New Reproductive Cloning Technology? Or More Robert Lanza PR Hype?
The Drudge Report has become America's Front Page, to the point that even the New York Times and other newspapers try to get publicity for their stories by leaking them ahead of time to Drudge, a man the MSM once despised. Thus, when Drudge thinks a story is important, it comes to the attention of tens of millions of people . Scientists who used the procedure to create baby mice from the skin cells of adult animals have found it to be far more efficient than the Dolly technique, with fewer side effects, which makes it more acceptable for human use. The mice were made by inserting skin cells of an adult animal into early embryos produced by in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Some of the resulting offspring were partial clones but some were full clones--just like Dolly. Unlike the Dolly technique, however, the procedure is so simple and efficient that it has raised fears that it will be seized on by IVF doctors to help infertile couples who are eager to have their own biological children
But Drudge has a tendency to, shall we say, sensationalize. That's why when he claimed in red font that a new cloning technology has been developed that could lead to the birth of born cloned human babies, I felt the need to check it out. After reading the story, my impression is, in a phrase, "not so fast."
The story is about a new form of mouse cloning that is supposedly more efficient and productive than SCNT for reproductive purposes. From the story: A new form of cloning has been developed that is easier to carry out than the technique used to create Dolly the sheep, raising fears that it may one day be used on human embryos to produce "designer" babies.
Sounds alarming. But then we read further and it turns out the story is being driven by our old pal Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology--which means there is a political or fund raising purpose here. And indeed: Lanza claims that IPSCs were used in this technique (of course, with Lanza, we can never be sure of his veracity). And it turns out this is an attempt to undermine support for IPSCs--perhaps because ACT has a big stake in cloning and ESCR--by planting seeds of fear that they will lead to easier reproductive cloning than SCNT. Lanza shows his hand when he tells the Independent:"
At this point there are no laws or regulations for this kind of thing and the bizarre thing is that the Catholic Church and other traditional stem-cell opponents think this technology is great when in reality it could in the end become one of their biggest nightmares," he said. "It is quite possible that the real legacy of this whole new programming technology is that it will be introducing the era of designer babies. "So for instance if we had a few skin cells from Albert Einstein, or anyone else in the world, you could have a child that is say 10 per cent or 70 per cent Albert Einstein by just injecting a few of their cells into an embryo," he said.I have heard of this theoretical possibility before. But remember: What can be done in a mouse may be far more difficult to do in a human--as we have seen with SCNT. Moreover, there is a legislative cure, but Lanza would oppose it. Outlaw all human SCNT. Or, outlaw implanting any embryo into a womb or its functional equivalent unless created via fertilization.
So, let's not fall for his scheme. IPSC research needs to proceed with our full support. This story is merely yet another example of the press letting Lanza and ACT promote their own PR agendas for their own purposes--which in this case appear to be to undermine support for IPSC research among the anti-cloning and anti-ESCR communities.
Labels: Robert Lanza. PR Scientist


19 Comments:
Or, outlaw implanting any embryo into a womb or its functional equivalent unless created via fertilization.
Thats exactly what Amendment 2 in Missouri did, outlaw implanting a clone for reproduction.
Wesley, if your analysis is correct, then it could mean that the SCNT industry is in more trouble than I thought. I can only hope so.
If I were an investor and I had two options where I could get the same materials faster, cheaper and if they were manufactured more efficiently and at a reduced cost than an incredibly complex and expensive still to be proven technique that had not yet produced the same functionally equivalent product achieved by other means, I'm sure I would buy or invest in the cheaper, easier, more efficient and productive one, like iPSCs instead of SCNT and killing embryos for ESCs.
Hopefully taxpayers feel the same way and will ask why are we spending money on research to get the same kind of product at greater cost, more complexity, less efficiency and with moral baggage.
I can only hope that your analysis is true and that Lanza's back door smearing of iPSCs indicates that the coffers are drying up across the nation for SCNT.
Exactly! Well, not exactly, depending on how Wesley wants to define fertilization. How do you think it should be defined, Wesley? Massachusetts allows for combining modified GE'd gametes that might come from anything, whereas Missouri specifies "sperm of a human male" and "egg of a human female", which would seem to prohibit fertilization using modified gametes that are no longer "of" someone.
I think the law should prohibit conceiving people that are not the union of a man and a woman's actual unmodified gametes. I think the conceptual language of "conceiving people" is better than the technical language of "implanting" and "fertilizing" because it gets at the real issue - the intent to create a person, much like the law outlaws attempted murder without needing to define the method or exactly what constitutes attempting to murder.
Wesley,
You focussed on Lanza's motives, but my question is whether he actually did what he claims he did. Did he?
BTW, is it just me, or does Lanza look like a chimera of Frankenstein and Lurch? He should fire his hair stylist!
Jason
Jason: All we have is his word for it, which is why I discussed the veracity issue.
I am told this is nothing new, and indeed, is a final test proving that these cells are pluripotent. In other words, ic could be done with ESCells and cloned ESCs.
