Therapeutic Cloning Proof of Principle in Mice
Scientists have created mouse cloned embryos, derived stem cell lines from them, and injected them into the Parkinson's diseased mice from which they were taken. From the story:
It is the first time "therapeutic cloning" has been used to treat the devastating disease. Cloned cells are so useful because they are genetically identical to the patient, and are not rejected. Although carrying out the procedure on humans is a long way off, in the short term scientists hope to test new drugs on brain cells from Parkinson's patients grown in the lab...Well, that's overstating it a bit, but never mind. It is worth noting, however, that human cloned ESC lines have not yet been created. Moreover--and the Telegraph did mention this in the story--IPS cells, taken from Parkinson's patients, could do the same thing for drug testing--and far easier, more efficiently, and without the controversy associated with human cloning.
The study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, suggests the same method of cloning used to create Dolly the sheep can be used to grow a patient's own brain tissue and repair damage done by the debilitating disease.
But beyond that little point, there was much in this study that would make any direct human clinical application a very long way off. This from a scientist friend (and opponent of cloning) who has studied the original paper:
- The mice did show improvement. They were only allowed to live 11 weeks after transplant.And that's with mice. It would be even more "complex" with humans.
- They note that this procedure is "technically complex,"
which is a huge understatement. This still requires a HUGE number of oocytes to get a single cell line! In total, 187 ntESC lines were produced from 5099 oocytes, for cloning, 24 mice total. [Me: At present, human eggs in that quantity are extremely difficult to find, and the efficiency would likely be far less.]
- Most of the cells produced that they tested showed chromosomal
abnormalities.
- 1 out of every 6 mice showed "graft overgrowth." "Graft overgrowth" is reminiscent of the problems experienced by Parkinson's patients treated with fetal tissue. 15-25% of the patients had worsened, even
uncontrollable symptoms. Characterized by NYTimes as "devastating"; "the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably"
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:24 PM
34 Comments
34 Comments:
Wesley I thought you'd be doing cartwheels through rings of fire, oops this isn't another false ASC therapy claim from Do No Harm, but I guess since its the first success with SCNT its time for you to rain on the parade.
"The new study shows that therapeutic cloning can treat Parkinson's disease in a mouse model. The scientists used skin cells from the tail of the animal to generate customized or autologous dopamine neurons--the missing neurons in Parkinson's disease. The mice that received neurons derived from individually matched stem cell lines exhibited neurological improvement. But when these neurons were grafted into mice that did not genetically match the transplanted cells, the cells did not survive well and the mice did not recover."
Well I bet Michael J Fox is a happy Man this morning, knowing that for the first time, researchers showed that therapeutic cloning SCNT has been successfully used to treat disease in the same subjects from which the initial cells were derived.
A good day for Science, a good day for those suffering from diseases like Parkinsons - hope - real hope is a great motivator.
Dark Swan, "another false ASC therapy claim from Do No Harm?" Get a grip. Try some seriousness instead of rash charges. The lame will walk and the blind will see from non-embryonic stem cells and you'll still say nothing works that doesn't involve cloning or killing human embryos.
Maybe Kaitlyne McNamara's new bladder was not created from adult stem cells, and maybe there was a hoax put on President GWB by the researchers at Wake Forest and the White House Staff when she stood beside him during his veto. And maybe it's a hoax that those Brazillian diabetics were able to go off their insulin for long periods of time. And maybe all the other unbelievable things aren't happening that are being reported in non-embryonic stem cell research. But I doubt it. These things are taken from serious literature and been achieved by amazing and serious people, and as far as I can tell, Do No Harm is just listing what the literature says. You can go tell those researchers and clinicians publishing all their results are really hoax makers. Try some seriousness.
Do No Harm is a group of serious people and ad hominem attacks that they are putting out or creating/involved in hoaxes is not an argument, it's not research. It's a lack of seriousness.
Try some seriousness instead of rash charges.
Fine, but hold yourselves to the same standards.
Why do you think its ok for Wesley to sit and attack ESCr on a day when a major accomplishment is acheived, but when I bring up Prentice's work that has been thoroughly discredited, not only by the largest scientific community in the world, but admittedly by Prentice himself when acknowledged Shane Smith's paper when correcting his mistakes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;1129987/DC1
Heres my perception, its looking like pluripotent stem cells will lead to major cures much quicker than developments from ASCr which has been around for almost a century.
Mouse to human trials is not much of a scientific leap. Instead of acknowledging the impact of the breakthrough, he devalues and diminishes what should be recognized for the great achievement that it is.
This is likely a major step in curing Parkinson's and other major diseases!
When its convenient Wesley is quick to point out he believes ESCr kills a person. When its convenient he also points out that its never been accomplished. The glass is half full/half empty depending on which side of an argument he wants to be on. It doesn't change what it is...
Meanwhile this post is meant to impede SCNT research. Impede ESCr discoveries which will lead to cures that ASCr could never accomplish.
Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004?
We probably disagree.
