Stem cells and cloning-for-biomedical-research

[Loki]

There's a global consensus on the need to ban cloning-to-produce-children (not called "reproductive cloning" since all cloning is reproductive). The current cloning debate is whether or not it's moral to clone-for-biomedical research (CBR for short).

For those not involved in the debate, CBR clones a human being by fusing a cell from that human with an human oocyte (egg cell) whose nucleus has been removed. It is then induced to divide through chemicals or electric stimulation and is grown to the blastocyst stage (100-200 cells, after less than a week). At this point, the blastocyst is opened and the inner cell mass (called stem cells) is harvested. This causes the destruction of the embryo.

Human embryonic stem cells have amazing properties allowing them to differentiate into any kind of cell in the human body, including the until-now non-regenerative nerve cells. This research can potentially find cures for disease like Alzheimer, Parkinson, spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart problems and many others. Detractors of this research claim the destruction of an embryo isn't an ethical means for this end.

What's your opinion on CBR and stem cell research?

(I've purposefully focused on cloning-based research since even if supernumerary IVF fetuses are used for the current research, if and when this technology becomes part of clinical use, it's more likely that cloning will be used to overcome immune rejection, since the grafted cells will have the same genome as the host).

 

[sgtmac_46]

There's a global consensus on the need to ban cloning-to-produce-children (not called "reproductive cloning" since all cloning is reproductive). The current cloning debate is whether or not it's moral to clone-for-biomedical research (CBR for short).

For those not involved in the debate, CBR clones a human being by fusing a cell from that human with an human oocyte (egg cell) whose nucleus has been removed. It is then induced to divide through chemicals or electric stimulation and is grown to the blastocyst stage (100-200 cells, after less than a week). At this point, the blastocyst is opened and the inner cell mass (called stem cells) is harvested. This causes the destruction of the embryo.

Human embryonic stem cells have amazing properties allowing them to differentiate into any kind of cell in the human body, including the until-now non-regenerative nerve cells. This research can potentially find cures for disease like Alzheimer, Parkinson, spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart problems and many others. Detractors of this research claim the destruction of an embryo isn't an ethical means for this end.

What's your opinion on CBR and stem cell research?

(I've purposefully focused on cloning-based research since even if supernumerary IVF fetuses are used for the current research, if and when this technology becomes part of clinical use, it's more likely that cloning will be used to overcome immune rejection, since the grafted cells will have the same genome as the host).

I believe any such research that can improve the quality of life of humans and potentially prolong the life of humans is good research.

I fully support research on stem cells, and this is one area President Bush is 100% WRONG on.

 

[arnisador]

I believe any such research that can improve the quality of life of humans and potentially prolong the life of humans is good research.

I fully support research on stem cells, and this is one area President Bush is 100% WRONG on.

Agreed! We have to explore it. Stopping science doesn't work anyway.

 

[mrhnau]

I believe any such research that can improve the quality of life of humans and potentially prolong the life of humans is good research.

I fully support research on stem cells, and this is one area President Bush is 100% WRONG on.

hmm... really... so, you would have no problem with harvesting fetuses for stem cells then? The verbage used by Loki says that in a nice way... one can argue if its "human life", and I guess that would be an interesting arguement... So, those opposed to abortion, how would you differentiate this and abortion? How can you condemn one and not the other? If its considered human life when concieved naturally, how about unnatural methods, such as this or invitro-fertilization? test tube babies?

That aside, I think stem cells are the way of the future. Once ethical problems are aside, money from DC will start flowing. What I -don't- want happening is having females basically being paid to have abortions now and my tax dollar being used to subsidize it. With just cloning, you sort of get around that problem and shift it in a different direction. Its an interesting question... There are alternatives. Adult stem cells are not as potent, but surely get around the ethical debate. Bit more difficult to acquire, but they are there.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

hmm... really... so, you would have no problem with harvesting fetuses for stem cells then? The verbage used by Loki says that in a nice way... one can argue if its "human life", and I guess that would be an interesting arguement... So, those opposed to abortion, how would you differentiate this and abortion? How can you condemn one and not the other? If its considered human life when concieved naturally, how about unnatural methods, such as this or invitro-fertilization? test tube babies?

That aside, I think stem cells are the way of the future. Once ethical problems are aside, money from DC will start flowing. What I -don't- want happening is having females basically being paid to have abortions now and my tax dollar being used to subsidize it. With just cloning, you sort of get around that problem and shift it in a different direction. Its an interesting question... There are alternatives. Adult stem cells are not as potent, but surely get around the ethical debate. Bit more difficult to acquire, but they are there.

MrH

If it doesn't happen in the US, it will happen in other countries and when people need that technology in the US, they won't have access. When it comes to a lump of cells that may or may not become a baby and a person's life, the person in question is going to choose life...the life they know exists and not the potential.

 

[Loki]

If it doesn't happen in the US, it will happen in other countries and when people need that technology in the US, they won't have access. When it comes to a lump of cells that may or may not become a baby and a person's life, the person in question is going to choose life...the life they know exists and not the potential.

Very well said! A professor I heard recently was asked why we consider a baby as a potential lawyer or doctor as well as a fetus a potential human, but people ignore the fact that a blastocyst is also a potential human and condone their use for research. He answered that a baby is a potential doctor, but until he becomes an actual doctor, the rights of a doctor isn't conferred upon him. Same with the blastocyst.

What I -don't- want happening is having females basically being paid to have abortions now and my tax dollar being used to subsidize it.

