning.
What are you smoking today Wesley?
Its hard to take an article seriously when you pander like this?
You act as if scientists all the place are promoting reproductive cloning? Any one from America or European continents for example?
What a joke, thanks for the laugh.
Now back to reality...
"Stem Cells dont need to be USED as a social issue the way Swiftbating and Gay Marraige were used to brainwash mindless Americans into supporting a corporate fascist thug in the name of moral change."
What color is the sky in your world if you think ESCR hasn't been used by the lefties the same way gay marriage is used by the righties? Kerry and Edwards harped on it ad nauseam in 2004, with Edwards promising that a Kerry presidency would cause Christopher Reeve to "raaaahz outa that wheelchayer!" And in 2006 any Congressperson opposed to destroying embryonic human beings for science was painted as anti-science and anti-cure in TV ads.
Dark Swan: It is only your ignorance allows you to laugh. Some scientists and bioethicists have promoted reproductive cloning--including Ian Wilmut. Books have been written in its favor, including genetic engineering, which cloning would permit. Most of the science establishment oppose it "FOR NOW" because it isn't safe. But if it were to become save, the attitude would be changed.
Meanwhile, cloning fetal farming experiments are ongoing with animals and New Jersey legalized human cloning and gestation through the ninth month.
I don't think that is funny.
How often has science fiction become science fact? And how often do we see fiction stories about people growing clones for organs or to replace dead or dying children? It's sick and sad, if you ask me.
And here we have people pushing for ESCR, claiming that embryonic stem cells are the only way to go, because deep down inside they want to grow clones to use as expriment fodder, for organs, or for reproduction, none of which is a good thing.
Its not ignorance Wesley, its a fundamental differece of opinion.
You consider a blastocyst a full human being with the same rights as yourself.
I dont see a blasocyst as human even though it could become one given the proper conditions.
The same way you dont see IPS cells as a complete human being even though they could become a person if they were in the right locations and conditions.
Dark Swan, you make me laugh this time. You laughed at my statements about brave new world agendas from cloning technologies. I proved my point, and then you shifted to the moral status of the blastocyst, which is not what we were addressing.
Please, Dark. You can do better.
Wesley, Im doing quite well thanks. Calling me ignorant and laughing doesnt change the fact that it is you not making the coorelation..
The reason I brought up the blastocyst is because of your reference to Wilmut's comments after calling me ignorant about reproductive cloning efforts. I thought it would be obvious to you, since when he spoke of reproductive cloning he was referring to blastocyst.
If you will, here are Wilmets words that you are currently unable to coorelate.
Prof Wilmut writes: "Doctors should be able to offer at-risk couples the opportunity to conceive with IVF methods, break down the resulting embryos into cells, correct any serious genetic defects in these cells then clone demonstrably healthy cells to create a new embryo that can be implanted to start a pregnancy."
The resulting child would be the identical twin of the original embryo but would have the diseased gene corrected in every one of its cells. The original embryo would be discarded.
"I am extremely concerned about the effects on a child of being a clone of another person and I oppose it. However, an early embryo is not a person and I see the use of nuclear transfer to prevent a child's having a dreadful disease as far less controversial."
As you hopefully see now, my response that - your definition of reproductive cloning and mine may differ due to fundamental differences of opinion relates directly to the assertion you make that Wilmut is in favor of reporductive cloning.
You just didnt explain the context he was using, which as far different the the concept of creating a "clone" from a born person.
But thats generally the problem with dissusing wthics, you get so many half truths thrown at you, its hard to know who to believe until yo actually go to the source and decide context for yourself.
Here is a bit of prose I wrote just for you:
One who speaks of truth in doubt
Knows not what one talks about.
Have a good one ~Darkswan
Dark: He has also promoted rep. cloning for gay couples. Others have promoted rep. cloning just for the desire of it, including Lee Silver, and etc. and also to permit human enhancement, as in the transhumanists.
So, your original post was in error.
Enjoy your dark swaniness.
Why are you singling out gays? why not reference all infertile couples?