DS: As usual, you are off the mark. But not about my position on SCNT, which I do indeed seek to impede It is unethical. It is impractical. It will lead to the exploitation of women. It will be extremely expensive to develop, if it can be developed. It is the door that opens the way to genetic engineering, among other matters.
Prentice can defend himself, but Neaves completely mistated his positions in the infamous Science letter by claiming that Prentice said things he never said.
As to ASCs: Adult (neural) stem cells may have caused a Parkinson's remission in Dennis Turner. Turner sure thinks so. So does his doctor Michael Levesque.
As for this experiment, it was a proof of principle experiment, nothing more. An advance to be sure, which is why I reported it here. But one that needs caveats that won't be found in MSM reporting, and to keep people like Neaves from hyping it all to heck, as is his wont. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
And as I said, IPSCs are much more likely to be available for use before cloning, both for drug testing and perhaps for cures (although it is unclear yet whether pluripotent stem cells will be usable in humans. Tumors, don't you know.)
and yet last year you said too much money was being wasted on pluripotent research when all we needed to do was study ASCr, now it seems iPS has changed your story with the times.
Prentice can defend himself, but Neaves completely mistated his positions in the infamous Science letter
- Baloney, the letter refuting Prentice was accurate. Its there in print. Now Prentice changed his tune from 60-70 therapies to "Adult Stem Cell Treatments: Nine Faces of Success"
Its not enough for you to simply slam Neaves by saying he misstated Prentice, I have yet to see you give any rational explanation why you say that.
Dennis Turner has abandon ASC treatment to cure his Parkinsons.
How come the only sites that keep proporting this bogus lie are sites like
concerned women for america
family research council
physicians for life
and this blog
If there were a cure for Parkinson's don't you tink we'd see more of it in actual scientific therapies across the globe.
Heres the reality:
I question ALL the 60, Senator Coburn said 70 this AM on the Senate floor, "successful" ASC treatments because one such "success" is the experiment on Dennis Turner. I called him on 4-24-06 and his Parkinson's has returned with a vengeance,yet his condition as of 2004 as documented in his senate testimony is still on the "cures" list. There are no ASC treatments for PD,
"I talked to Dennis Turner on 4-24-06 and his attitude is not optimistic. Dr. Levesque's Phase II isn't going anywhere. Sinemet is a "treatment" for PD that works part of the time, so people talk about being "ON" or "OFF", but it stops working after awhile. We are all different and it doesn't help me. Turner is on a real "OFF" right now. PD is forever, a life sentence."
Why are you so dishonest about adult stem cells and Parkinson's disease?
There are no adult stem cell cures and you know it. I have had Parkinson's for over ten years, don't believe germ cells are people, and
think you are cruel, anti-science and uncaring about people who suffer.
But what really galls me is how you keep referring to Dennis Turner
without noting his Parkinson's has returned.
Shouldn't honesty be on your list of ethical, family values behaviors?
Ms. Rayilyn Brown
18507 N Windfall Dr
Surprise, AZ 85374-8938
Regardless of what Michael Levesque "feels" lead to temporary remission, the rest of the scientific world is saying that ESCr gives scientists the best tools they need to unlock the secrets of basic medical research that will lead to cures for major diseases.
But Im sure you will still feel the need to impose your "moral authority" that will stifle scientific progress and prolong suffering.
"Prentice's work that has been thoroughly discredited, not only by the largest scientific community in the world, but admittedly by Prentice himself when acknowledged Shane Smith's paper when correcting his mistakes."
Prentice's work has not been discredited in the least; in fact, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a paper about a month ago CONFIRMING the successful adult-stem-cell treatments listed on Do No Harm, after researchers at Northwestern University analyzed those studies.
"Baloney, the letter refuting Prentice was accurate."
No, it was completely inaccurate. This alleged "refutation" merely pointed out that most of the successful treatments involving adult stem cells haven't been FDA-approved (YET) and aren't widely available (YET). The disingenuous letter printed in SCIENCE did not disprove that these successful treatments exist, however.
"I called him on 4-24-06 and his Parkinson's has returned with a vengeance,yet his condition as of 2004 as documented in his senate testimony is still on the 'cures' list."
Turner himself pointed out when he testified to Congress that his Parkinson's symptoms were beginning to return AND THEREFORE HE EAGERLY AWAITED A SECOND ADULT STEM CELL TREATMENT. Why was he looking forward to a second treatment? BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE HELPED HIM TO LIVE VIRTUALLY WITHOUT PARKINSON'S FOR SEVERAL YEARS. And there is no "cures list," but rather a list of successful treatments. See, you're doing the same thing that William Neaves did in SCIENCE Magazine, and the same thing that Rayilyn Brown has done: lodging straw-man arguments and then refuting them. ASCs haven't "cured" Parkinson's, but they have provided great benefit to people with Parkinson's and other diseases.
Care to revise your statement, Swan?
ASCs haven't "cured" Parkinson's, but they have provided great benefit to people with Parkinson's and other diseases.
