Scientists clone human embryos

[Combat Ingrid]

Biology lecture #1:
The picture below is a blastocyst, which is what you get when the fertilized egg has divided for a few days. The cells of the "inner cell mass" are those that would eventually develop into a human, if the blastocyst implanted into a healthy uterus. These cells can be removed from the blastocyst and grown in culture. They are then referred to as "embryonic stem cells". These cells have the potential to differentiate into any cell type in the body. You just need to bribe them with the correct mix of growth factors and stuff like that, which btw is the difficult part

[DanS]

Well OK, but seeing as I'm 12 years into watching my Mother's slow decline with Parkinson's Disease you'll probably understand why I don't share that opinion. I'm just sorry that it's probably too late for her.

Proximity of feeling doesn't change the ethical considerations.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by BeBro


I'm actually quite undecided about these things. I'm not concerned about it because of religious reasons, because I'm atheist. And healing deseases is fine, I'm just concerned about how serious potential abuses of gentech on humans could be and if they can be effectively limited. So in short, I want to know more about chances AND risks of such things before I take a position....

Same here.

I would want to hold back on use of this tech until it had been totally tested.

EG: organs grown corectly without defects, etc.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by DanS


Proximity of feeling doesn't change the ethical considerations.

Do you care to share those high-minded considerations, then, Dan?

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Sava is in top form today.

How's that Chick Publications internship coming along, Sava?

ty



quite well spank u very much!

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Starchild
In the end, flesh with always turn to dust. That's why my money is on uploading human minds into machine bodies.

Thanks, Starchild. That's what I'm trying to ask - is it possible to use stem cells to keep the flesh revitalized with new cells? Like every 25 years after age of 50, go in for a stem cell cocktail so new cells can take over cells whose telemores has worn down?

[Az]

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's great.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DataAeolus


Thanks, Starchild. That's what I'm trying to ask - is it possible to use stem cells to keep the flesh revitalized with new cells? Like every 25 years after age of 50, go in for a stem cell cocktail so new cells can take over cells whose telemores has worn down?

Difficult as every cell in the body, pretty much, would be suffering from telomere erosion. It would be interesting though if you could be treated from time to time with a telomerase activator to lengthen those ends once more. It would probably be a potent asset in fighting senescence.

I don't think there is much more I can add to Starchild's description. Remember though, that system of telomere erosion is one of the bodys most potent anti-cancer strategy. Only if a tumour's telomerase gene is constitutionally active will it proliferate, otherwise it will just die of 'old age' very quickly.

This is a fascinating development. It may eventually possible to grow genetically identical organs in a vector such as a pig and then transplant the organ across. And the recipient can have a few nice pork dinners for a while

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DanS


Proximity of feeling doesn't change the ethical considerations.

Yes it does. It reinforces just how subjective ethical considerations are. I want my mother back.

[Fake Boris]

I still fail to see why some people think cloning is wrong. Once we can make it as secure as normal reproduction, we should use it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I still fail to see why some people think cloning is wrong. Once we can make it as secure as normal reproduction, we should use it.

Personally, that's because I think it will hinder the clones in becoming full-fledged individuals. And these people are likely to suffer from it.

But for cloning stem cells: I am all for manipulating goo, and growing organs out, as long as said organs are unable to think or to feel.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I still fail to see why some people think cloning is wrong. Once we can make it as secure as normal reproduction, we should use it.

Cloning Vats! Actually we already are breeding enough people via the old fashioned method - we don't need cloning to make our population issues worse.

I'm ok with cloning organs but not complete human beings. And for those people who want cloning to bring back a deceased, while the clone may be physically same, I find it doubtful that the clone would have the memories or even personality that the orginial had. Any cloning would have to be done with stem cells, probably and there's no way of replicating memories and personality so the new person would be basically a tabla rasa

[The Mad Monk]

I don't think there is much more I can add to Starchild's description. Remember though, that system of telomere erosion is one of the bodys most potent anti-cancer strategy. Only if a tumour's telomerase gene is constitutionally active will it proliferate, otherwise it will just die of 'old age' very quickly.

Would it be possible to, say, use a virus to temporarily reactivate the telomerase gene?

[Az]

IIRC, retroviral engineering worked quite well for the first 15 patients, didn't it? only the death of the 16th caused the stop of treatment during that first spur of tests, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

As far as I'm concerned it's a bunch of cells with enormous medical potential

Yes, wonderful reductionist logic.

By the same logic, I should be able to kill you and harvest your organs to save the lives of many other sick people.