THE EMBRYO DEBATE The case for: by Doctor Stephen Minger WHAT WE are interested in doing is taking skin cells from people who have known genetic forms of major neurological disorders - such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease - and putting them into an egg which has had its own DNA removed. In that way, we create an embryo and can extract cells that we can turn into human embryonic stem cells.
In the process of doing this we will make cell lines which encode genetic mutations which cause Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and so on.
We can turn those cells selectively into whatever cell types are most affected in each of those particular disorders. In Alzheimer's patients, certain cells in the brain have died - but these are very different to those cells which die in patients with Parkinson's disease.
The research is needed to understand better the mechanism of each of these diseases, and if we can understand at the cellular level how these proteins kill cells we hope to be able to use that as a guide for developing new therapies.
The part that becomes controversial is the source of eggs to be used. Typically in cloning, the plan has been to use human eggs. But what we know from work which has already been carried out is that when human eggs are used the efficiency level is incredibly low. The group of researchers led by (now-disgraced) cloning scientist Hwang Woo-Suk in South Korea had more than 2000 human eggs and they were unable to make a cloned human embryonic stem cell line.
We decided it is not morally justifiable to ask large numbers of very young women to commit to donating eggs for a procedure where we were going to need thousands and thousands of eggs to create each of these stem cell lines. So we proposed a much more practical solution, which was to use a non-human egg, for example a cow egg.
We can obtain large numbers of eggs by collecting them from the ovaries of livestock which are being slaughtered for the food industry. This means we can get very high quality eggs in the large numbers that we need without the moral and ethical problems of trying to obtain human eggs.
Where the Church has it wrong is in thinking we are mixing human and animal cells together, creating something that is a true hybrid. But what we are doing in the process of doing this inter-species work - which is referred to by scientists as using "admixed embryos" - is physically removing the nucleus from the cow egg, which completely removes the genetic and species identity, so it is essentially no longer a cow egg.
There are cow versions of proteins and some mitochondria (which provide the cells with energy), but as the cell lines expand over time, those proteins will be exclusively replaced with human proteins and the mitochondria will become predominantly human.
The Church is failing to recognise that this has been a very long and deliberate process. We went through a very long consultation with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority over the last year and there was an exhaustive science and technology committee hearing in the House of Commons. In both cases, overwhelmingly, they agreed that these are human embryos, they are not a mixture of animal and human. The fact they have been derived using what was originally a cow egg in no way mitigates the fact they are human.
There has been so much support for this research from the general scientific community. Moreover, in an open letter to the prime minister, more than 300 patient charities and organisations supported this research and urged the government to allow it to happen. The cardinal's comments in some ways are offensive to all of those people who supported this research, who see that it might lead to new developments in a field where we have almost nothing to offer patients with these catastrophic neurological conditions.
I don't know what the cardinal's personal motivations are for doing this, but I think it is offensive that science which the government feels is important and has allowed, he construes as being monstrous or "Frankenstein research".
In fact, the ultimate purpose of this research is to restore hope, life and human dignity to the millions of people across the world suffering from terrible, incurable diseases. What could be more pro-life than this?
|
|
Posted by: Cynicus on 2:11am Sun 23 Mar 08
Does Dr Minger or any supporter/opponent of his views believe MPs should have a free vote on this important issue?
Does Dr Minger or any supporter/opponent of his views believe MPs should have a free vote on this important issue?
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:24am Sun 23 Mar 08
Doctor Stephen Minger writes:
[quote]Where the Church has it wrong is in thinking we are mixing human and animal cells together, creating something that is a true hybrid. But what we are doing in the process of doing this inter-species work - which is referred to by scientists as using "admixed embryos" - is physically removing the nucleus from the cow egg, [italic]which completely removes the genetic and species identity, so it is essentially no longer a cow egg.[/italic]
There are [italic]cow versions of proteins and some mitochondria[/italic] (which provide the cells with energy), but as the cell lines expand over time, those proteins will be exclusively replaced with human proteins and[italic] the mitochondria will become predominantly human.[/italic] [/quote]
Mitochondria? What's that then?
tinyurl.com/yuucbr
[quote]Mitochondria are used to trace the ancestry of organisms that contain eukaryotic cells. Among mammals, mitochondria tend to follow a pattern of maternal inheritance. This maternal inheritance creates a family tree that is not affected by the typical shuffling of genes that occurs between a mother and father. A recent comparison of samples of human mtDNA suggests that humans have descended from a woman who lived in Africa 140,000 to 290,000 years ago. There were likely many other women alive at the time of the so-called mitochondrial Eve, but their lines of maternal inheritance have died out. This commonly occurs when one generation in a family fails to have a daughter. Another use of mtDNA analysis is in forensic science. The identity of the skeletons alleged to be those of Czar Nicholas II, the last Russian czar, and his family were established using mtDNA.[/quote]
So this embryo will be [italic]"predominantly human"[/italic] it's just that we'll be able to trace its momma back to Betsy the Holstein. Was she was a good milker though?
Doctor Stephen Minger writes:
Where the Church has it wrong is in thinking we are mixing human and animal cells together, creating something that is a true hybrid. But what we are doing in the process of doing this inter-species work - which is referred to by scientists as using "admixed embryos" - is physically removing the nucleus from the cow egg, which completely removes the genetic and species identity, so it is essentially no longer a cow egg.
