Thursday, January 17, 2008

Scientists Claim to Have Created First Human Cloned Embryos

A peer reviewed study claims to have created the first human cloned embryos, actually, the first cloned embryo. No stem cells derived. I warned readers that the iPSC breakthrough would redouble efforts among some scientists to successfully clone human embryos, and predicted that the derivation of the first cloned embryonic stem cells would be announced this year.

Time will tell whether this was actually done and can be repeated. After all, we've heard these stories before--such as from Advanced Cell Technology--and they didn't pan out. Stay tuned.

Labels:

18 Comments:

At January 17, 2008 , Blogger Dark Swan said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 
At January 17, 2008 , Blogger Dark Swan said...

Nice of you to focus on peer reviewed studies rather than the propoganda of Prentice and his do no harm agenda to impeed all forms of stem cell research.


Wesley lets pick up on your comments about Silver where you said:
but his moral reasoning is awful when he argues, for example, that a skin cell is akin to an embryo due to the potential of SCNT. No, that would make a skin cell the equivalent of a sperm because you still need the egg.

need Correction: You arguement that equates a haploid sperm cell to a diploid ES cell is what's bogus. Care to explain?

and then you say

Whether these (reprogrammed) pluripotent cells could be used to do something akin to cloning is a possibility. But that is also true of skin cells. So, your biology is just bogus.


there is no totipotency in SCNT either, only pluripotency. You consider this a vile method while supporting a comparable structure formed through reprogramming. Once the cells are reprogrammed they are viable. Both are pluripotent.

Why the double standard?

Do you wait until science makes something possible to take a stand against it? Before science made SCNT possible I'll wager your definiton of when life begins consisted soley with a sperm and egg. Do yu deny this?

You were made to change your definition by scientific progress. You are enacting the very tenets of Postmodern thought by adjusting your compass to what is believed to be true at the time.

 
At January 17, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

DS: We've been through this before. It isn't the embryonic stem cell lines that are the problem. They are just cells. It is how they are derived that causes the problem, because to obtain the lines (the ACT experiment aside for the moment), human ORGANISMS have to be destroyed. Why is that so hard to absorb?

Haploid are diploid cells are just that: cells. I destroy such cells every morning when I brush my teeth. Who cares? They are not organisms. They are little pieces of the organism, e.g. me, a human being who began, just like you did, as a one-celled embryo. What I was then biologically, I am now. I have just developed further. Different genes are expressing now than did then, but they are not different genes. My genetic makeup, occasional mutation aside, has not changed one whit since my mom and dad conceived me sometime in September or early October 1948.

 
At January 17, 2008 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

Dark Swan you are sounding more like the Ugly Duckling when you say Prentice is a propagandist and that Do No Harm is trying to impede all forms of stem cell research. You can get away with your propaganda in public. Try a letter to the editor, but not here. We are all aware of you guys' tricks/political science of trying to say opposition to ESCR is opposition to "Stem Cell Research."

You know full well that Do No Harm and almost all of the rest of us who oppose ESCR support almost ALL stem cell research except embryonic stem cell research-you know, the kind where all the breakthroughs are happening. You also know that exciting stuff is happening in non-embryonic stem cell research. It wouldn't matter if we extended human life to 150 years, learned to regenerate our organs, healed the sick, raised the dead, made the lame to walk and the blind to see from non-ESCR. You guys will still be saying ESCR and cloning are still the way to go.

 
At January 18, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

When exactly does the soul implant into the embryo ? or is it right at conception ?

 
At January 18, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

FMJ: Such questions are way above my pay grade. I don't do souls.

 
At January 18, 2008 , Blogger bmmg39 said...

Jackpot, it doesn't matter if or when a soul exists in a human embryo. We know that, scientifically, that embryo is a human being, whether or not souls exist at all.

 
At January 19, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

So then by that logic these humans are being confined to freezers for extremely long periods of time. One could imagine an eternity of cryonic imprisonment if no woman steps up to have these humans implanted or some group forces a woman to implant them at the barrel of a gun ? What's to be done to liberate these poor humans from an infinite entrapment in a pre-blastula physical state? Who shall make the sacrifice to grant these people structural humanity ?

 
At January 19, 2008 , Blogger bmmg39 said...

That human embryos are treated as they are in frozen storage is certainly disturbing enough, and demonstrates why the process of IVF needs an overhaul. When IVF first began, this is the sort of thing detractors warned against.

 
At January 20, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

Wait a minute, you got human beings being held against their will in freezers right now. What is your proposed solution for emancipation of these people?

 
At January 20, 2008 , Blogger T E Fine said...

FMJ -

"Wait a minute, you got human beings being held against their will in freezers right now. What is your proposed solution for emancipation of these people?"