Could you provide a link to Wilmut's stance on GAY reproduction? or is this just a bigoted inference??
Here is what I have seen Wilmut say:
TIME Magazine, JANUARY 11, 1999
"Each of us can imagine hypothetical families created by the introduction of a cloned child—a copy of one partner in a homosexual relationship or of a single parent, for example. What is missing in all this is consideration of what’s in the interests of the cloned child. Because there is no form of infertility that could be overcome only by cloning, I do not find these proposals acceptable."
Most recent quotes I find are this:
TORONTO, November 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While the news is full of glowing reports that Britain’s Dr. Ian Wilmut, the world’s leading cloning and stem cell researcher, has given up the project of cloning human embryos, some are dubious that his new methods are not just cloning by another name.
The Telegraph reported that Dr. Wilmut, famed for having created “Dolly” the cloned sheep in 1997, was giving up attempts to create human cloned embryos by the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) method.
“I decided a few weeks ago not to pursue nuclear transfer,” Prof. Wilmut told the Daily Telegraph November 16.
Honestly, i'll be really surprised if you can back your words here, but hey I like surprises.
and just because you say something is in error, does not make it so, like a lot of things Ive heard.
pretty soon they will have to honestly explain how they hope to use the technology to learn how to genetically engineer the human race, use cloning for fetal farming, and permit reproductive cloning.
So as you twist words and ideas of Wilmut your assertion that there is a bubbling fervor for Reproductive Cloning in the scientific community is purly bogus.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your smug presumption that those who may disagree with you are ignorant, bigoted, or badly motivated grows increasingly wearisome.
I based my statement on memory of an article I read in which Wilmut and bioethicist Glenn McGee proposed an "adoption" regluatory approach for determining who can engage in reproductive cloning. As I recall off of the top of my head, there were three categories mentioned: those with genetic issues, infertile couples, and gay couples.
Regardless of the specifics mentioned by McGee and Wilmut in their article which I haven't read in a few years, as the press release about it noted: "McGee and Wilmut purpose an approach they call the Adoption Model for Human Cloning. According to the authors, the key issue in the new reproductive technologies is not how unconventional the method, but how it will affect any children who would be born as a result of the method. They believe that the only sound system in the world yet devised for protecting children of new types of families is that of adoption."
Since gay couples are allowed to adopt--and it is deemed discrimination to prevent them from adopting--under an "adoption" model of regulation that focused on the impact on the children, it would discriminatory to prevent gay couples from engaging in reproductive cloning, once safe, for exmaple, so they could both have a genetic connection to the child.
This point is emphasized repeatedly in bioethics literature, particularly among those who argue on behalf of a fundamental right to reproduce and those pursuing a feminist model of bioethics. See, for example, John Robertson's work.
But the original post was not about Wilmut. It was about how IPSCs could destroy the stem cell pretext for human cloning, forcing it to be justified through brave new world applications. That is what you said was balony, and which is abundantly clear, is not balony.
Finally, I never said HE would do the reproductive cloning.
Dark Swan: It is only your ignorance allows you to laugh.
...
Your smug presumption that those who may disagree with you are ignorant, bigoted, or badly motivated grows increasingly wearisome. - Wesley
hmmmm dishing it out first, but not able to take it ehh,..anyways
I think that your broad stroke to paint scientist who support ESCr as
"If scientists want to clone, pretty soon they will have to honestly explain how they hope to use the technology to learn how to genetically engineer the human race,use cloning for fetal farming, and permit reproductive cloning."
is very misleading. The overwhelming majority of scientists oppose reproductive cloning. Even Wilmut who you cite, explicitly states that he supports a ban on Rep Cloning as he helps frame various positions of the debate.
Here is the simple reality. The VAST majority of scientists who seek to research ESC are doing so, no to create some master race as you promote, but are doing so in order to understand the basic building blocks of how life is created.
Researchers simply need to start at the beginning of the process to scientifically analyze how genetics work.
Starting past the middle of a book doesnt allow you to understand the full story. Your method of only researching ASCr is exactly that - a half story, an incomplete understanding of human biology.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home