You may want to insulate yourself from the word "cure", but its still the ideal we are aiming to achieve. ESCr provides the greatest potential to achieve this.
Dont get me wrong, I am entirely pleased with the success of ASCr therapies in providing Turner with a higher quality of life for several years, but for you its the end of the road. for me its just the beginning.
The sad fact is that today - Dennis Turner has been overtaken by the progression of his Parkinson's and he will continue to deteriorate because ASCr therapy is no longer effective. Its a sad fact you may ignore, but I feel the obligation to see the story all the way through, not just the bits and pieces that fit my ideology.
It is also deceptive and sad to me that your kind pretends ASCr is the end all be all "treatment" and that ESCr should be abandoned because its a false hope, as Wesley has promoted many times - that money is being wasted on fruitless research. Bogus peripheral ideals.
-----
Prentice has said, "Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients"
Only problem was at the time, real patients did not have 65 options, he was referring to clinical trials, not available therapies. get it?
In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune shortly after the Smith Letter was published online, Prentice admitted that some of his citations were unwarranted. "We've cleaned up that list now," he said. Asked how the errors occurred, Prentice said, "I think things just got stuck in"
J. Manier, J. Graham, "Experts rip Rove stem cell remark; researchers doubt value of adult cells," Chicago Trib., 19 July 2006, p. 1.
Prentice also acknowledged this in a response to the Smith letter by admitting..
"Will all these trials automatically translate into safe, reliable, and widely available treatments? We do not know."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;316/5830/1422b
Sorry but, submitting your body for medical research is not the same as going to the doctor.
Your your willing to fly this up a flagpole and say its the reason that ESCr is not worth the time or money, and its wrong.
The lie is still being perpetuated today .. Missourians have access to adult stem cell therapy which currently provides safe and successful treatments for more than 70 diseases and injuries. A steady flow of published research indicates great promise in the area of adult stem cell therapy, also known as non-embryonic stem cells. These are tangible therapies that are available today.
http://www.citizenlink.org/images/votenocloning/learn-missourians.html
"You may want to insulate yourself from the word 'cure', but its still the ideal we are aiming to achieve."
How quickly you move from accusing us of using the word "cure" to accusing us of "insulating" ourselves from the word "cure." How do you flip-flop so quickly without falling down?
"ESCr provides the greatest potential to achieve this."
And how many times does THIS need to be refuted for you to stop claiming it?
"Dont get me wrong, I am entirely pleased with the success of ASCr therapies in providing Turner with a higher quality of life for several years, but for you its the end of the road."
It IS? Wow, you really know nothing about us, do you?
"Only problem was at the time, real patients did not have 65 options, he was referring to clinical trials, not available therapies. get it?"
-- which would be an actual POINT if Prentice had CLAIMED that the treatments were already available for public use. Of course, he never made such a claim, so...
"The lie is still being perpetuated today .. Missourians have access to adult stem cell therapy which currently provides safe and successful treatments for more than 70 diseases and injuries."
Again, have you read the Journal of the American Medical Assocation article that confirms the adult stem cell studies? Or are you going to allege that the AMA is secretly run by the "religious right"?
How quickly you move from accusing us of using the word "cure" to accusing us of "insulating" ourselves from the word "cure." How do you flip-flop so quickly without falling down?
Wow your really grasping for an argument here aren't you. To bad you don't have any substance to your words and now resort to Karl Rove tactics of calling people flip floppers. I think everyone here knows where I stand on this issue.
The real flip floppers are people like you who said that research on ESCr was fruitless and then turn around and support IPSc.
--------
"ASCr therapies in providing Turner with a higher quality of life for several years, but for you its the end of the road."
It IS? Wow, you really know nothing about us, do you?
Great, tell me all about the research you're doing beyond ASCr to treat Parkinson's.................. ................................. ..............................chirp chirp..........chirp
--------------
"ESCr provides the greatest potential to achieve this.(curing Parkinson's)"
And how many times does THIS need to be refuted for you to stop claiming it?
Apparently you missed the point of the initial thread.
Parkinson's has been successfully treated in mice with SCNT.
I guess your just to thick to get it..
some day when you or your loved ones are being treated with their own pluripotent cells, you'll know I was right...
"Wow your really grasping for an argument here aren't you. To bad you don't have any substance to your words and now resort to Karl Rove tactics of calling people flip floppers. I think everyone here knows where I stand on this issue."
Maybe if I list it numerically:
1. Dark Swan accuses people of using the word "cure": "If there were a cure for Parkinson's don't you tink we'd see more of it in actual scientific therapies across the globe."
2. Dark Swan accuses people of refraining from using the word "cure": "You may want to insulate yourself from the word 'cure', but its [sic] still the ideal we are aiming to achieve."
Flip-flop. Vacillation.
"The real flip floppers are people like you who said that research on ESCr was fruitless and then turn around and support IPSc."