First of all, embryonic adopition is a *must.* People should be encouraged to adopt embryos just like they should be encouraged to adopt older children, and I think there should be some kind of incentive to any family that does adopt both embryos and older kids (tax breaks? *something!*).

Second of all, these kids shouldn't be created to *begin* with, not if they're going to be subjected to torment in a freezer before they can even be born, and yes, I do believe that it's a torment, and yes, I do believe they're living creatures for the same reason Wesley stated - they have human DNA and the right number of chromosomes and all that.

But people are still going to create these kids, and society is required to take charge of them. Unfortunately, most of society doesn't believe that they have an obligation to these kids. FMJ, I know you were being sarcastic, but I am in total agreement with you - they *are* stuck in an eternity of imprisonment, and they *do* need liberation. They're not skin cells, they're tiny human beings. They need to be treated as such, and the only way they'll get the respect that all human beings deserve is if the adult community - you, me, our neighbors, etc. - stand up and be held accountable for them.

Did you know that in some cases it's impossible to adopt an embryo? You have to go through certain criteria to attempt to adopt frozen embryos, and *only* if the biological parents of the embryos give permission! It's a pain in the neck.

 
At January 20, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

My epithelial cells have DNA packed in chromosomes. I just committed a holocaust brushing my teeth.

I see you offering hypothetical tax based incentives to free these humans and to grant them "structural humanity" by implanting them in a willing womb to host their gestation.
Yet the federal government continues to hold them, failing to release these unlawfully imprisoned inmates? Furthermore what if no woman wants to host their gestation, what then ? Will they be forever imprisoned in their spherical state? What sort of atrocity is this?

How exactly does an embryo experience torment? What is the apparatus that processes the experience of pain , anguish ? As these are embryo's their cells have not yet begun to differentiate. They have not even reached a state of neuroectoderm that will eventually become the CNS.

 
At January 20, 2008 , Blogger bmmg39 said...

"Wait a minute, you got human beings being held against their will in freezers right now."

Actually, I don't, dearie. It wasn't my idea to put them in there. The hope is that embryo adoption continues to gain popularity so that we can alleviate the problem.

"My epithelial cells have DNA packed in chromosomes. I just committed a holocaust brushing my teeth."

You don't have human embryos in your teeth, no. Are you really ignorant of the difference between an embryonic human being and a cell in your teeth? One is a complete organism; one is a small part of an organism.

 
At January 20, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

Hi Bmmg.

My statement: " My epithelial cells have DNA packed in chromosomes. I just committed a holocaust brushing my teeth." was in response to this statement made by T E Fine :

"I do believe that it's a torment, and yes, I do believe they're living creatures for the same reason Wesley stated - they have human DNA and the right number of chromosomes and all that."

That post asserts that the criteria for being classified as human requires human DNA and packaging this DNA into chromosomes. Since i don't knwo what "and all that" infers, I can't respond on what he meant as that 3rd criterion.

Also an epithelial cell would not come from my teeth as they are covered with an enamel that is secreted from other osteocyte like cells like cementocytes that form the multi-layered structure of the tooth. I was referring to the cells of the epithelial lining of my mouth. Tooth cells would be difficult or impossible to liberate without some form of injury or damage to the encapsulating matrix that forms that hard surface of the tooth.

In response to :
"Actually, I don't, dearie. It wasn't my idea to put them in there. The hope is that embryo adoption continues to gain popularity so that we can alleviate the problem"

I think your missing the point. People are being held captive , in freezers and there aren't arrests being made ? Why havn't any of these scientists been apprehended for kidnapping of holding people against their will. Certainly there's enough freezer space in America to liberate these people from their indifferent and potentially hostile captors who should be behind bars. Kidnapping is a felony.

 
At January 20, 2008 , Blogger bmmg39 said...

"That post asserts that the criteria for being classified as human requires human DNA and packaging this DNA into chromosomes. Since i don't knwo what "and all that" infers, I can't respond on what he meant as that 3rd criterion."

Again, a human embryo is a complete organism, and naturally progresses to a human fetus, a human newborn, and so forth. A
cell from the epithelial lining of your mouth will not. Ay, there's the rub. Now, many argue that a cell from your body can be combined with an oocyte in somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), but even if that works the result will be (TA-DA!) an embryo.

"Why havn't any of these scientists been apprehended for kidnapping of holding people against their will."

Why don't we imprison those who keep one-year-olds in playpens when they're outside? Oh, right -- because if the one-year-olds get out they might crawl into the street and be killed. I don't think any more embryos should be created via IVF until we implant those already created, but if we remove them from their protective environment (just like a playpen!) then they'll perish. The "imprisonment" is preferable to death, wouldn't you say?