DS: A 2 did do that while also permitting cloned embryos to be created. IPSCs don't create an embryo. But we should outlaw all SCNT.
How hard would it be to get an embryo from an IPSC? What is special about an egg that cannot be replicated with a modified "induced" skin cell?
What do you propose for the wording of the law, if you were going to write it for Congress?
Also, A2 didn't "permit" anything that wasn't already legal, and it doesn't permit anything that the federal government prohibits. It did however prohibit things that no other state prohibits and that the federal government does not prohibit.
John: This procedure does not create a new embryo from an IPSC. It injects an IPSC into a previously created new embryo.
An IPSC can't become an embryo on its own. It is pluripotent, not totipotent.
Does it know this? Or is it pluriscient, not omniscient? A few years ago a skin cell couldn't become a heart cell, now it can. And they now can become gametes, both eggs and sperms. How hard would it be to get them to become diploid eggs, aka cloned embryos, or just eggs and sperms to fertilize together, which would be reformulations of the 23 pairs? I'm not sure where you find the certainty to say they "can't" be used to create embryos. My point is that you'd better not only oppose embryos created from SCNT, as there are certainly other unethical ways to create an embryo.
Please take a stab at writing that law. It's fun. Nobody is going to hold you to it if you want to revise it later. Just let us know what you think would make a good law, that would stop the things that you think should be stopped.
No blog entry about the fantastic story in The Washington Post on Saturday? It's about how the U.S. lags behind Europe in using non-animal methods for product testing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103733.html
AnimalLover22: I hadn't seen it. Thanks for pointing it out. However, I think the Europeans are going too far, to the detriment of their own science sector.
An IPSC can't become an embryo on its own. It is pluripotent, not totipotent.
Totipotency is not a precondition for an embryo. There are no totipotent cell used in the process of SCNT. SCNT creates a blastocyst completely skipping the totipotent stage of zygote development.
An embryo is a shell to nourish and shelter the lifeform growing inside the nucleus. The cytoplasm stimulates the nucleus but is not actually part of the organism. The same as the mothers womb nourishes and shelters the fetus at the implantation stage. but the mother is not actually the fetus.
I think most of you just use the word 'Embyro'as a generic political tool without really being able to define specifically what it is.
I challenge anyone to give me a definition of the word 'embryo' that will be as applicable in 20 years as it is now.
DS: Correcting your bad science is growing wearisome and this is the last time. SCNT does not create a blastocyst. A blastocyst is the name for an embryo at the one week stage of development when it has 100-200 cells. SCNT creates a one-celled totipotent organism, which is called a zygote in science, and which the President's Council on Bioethics called the functional equivalent of a zygote since it is create asexually. Pluripotentcy means the ability to transform into any tissue of the three main lineages.
The embryo is a "shell to nourish the lifeform inside" is crap biology. The entire embryo is a life form, an organism. Indeed, the outler layer of the blastocyst is what transforms into the embryo/fetal organ called the placenta.
This is the last time I am going to correct your science. Moreover, I am not going to engage your ethical claims if they are based on bad science any more, because it does not permit analysis based on facts, it is like walking through a Dali painting, and because frankly, you are either not serious or you are putting us through hoops.
Indeed, this is the very strategy that "the scientists" have undertaken, redefine terms based on politics, claiming that every somatic cell is the equivalent of an embryo, etc. That is a corrpution of science and I will have no part in it here. Too much other business to which to attend. Enough.
On this point you are correct. SCNT does yield a zygote. I was mistaken.
I openly admit any mistakes I make, it is not done on purpose to instigate.
We are here to learn are we not?
Okay Dark Swan. You are right about this being, ideally, a place of learning and civil discourse. Sorry I got so cranky.
From a reader: "What Lanza did is not remarkable. His technique was a minor modification of what's termed tetraploid complementation. Nothing new here."
This from a scientist of my acquaintance, who also says that there is nothing really new in the IPSC mouse study: "I got to thinking about Lanza's hype claim that iPSC makes cloning & chimeras more likely, or easier. So I went back to the iPSC papers and checked their numbers for mice.
The short answer is that it's no easier to clone mice using tetraploids than it is using SCNT!
All this highlights is that an iPSC, like ANY ESC, can be re-integrated into an embryo.
The technology has been around for many years, and is routinely used to make transgenic mice. But it's not efficient.
The chimeras are made by injecting an iPS cell (or any ES cell) into an existing mouse embryo.
The so-called clones are "tetraploid" embryos. First, 2 one-cell mouse embryos are fused together to make a single cell (doubling the normal diploid chromosome number, hence the name tetraploid). Then the iPS cell is surrounded by these "tetraploid" cells--the mixture reforms an embryo structure, with the tetraploids to the outside, forming the trophoblast layer that will become placenta, and the iPSC (or ESC) to the inside, forming the inner cell mass."
I blogged on Lanza and other recent statements by advocates present and past of cloning-based stem cell research, as "Cloning and Stem Cells: A Fake, a Red Herring, and a Surprise," at Biopolitical Times/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home