Adult stem cells are working wonders and researchers are finding them more and more plentiful and easy to work with. Embryonic stem cells form tumors. But, hey, if that's what you want, the iPSCs are just like them. If you really think ESCs are the way to go, then you can simply use the iPSCs instead.
"Great, tell me all about the research you're doing beyond ASCr to treat Parkinson's..."
Excuse me? The adult stem cell success isn't a "cure," and so we're not finished, but clearly they're closest to a cure with ASCs. Just so we're clear: you wish to abandon what works and instead go with what's never assisted a human being?
"Parkinson's has been successfully treated in mice with SCNT. I guess your just to [sic] thick to get it.."
And Parkinson's has been successfully treated in HUMAN PATIENTS with ASCs. So if you're still saying that ESCs are the most promising, you're the one who's "to" thick to get it. But that's becoming increasingly clear, isn't it?
"some day when you or your loved ones are being treated with their own pluripotent cells, you'll know I was right..."
No, if they're ever treated with their own skin cells coaxed to become induced pluripotent stem cells, that will mean that I'm the one who was right. If you are instead referring to human cloning, then that's not people being "treated with their own" cells, but rather their cells being used to create a new human being, who is then destroyed for his/her stem cells. A far different story, capice?
and the pot is calling the Kettle black.
"1. Dark Swan accuses people of using the word "cure"..."
-bmmg39
No - no i didn't say that - your setting up the same strawman you preach against - whats the word for that...hypo.something
Please reread bmmg - You got mixed up, thought those were my words and felt you had some great argument about the word cure.
The word cure is part of a quote from Rayilyn refuting Wesley's assertion that Dennis' longterm therapy was successful, when she wrote:
"I called him on 4-24-06 and his Parkinson's has returned with a vengeance,yet his condition as of 2004 as documented in his senate testimony is still on the 'cures' list."...
I even posted Rayleans name and address to show who said it. You need to thoroughly read things before you go off making baseless accusations. It seems you prefer not to discuss the real issue and divert on a semantic tangent.
So you say that you didnt say that ASCr would be a cure for PD, but then say
...Adult stem cells are working wonders
I'm left what wonder what your vision for ASCr is if it not to Cure disease.
Temporary therapy to delay effects are good, cures are Great, cures are the goal.
SCNT has shown great clinical progress in making good on the promise for a CURE for Parkinsons - which IS the point.
"Parkinson's has been successfully treated in HUMAN PATIENTS with ASCs. So if you're still saying that ESCs are the most promising, you're the one who's "to" thick to get it." -bmmg39
The AAAS, Science mag, Nature, Congress, many noble laureates and most other medical peer groups agree with me on this issue. The successful treatment of PD in mice shows great progress.
and then there is you.. and the Family Research Council, and the catholic church trying to tell us about what science holds the best potential, a real laugh.
We don't need you... and your moral superiority complex telling us how to run our lives. We have a conscience and the will to choose, just as god intended us to do.
Hello, I've read the current discussion and I want to add a few things.
My general conception of this specific debate is that bmmg39 believes most threatening diseases can be cured by ASCr. He is completely against ESCr of any form. He's also for ISPcr.
Apparently, he also thinks that any scientists engaged in ESCr (of any form, there are many) are like mad scientists, determined to clone anything they can and try any procedure they can access without abandon.
Maybe you guys have already been around about this, but ISPcr has stemmed from ESCr. I don't understand how you can argue that no cures will come from ESCr because they haven't yet. Do you realize how hard it is to conduct ESCr right now? Do you realize that a scientific notion doesn't take a month or just a year to come to fruition? In the short time (as in roughtly 13 years) ESCs have even been being used, incredible progress has been made (all around the world).
Most importantly, though, I want to emphasize that the recent Parkinson's achievement is just that, an incredible achievement. Those scientists have worked their whole lives and dedicated hours upon hours to this cause- helping people. And that's because they believe in it. That's because they are the scientists who went to school for years and know the facts, and know how science and biology work.
If your religion is what makes you fear this science, then why can't you just avoid it? When/if you ever develop a disease that is curable/treatable by ESCr (or anything discovered or derived from it [which there will be a lot]), why can't you just choose not to treat yourself and let others make their own decisions?
On a final note, about the women being exploited by SCNT thing. I've heard this a lot and, as a woman, I would feel empowered to be able to donate something like that to science. It's never NOT going to be a choice for the woman, so why stop her? We do have ~7,000,000 of them. If I can use a few of those eggs to cure a loved one, or even myself of a deadly disease, why shouldn't I?
Welcome yoga*pug. (Gosh, I love people's monikers. So imaginative.) I don't want to revisit all of this but your comment that ESCR is hard to conduct makes no sense. The Feds have not outlawed it. The NIH funds it in humans to the tune of tens of millions each year. According to the Rockefeller Institute, more than $2 billion has been poured into the research.
If you mean that it is technically difficult, that is true as far as it goes.
As for me, this isn't a science debate but an ethics debate. Nobody I know says that the scientists, with whom I disagree about the ethics of HUMAN cloning are "evil."