The possibility of exploitation of women still exists. We don't need an abortion epidemic to get embryos, but we do need egg cells. Since a woman has an average of about 1 mature egg a month, hormones can be used to induced superovulation and cause 10-15 eggs to mature and allow their extraction. These hormones are decidedly unhealthy.

It was suggested that women who are willing to sell their eggs to licensed researchers would sign an agreement of informed consent. This is problematic because it creates a double standard and a catch-22. A woman signing informed consent in order to make money to maintain her autonomy would only do this in a situation where she lacked the autonomy to find a decent alternative. No financially stable woman would moonlight as an egg donor, except in a case of pure altruism.

 

[sgtmac_46]

hmm... really... so, you would have no problem with harvesting fetuses for stem cells then? The verbage used by Loki says that in a nice way... one can argue if its "human life", and I guess that would be an interesting arguement... So, those opposed to abortion, how would you differentiate this and abortion? How can you condemn one and not the other? If its considered human life when concieved naturally, how about unnatural methods, such as this or invitro-fertilization? test tube babies?

I'm not really squemish about the abortion issue. I believe, as I said in another post, if a woman believes she can't raise a child, she knows best. Those opposed to abortion, however, will find the whole thing an abomination. They'll view it as trading one human life for another.

That aside, I think stem cells are the way of the future. Once ethical problems are aside, money from DC will start flowing. What I -don't- want happening is having females basically being paid to have abortions now and my tax dollar being used to subsidize it. With just cloning, you sort of get around that problem and shift it in a different direction. Its an interesting question... There are alternatives. Adult stem cells are not as potent, but surely get around the ethical debate. Bit more difficult to acquire, but they are there.

MrH

There's a lot to iron out, but there's also a lot of promise.

 

[heretic888]

Very well said! A professor I heard recently was asked why we consider a baby as a potential lawyer or doctor as well as a fetus a potential human, but people ignore the fact that a blastocyst is also a potential human and condone their use for research. He answered that a baby is a potential doctor, but until he becomes an actual doctor, the rights of a doctor isn't conferred upon him. Same with the blastocyst.

A good deal of the debate, of course, stems from what I would consider anthropocentric bias.

Most people have this really weird fantasy in their heads that there is something intrinsically sacred about human life, to the exclusion of all other forms of life. As if a zygote is more aware, caring, feeling, or "sentient" than, say, a cow. It's pretty absurd, when you look at it in a detached fashion.

Of course, a good deal of this stuff comes from religious mythology, going back to the Biblical injunctions that we're-so-special-we-actually-look-like-God and we're-so-special-God-decreed-us-to-conquer-the-world-and-all-its-inhabitants. In essence, it is a "divine" justification for such rampant anthropocentrism and is equally absurd.

A more logical criteria for the "sanctity" of any given life would be something along the lines of sentience, self-awareness, or capacity to feel pain (physical or otherwise). By this criteria, a zygote or even a fetus is hardly at the top of the food chain --- or even in the upper quartile.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A good deal of the debate, of course, stems from what I would consider anthropocentric bias.

Most people have this really weird fantasy in their heads that there is something intrinsically sacred about human life, to the exclusion of all other forms of life. As if a zygote is more aware, caring, feeling, or "sentient" than, say, a cow. It's pretty absurd, when you look at it in a detached fashion.

Of course the argument could also be made that is maladaptive NOT to view human life as more sacred than non-human life (being human beings). Keep in mind, context is everything. As a human being, viewing out own genetic variation as preferable would seem to follow. Not that I disagree with you on the view of a zygote.

Of course, a good deal of this stuff comes from religious mythology, going back to the Biblical injunctions that we're-so-special-we-actually-look-like-God and we're-so-special-God-decreed-us-to-conquer-the-world-and-all-its-inhabitants. In essence, it is a "divine" justification for such rampant anthropocentrism and is equally absurd.

We can't blame everything on religion, as if it is somehow seperate and distinct from human thought and philosophy. If man guided the development of religion, there must be something inherent in religion that is also inherent in humanity. The attempt to lay all this off on religion is nothing but moral relativism for self-serving ends.

For example, if certain people can develop the belief, independent of religious conviction, that all animal life is sacrosanct (as many people now do) then it follows they would view a fetus as such as well. Though, I might add, that such absolutist concepts tend to evolve in to a religion of their own.

A more logical criteria for the "sanctity" of any given life would be something along the lines of sentience, self-awareness, or capacity to feel pain (physical or otherwise). By this criteria, a zygote or even a fetus is hardly at the top of the food chain --- or even in the upper quartile.

Laterz.

The hiearchy of life would more logically follow as human sentient life being at the top of the list and working your way down, but I see your general point.

 

[Ceicei]

For those who may be interested in researching this subject and then sharing your thoughts:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp

- Ceicei

 

[heretic888]

Of course the argument could also be made that is maladaptive NOT to view human life as more sacred than non-human life (being human beings).

Bingo.

We can't blame everything on religion, as if it is somehow seperate and distinct from human thought and philosophy. If man guided the development of religion, there must be something inherent in religion that is also inherent in humanity. The attempt to lay all this off on religion is nothing but moral relativism for self-serving ends.

Sorry if you misunderstood me, but my position is that religion basically provides a divine justification for anthropocentrism. Not that it is necessarily its primary cause.

The hiearchy of life would more logically follow as human sentient life being at the top of the list and working your way down, but I see your general point.

Well, adult humans are the most sentient and self-aware organisms that we presently know of.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Bingo.



Sorry if you misunderstood me, but my position is that religion basically provides a divine justification for anthropocentrism. Not that it is necessarily its primary cause.



Well, adult humans are the most sentient and self-aware organisms that we presently know of.

Laterz.

In that case, we are complete agreement.