 
At January 21, 2008 , Blogger Catholic Audio said...

FMJ: Why havn't any of these scientists been apprehended for kidnapping of holding people against their will...Kidnapping is a felony.

Why not? Because the law doesn't recognize embryonic humans as legal persons. Heck, the law doesn't recognize the fully "viable" baby coming down the birth canal as a legal person.

To illustrate: If you intentionally kill a prematurely delivered baby at 35 weeks gestation it's *legally speaking* murder. If you intentionally kill an in utero baby at 35 weeks gestation it's *legally speaking* a therapeutic abortion. Same act, same victim, different legal result. That's the evil genius of Roe, Doe, Casey, Carhart, et al, and that's why arrests aren't being made.

Do you "get it" now?

 
At January 21, 2008 , Blogger FullMentalJackpot said...

"Again, a human embryo is a complete organism, and naturally progresses to a human fetus, a human newborn, and so forth. A
cell from the epithelial lining of your mouth will not. Ay, there's the rub. Now, many argue that a cell from your body can be combined with an oocyte in somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), but even if that works the result will be (TA-DA!) an embryo."

I'm aware you think that but i don't think you understand my intention with the statement that provoked your response. A previous poster stated that a living creature is one that can endure torment if it has DNA in chromosomes. Epithelial cells are not individual organisms capable of experiencing torment. Torment is an emergent property that is a subjective experience the organisms complex nervous system produces. Do you understand now?


hi Catholic

The law doesn't acknowledge the human embryo's humanity ? why not ?

 
At January 21, 2008 , Blogger T E Fine said...

FMJ -

Why nitpick? I gave you a *very freakin' short* definition of some of the things inside a human embryo. bmmg39 called you on it - there are a NUMBER of differences between an embryo and the cells you destroyed on your teeth. But I've posted them time and time and time and time again so I shortened the list simply because 1) I think everybody's getting sick of me sounding like a broken record and 2) becuase you're smart enough to know what is packed into an embryo that makes it different from a skin/tooth/fingernail/hair cell.

For goodness' sake! Okay, fine, since it's imperative that I list all the information again:

1) An embryo has the full allotment of human DNA
2) An embryo has the full allotment of human chromosomes.
3) An embryo is an individual organims that
a) consumes
b) eliminates
c) multiplies
d) reproduces
e) grows and changes over time
4)An embroy has the exact same genetic makeup that it will have with it's a 40-year-old man.

'ill they be forever imprisoned in their spherical state? What sort of atrocity is this?
How exactly does an embryo experience torment? What is the apparatus that processes the experience of pain , anguish ? As these are embryo's their cells have not yet begun to differentiate. They have not even reached a state of neuroectoderm that will eventually become the CNS.'

The apparatus that processess the experience is the interruption of the natural flow of things, which, as we have seen time and time again, is never a good thing, else why is it that when we split an atom (a serious disruption of the natural flow of things) we get a giant explosion? Whether the experience is painful or otherwise to the embryo, it is a torment in that the child's natural progress is abruptly haulted.

What apparatus does the Earth measures its torment from human pollution? And yet, the natural flow of Earthly order is being disrupted by something, or so we are being told. Whether or not you believe in natural greenhouse effect or that the greenhouse effect is a human-made bad condition, we can see that there's something going on that breaks up the natural order of the Earth's weather cycles, and that there are problems associated with that break up - rising water levels, the destruction of the permafrost, the hole in the ozone layer, so on and so forth. If we can recognize the problems that come from disrupting the natural flow of the whole planet, why can't we recognize the problems in disrupting the natural flow of the smallest living organisms? We see problems with bees - they're dying out! That's a problem. We recognize that it's a disruption of the natural order and that if we lose the bees, we lose a LOT - pollination of flowers, loss of honey, problems with agriculture, all that good stuff. Look online and you'll find tons and tons of references to why this is a problem.

So we can see that if you mess with Mother Nature you get bit for it. While *I* believe that embryos are able to feel pain, even if it's in a spiritual sense only, those of you who don't should understand that if we are to take seriously the plight of the whole planet, we have to take seriously the plight of ANYTHING that suffers when we disrupt the natural order. Or else what are we to think of people who protest the use of genetically modified plants? What are we to think of people who protest irradiated meat? They believe that this disrupts the natural flow of things - are they wrong? Why? What makes them more or less wrong than Al Gore who believes the planet is in danger?

So if you're willing to believe all that stuff - that anything humans do that disrupts the natural process of the planet will cause both the planet and its people great harm - then why can't you be willing to believe that the same holds true for mistreating embryos? How far-fetched is it to believe that by keeping embryos in a frozen state we are doing something harmful?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home