As a childbearing age woman (I assume) you don't have 7 million eggs to donate. Most never are released from your ovaries. Moreover, hyper-ovulation can be risky, including death and sterility. Do you really want to risk your that to promote human cloning? Have you donated eggs for that?
":The word cure is part of a quote from Rayilyn refuting Wesley's assertion that Dennis' longterm therapy was successful, when she wrote..."
You wanna make it clear, then, exactly where Brown's letter begins? Quotation marks are your friend, DS.
"You need to thoroughly read things before you go off making baseless accusations."
You need to WRITE thoroughly so that others have a shot in hell of telling which are your words and which are those of Rayilyn Brown -- a woman I've sparred with online, by the way, and can tell you she's not the most credible source in the world. From what I understand, she has a bumper sticker that reads, "Stem cells aren't babies," as if anyone had suggested that they are. Straw-(wo)man argument.
"So you say that you didnt say that ASCr would be a cure for PD, but then say, '...Adult stem cells are working wonders,' I'm left what wonder what your vision for ASCr is if it not to Cure disease.
Temporary therapy to delay effects are good, cures are Great, cures are the goal."
Uh, yeah, dude. Cures ARE the goal, and we're closer to cures with adult stem cells than we are with embryonic ones. What part of this are you not grasping?
"The AAAS, Science mag..."
...a magazine that printed an eleventh-hour, self-servingly inaccurate letter in the summer of 2006 as a way to bend over backwards to rip adult stem cells, just in time for a Congressional vote! Yeah, GREAT source there, dude.
"and then there is you.. and the Family Research Council, and the catholic church..."
...and hundreds of doctors and scientists, too. Don't forget about them.
"We have a conscience and the will to choose, just as god intended us to do."
I'm agnostic. My conscience tells me that we shouldn't be destroying human beings for research, whether they be prison inmates, homeless people, or embryonic human beings.
I am aware the Feds have not outlawed stem cell resarch, but it is still difficult to access stem cells. The criteria for accessing stem cells are:
1. Removal of cells from the embryo must have been initiated before August 9, 2001, when the President outlined this policy; and the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived must no longer have had the possibility of developing further as a human being.
2. The embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes but no longer be needed for them. 3. Informed consent must have been obtained from the parent(s) for the donation of the embryo, and no financial inducements for donation are allowed.
After a certain number of passages, these stem cell lines will presumably degrade. Therefore, even if you are an institution with the resources to work on human stem cells, you still must obtain them from one of these lines that were established before 8/9/01.
Anyway, about the human cloning- I wasn't aware that that was what this was about. I, too, am not a proponent of human cloning. I don't know anyone who is. But I'm also not worried about that happening as a result of ESCr.
Let's take a hypothetical scientist who wants to clone a human being. He would first have to solidify preliminary experiments and procedures on animals (FDA regulations). If he intends to use animals, he must first effectively communicate the scientific justification for that to the Institutional Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of his institution (Federally mandated for any animal-using institutionts). It most likely wouldn't make it past the IACUC as the IACUC's job is to approve procedures and to protect the scientist himself by assuring that his protocol meets all regulations of the NIH (PHS), USDA (OLAW), and maybe even the FDA. So, not only would Scientist X need a good reason to clone a human (can't think of one) but he would have to be in compliance with federal regulations of all kinds, which I'm sure do not promote human cloning.
You are right, by this point I do not have 7,000,000 eggs to donate. My point is that I have a LOT. I still believe I could spare a few. And no, I've never superovulated myself, but it's definitely something I'm considering. I have a good friend who did it- she did just fine. But most of all, my eggs would never be used for human cloning, and I am sure of that.
I am aware the Feds have not outlawed stem cell resarch, but it is still difficult to access stem cells. The criteria for accessing stem cells are:
1. Removal of cells from the embryo must have been initiated before August 9, 2001, when the President outlined this policy; and the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived must no longer have had the possibility of developing further as a human being.
2. The embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes but no longer be needed for them.
3. Informed consent must have been obtained from the parent(s) for the donation of the embryo, and no financial inducements for donation are allowed.
After a certain number of passages, these stem cell lines will presumably degrade. Therefore, even if you are an institution with the resources to work on human stem cells, you still must obtain them from one of these lines that were established before 8/9/01.
Anyway, about the human cloning- I wasn't aware that that was what this was about. I, too, am not a proponent of human cloning. I don't know anyone who is. But I'm also not worried about that happening as a result of ESCr.
Let's take a hypothetical scientist who wants to clone a human being. He would first have to solidify preliminary experiments and procedures on animals (FDA regulations). If he intends to use animals, he must first effectively communicate the scientific justification for that to the Institutional Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of his institution (Federally mandated for any animal-using institutionts). It most likely wouldn't make it past the IACUC as the IACUC's job is to approve procedures and to protect the scientist himself by assuring that his protocol meets all regulations of the NIH (PHS), USDA (OLAW), and maybe even the FDA. So, not only would Scientist X need a good reason to clone a human (can't think of one) but he would have to be in compliance with federal regulations of all kinds, which I'm sure do not promote human cloning.
You are right, by this point I do not have 7,000,000 eggs to donate. My point is that I have a LOT. I still believe I could spare a few. And no, I've never superovulated myself, but it's definitely something I'm considering. I have a good friend who did it- she did just fine. But most of all, my eggs would never be used for human cloning, and I am sure of that.
yoga_pug: "If your religion is what makes you fear this science, then why can't you just avoid it? When/if you ever develop a disease that is curable/treatable by ESCr (or anything discovered or derived from it [which there will be a lot]), why can't you just choose not to treat yourself and let others make their own decisions?"
I'm not sure why people on your side of the fence continually bringing up religion, YP. Are you a priestess? Human embryos are human beings, according to science, not religion, and so destroying them for research is no different from killing born people for the same purpose. If someone wanted to kill homeless people for medical research, and then asked you to "opt out" if you disagreed, would you go along with that? Or would you find such a "compromise" unacceptable?
As for your questions on your ova, just take a look at http://www.handsoffourovaries.com/.
"Anyway, about the human cloning- I wasn't aware that that was what this was about. I, too, am not a proponent of human cloning."
Of COURSE you are. What do you think they want your ova for, YP? They wish to take a skin cell from one person and combine it with an oocyte. If successful, the result would be a new embryonic human being, who will then be destroyed for his or her stem cells. What did you THINK they want women's eggs for?
YP: The criteria you mentioned are for federal funding , not accessing stem cells. Private or state funded stem cell lines are readily available without those limitations--except for some patent issues which has apparently chilled the field, we have also discussed here.
"The AAAS, Science mag..."
...Yeah, GREAT source there, dude.bmmg
"and then there is you.. and the Family Research Council, and the catholic church..."
...and hundreds of doctors and scientists, too. Don't forget about them. bmmg
Wonderful Bmmg, now you're telling me that Science magazine is not a good source of information for stem cell research?
Your telling me that hundreds of doctors affiliated with the Family Research Council knows more about the future of genetic research than the combined top scientists at Harvard and Standford and the rest of the AAAS members of various medical institutions!!? Woww!
You're simply wrong.
Kind of painting yourself into a corner here. Care to back him up on this one Wesley?
Care to address my point, DS? For your convenience, I shall post it again:
"...a magazine that printed an eleventh-hour, self-servingly inaccurate letter in the summer of 2006 as a way to bend over backwards to rip adult stem cells, just in time for a Congressional vote!"
Since you keep invoking the magazine's name as the heroic "debunker" of David Prentice and adult stem cells, perhaps you can actually stay on point as we refute the alleged refutation...
Where is "Standford," by the way?
I'm agnostic. My conscience tells me that we shouldn't be destroying human beings for research bmmg
Well I'm a Christian, My conscience tells me to heal the sick. My conscience also tells me theraputic cloning is a natural process and does not create a person. I base my thoughts off moral upbringing and excellent education.
Your entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. the problem here is that you want to dictate your opinion upon everyone else at the cost of theirs.
You have no moral authority to tell people what to do. The majority of America supports ESCr. Congress Supports ESCr, Academia and the overwhelming majority of scientist support ESCr.
You, you have the support of George Bush and the religous right.
You are the minority and your failure to accept the majority is what impeeds scientific research to alleviate and cure human suffering faster. Your obstruction is whats immoral.
"I, too, am not a proponent of human cloning." YP
"Of COURSE you are.
What did you THINK they want women's eggs for?" bmmg
Pure Arrogance, Could you be any more condescending?, you act as if she doesn't knwo what shes doing with her eggs by offering them for research. You have nothing to do with it, you have no authority.
how bout conjuring up some more of your fear mongering about exploiting women who choose to donate to science, your picture of women being pimped out for eggs falls flat on its face in a real situation here...
Your assertion that people who choose to donate eggs for research act without moral conscience is baseless. You have stated nothing which gives you any moral authority to say so. Your belief that SCNT produces a person is a minority belief, regardless of how much more you think its matters, it doesn't.
Attitudes like yours bmmg are what cause states to pass laws to protect citizens cloning rights like California and Missouri have. Thanks for bolstering our efforts!
yeah I googled
"self-servingly inaccurate letter in the summer of 2006 as a way to bend over backwards to rip adult stem cells"
it didn't turn up anything, go figure. but please enlighten us all
..perhaps you can actually stay on point as we refute the alleged refutation...
ok , yeah we were originally talking about how SCNT has produced some major breakthroughs in treating Parkinsons in Mice models
what do you have to say about it?
Human embryos are human beings, according to science
ahh, but science also says that therapeutic clones are not the same as human beings.
and the reference was to therapeutic cloning...so your argument falls apart from there on.
You're not receptive to engaging in rational discussion, shown by the fact that someone brings IACUC and NIH regulations into the discussion and all you do in repsonse is start babbling about whats the hang up on religoin, yada yada, instead of taking the opportunity to address real world implications and discuss regulations and protocols surrounding the process with someone who seems to know something about the subject.
Your just blindly arguing - showing how disingenuous you really are about having open discussion of Stem cell research -
Instead of nit picking semantics and minor spelling errors Try offering something of substance.
Ok, I did not realize that SCNT was being interpreted as human cloning, or reproductive cloning.
There is a stigma attached to the word "clone". When your body's cells regenerate themselves (constantly happening), they make clones of themselves. Do you believe that your body is made up of millions of little human beings?
When the lab analyzes the oral swab taken by your doctor to ID the bacteria that's making you sick, they allow that bacteria to grow, or "clone", in a dish.
The process of SCNT, at no point, involves the union of sperm and egg, which might produce a zygote.
As for the issue of MY eggs, that's the point. They're mine. And you are wrong, they will not be used for "human cloning". They could be used for SCNT or many other promising avenues of research. Do you think organ donors have been exploited? What's the difference? If I want to save someone's life, why can't I?
And also, it's ironic that bmmg is Agnostic and DS and I both are Christians. For someone who is apparently so pro-life, you have an interesting take on things. DS and I obviously have hope and respect for life, and we don't want to stop the people who are passionate about preserving it.
"Well I'm a Christian, My conscience tells me to heal the sick."
Neat-O! Like, so does mine! Which is why I'm choosing to support that which actually works and doesn't entail the destruction of any human beings!
"My conscience also tells me theraputic cloning is a natural process and does not create a person."
Scientific fact trumps your conscience, DS. And polls repeatedly demonstrate that the majority of Americans are opposed to all cloning, INCLUDING "therapeutic," research-related cloning.
"Pure Arrogance, Could you be any more condescending?, you act as if she doesn't knwo what shes doing with her eggs by offering them for research."
If someone is unaware that somatic cell nuclear transfer and cloning are one and the same, I'm not out of line for pointing that out to her/him.
"ok , yeah we were originally talking about how SCNT has produced some major breakthroughs in treating Parkinsons in Mice models...what do you have to say about it?"
I already explained that to you; your alleged "major breakthroughs" pale in comparison to actual breakthroughs assisting HUMAN PATIENTS with ADULT stem cells. Go ahead, read it and "forget" it again.
DS: "ahh, but science also says that therapeutic clones are not the same as human beings."
Wow, again, wrong. There is no difference between a so-called "therapeutic clone" and a "reproductive clone" (which in and of itself is a tautology). The only difference between the two processes is that in the latter the cloned animal or human being would be implanted, whereas in the former the cloned animal or human being is killed for his/her stem cells.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the process by which Dolly the Sheep was created. There was no "sperm-and-egg" combination there, either. She was created, then implanted, then born. If you argue that cloning-derived human embryos aren't the same as sexually created embryos, then you're essentially arguing that Dolly wasn't an actual sheep. "Reproductive" cloning and "therapeutic" cloning aren't two different processes, except, again, in the latter, the process is interrupted when the created embryo is killed.
"There is a stigma attached to the word 'clone'. When your body's cells regenerate themselves (constantly happening), they make clones of themselves. Do you believe that your body is made up of millions of little human beings?"
You can clone a cell, but that's not what is happening with somatic cell nuclear transfer, YP. In SCNT, a cell from someone's body is COMBINED WITH AN OOCYTE, thereby creating (provided it is successful) a new human embryo. This means that a skin cell is not equivalent to an embryo, but rather (if anything) to a sperm.
"The process of SCNT, at no point, involves the union of sperm and egg, which might produce a zygote."
Again, an embryonic human being hypothetically (as it hasn't been achieved yet) via cloning (SCNT) would be exactly equivalent to one created via sexual reproduction. Otherwise, we would look at Dolly the Sheep and say, "That's not a real sheep, because it/she wasn't created via sperm and egg." But, of course, that would be ridiculous.
"As for the issue of MY eggs, that's the point. They're mine. And you are wrong, they will not be used for 'human cloning'. They could be used for SCNT or many other promising avenues of research."
Again, what I am trying to explain to you is that SCNT equals cloning. They are one and the same. Whether or not the embryo you create via cloning is implanted in a womb, you have already cloned (and you have already reproduced).
"Do you think organ donors have been exploited? What's the difference?"
Provided we don't prematurely kill an organ donor, no, organ donors aren't being exploited, because they have given CONSENT to donate their organs. An embryonic human being never gives consent to be killed. There's the difference.
"And also, it's ironic that bmmg is Agnostic and DS and I both are Christians."
Yeah, so do I. Because, for as much as my side is accused of "forcing religion" onto people, your side seems to be the ones who don't mind forcing YOUR religious beliefs onto others -- specifically, those embryonic human beings whose destruction you don't seem to have a problem with at all. Science textbooks are on OUR side, not yours; they hold that human embryos are human beings, and NOT that a personhood fairy magically confers life at the moment of birth or when we think a fetus or newborn starts to look "cute." As for me, my money is going towards funding ethical research that will hopefully pay off dividends very soon (www.joinleenow.org).
I just want to thank you, Wesley, for your rational commentary.
I had hoped to engage in a mature discussion based on scientific facts and reputable sources about the stem cell debate on this site, but I see that now as a fruitless effort.
Thanks for having me, regardless. Signing off, YogaPug
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scientific fact trumps your conscience, DS. And polls repeatedly demonstrate that the majority of Americans are opposed to all cloning, INCLUDING "therapeutic," research-related cloning. - bmmg
Wrongo bmm g
If you would stop reading your high school biology book and pick up a scientific journal you would understand that science distinguishes the difference between a reproductive and therapeutic cloning. You can regurgitate your view ad nauseum, but the fact is the highest respected scientific journals in the world support my definition - not yours. Try Harvard for instance
http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/engineering-technology/topics/therapeutic-cloning
So anyways - on with the show..
Here are a variety of polls to prove your wrong yet again - the same source of polls used to count exit data for Presidential elections....
USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 13-15, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"the federal government currently provides very limited funding for medical research that uses stem cells obtained from human embryos. Which would you prefer the government to do:
4/15/07
Percent for easing or no restrictions 60%
Percent for current or total restriction 36%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 16-19, 2007. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell research?"
Support 61%
Oppose 31%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). July 21-24, 2006. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"Do you favor or oppose expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which is the practice of conducting scientific research on cells extracted from human embryos in an attempt to find cures or treatments for diseases?"
Favor 68%
Oppose 27%
an older study by Harris polls
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=488
Christian Post
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070616/28011_Poll:_American,_Republican_Support_for_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research_Increasing.htm
I'm guessing your polling data was provided by the family research council or some other pro life sponsored resource.
I had hoped to engage in a mature discussion based on scientific facts and reputable sources about the stem cell debate on this site, but I see that now as a fruitless effort.
YP
Nice Bmmg - always that smooth with the ladies?
If someone is unaware that somatic cell nuclear transfer and cloning are one and the same, I'm not out of line for pointing that out to her/him. bmmg
YP seems to be completely aware of the concept that SCNT equates to therapeutic cloning. What is clear is that you do not comprehend what YP is saying - that she supports Therapeutic and doesn't support Reproductive cloning.
You many not acknowledge the two distinct purposes of cloning, but many people do. Your narrow minded viewpoint is what disables you from being able to enter a rational conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion on what cloning is.
----------------------
SCNT equals cloning bmmg
since you want to go apeshit on semantics - SCNT is a method of cloning - a subset if you will
but there are other cloning methods as well. Inversely, cloning does not necessarily equal SCNT. Your equation is not sound.
----------------------
This means that a skin cell is not equivalent to an embryo, but rather (if anything) to a sperm. bmmg
No, you should know the difference between haploid and diploid.
If anything the diploid IPSc or SCNT is more akin to a diploid Embryo - not haploid sperm. very basic stuff here...
-----------------------------
Again, an embryonic human being...via cloning (SCNT) would be exactly equivalent to one created via sexual reproduction.
No, you're wrong about this too. Donor cells under go mutations via epigenetic influence over time.
The resulting donor cell is genetically different than the zygote that first formed the person.
An extreme example of this is cancer. Here a potential donor cell has become mutated in a negative way, and would not produce the same donor dna as the persons original zygote.
Here is a starting point to educate yourself - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13835742
-------------------------------
I could go on and on, but Frankly its getting boring to keep correcting this barrage of bogus propaganda put forth by bmmg.
Theraputic cloning does not create a person and is completely ethical.
Have a nice weekend.
Polls find mixed results on embryonic stem cell research, but my actual COMMENT, DimSwan, was on cloning. Americans are opposed to all forms of CLONING, which is why it's rather curious that you then provided polls about STEM CELL RESEARCH. Kinda sorta suggests you still can't tell the difference, huh?
"Nice Bmmg - always that smooth with the ladies?"
Hey, I'm here to provide scientific fact, not mollify anyone's ill-conceived notions. If you treat people rudely, it increases the likelihood that you'll be treated in kind.
"YP seems to be completely aware of the concept that SCNT equates to therapeutic cloning."
Upon her arrival, she announced that she doesn't support cloning, when in fact she was in favor of donating her ova towards SCNT. That's a contradiction.
"You many not acknowledge the two distinct purposes of cloning, but many people do."
Either "purpose" results in an embryonic human being. What happens to that human being constitutes the only difference.
"Theraputic cloning does not create a person and is completely ethical."
The result of therapeutic cloning is (if it's ever successful) an embryonic human being, which is the same as a person. I hope I'm not losing you. I'd advise you to open a biology textbook, but you're already on the record as saying you don't care what it says in them. Not all ESCR supporters cede science to us as quickly as you did, but we certainly appreciate it, as it saves time.
yoga*pug: I have appreciated your comments and respectfully invite you to hang around. Thanks.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home