There are cow versions of proteins and some mitochondria (which provide the cells with energy), but as the cell lines expand over time, those proteins will be exclusively replaced with human proteins and the mitochondria will become predominantly human.
Mitochondria? What's that then?
tinyurl.com/yuucbr
Mitochondria are used to trace the ancestry of organisms that contain eukaryotic cells. Among mammals, mitochondria tend to follow a pattern of maternal inheritance. This maternal inheritance creates a family tree that is not affected by the typical shuffling of genes that occurs between a mother and father. A recent comparison of samples of human mtDNA suggests that humans have descended from a woman who lived in Africa 140,000 to 290,000 years ago. There were likely many other women alive at the time of the so-called mitochondrial Eve, but their lines of maternal inheritance have died out. This commonly occurs when one generation in a family fails to have a daughter. Another use of mtDNA analysis is in forensic science. The identity of the skeletons alleged to be those of Czar Nicholas II, the last Russian czar, and his family were established using mtDNA.
So this embryo will be
"predominantly human" it's just that we'll be able to trace its momma back to Betsy the Holstein. Was she was a good milker though?
Posted by: Spinoza, the plane of immanence on 7:17am Sun 23 Mar 08
Dr Minger attempts to sustain his argument with a modicum of information and appeals to authority "We went through a very long consultation with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority over the last year and there was an exhaustive science and technology committee hearing in the House of Commons" and so on.Not,I would argue,successfully.I am not religious in any way and see the conflict with the RC church as a side issue-other points need to be raised.Do we have the right to harvest the eggs from cattle?Aside from whether we are justified in their slaughter in the first place it is this utilitarian view of living beings that I find pervades scientists responses such as this and requires examination.It may be the case that this is not the moral stance appropriate to this issue.For this utilitarian view what is important is the animals use for us and this view leads to the use of embryos in the same way-are we morally justified in acting this way?It is on the basis of supposed [italic]future[/italic]benefits that we are urged by Dr Minger to support this bill yet,given the uncertainty inherent in life,this is not a strong basis on which to base an argument.All other possibilites of this research,potentially beneficial or malign,also need to be considered.I have to say I dont agree with the cardinal on many issues but on this he is an imoprtant voice for moral consideration,someth
ing which is often woefully lacking from the professional views of scientists.
Dr Minger attempts to sustain his argument with a modicum of information and appeals to authority "We went through a very long consultation with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority over the last year and there was an exhaustive science and technology committee hearing in the House of Commons" and so on.Not,I would argue,successfully.I am not religious in any way and see the conflict with the RC church as a side issue-other points need to be raised.Do we have the right to harvest the eggs from cattle?Aside from whether we are justified in their slaughter in the first place it is this utilitarian view of living beings that I find pervades scientists responses such as this and requires examination.It may be the case that this is not the moral stance appropriate to this issue.For this utilitarian view what is important is the animals use for us and this view leads to the use of embryos in the same way-are we morally justified in acting this way?It is on the basis of supposed
futurebenefits that we are urged by Dr Minger to support this bill yet,given the uncertainty inherent in life,this is not a strong basis on which to base an argument.All other possibilites of this research,potentially beneficial or malign,also need to be considered.I have to say I dont agree with the cardinal on many issues but on this he is an imoprtant voice for moral consideration,someth
ing which is often woefully lacking from the professional views of scientists.
Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 8:20am Sun 23 Mar 08
For all the spin this type of research should be banned as it devalues life, is morally bereft and is potentially dangerous to the future of the entire human race.
For all the spin this type of research should be banned as it devalues life, is morally bereft and is potentially dangerous to the future of the entire human race.
Posted by: Aura Lee, Glasgow on 9:17am Sun 23 Mar 08
[italic]Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 8:20am today
For all the spin this type of research should be banned as it devalues life, is morally bereft and is potentially dangerous to the future of the entire human race.
[/italic]
I really can't see why it is dangerous to the future of the entire human race. The results will not be used as the next biological weapon nor will it allow for the scientist to make a cow-human mutant, it will help people who suffer from horrific diseases. I feel some people on this earth would rather let humanity drift back into the dark ages and not move forward. For me, this is more frightening than what the scientist are trying to do here.
Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 8:20am today
For all the spin this type of research should be banned as it devalues life, is morally bereft and is potentially dangerous to the future of the entire human race.
I really can't see why it is dangerous to the future of the entire human race. The results will not be used as the next biological weapon nor will it allow for the scientist to make a cow-human mutant, it will help people who suffer from horrific diseases. I feel some people on this earth would rather let humanity drift back into the dark ages and not move forward. For me, this is more frightening than what the scientist are trying to do here.
Posted by: Shirley Hodge, Glasgow on 9:58am Sun 23 Mar 08
As is usual the silliness of religious superstition seeks to cloud the reality that this type of research will be the next level of medicine and diseases that now cause so much suffering will be eliminated. As for the frankensteinian comment it is obvious that the cardinal never read the book because it had nothing to do with genetics nor actually did Mary Shelly in all probability know what a gene was.
As is usual the silliness of religious superstition seeks to cloud the reality that this type of research will be the next level of medicine and diseases that now cause so much suffering will be eliminated. As for the frankensteinian comment it is obvious that the cardinal never read the book because it had nothing to do with genetics nor actually did Mary Shelly in all probability know what a gene was.
Posted by: Al on 10:02am Sun 23 Mar 08
At least one of the parties is offering help to human beings, shame it's not the church.
At least one of the parties is offering help to human beings, shame it's not the church.
Posted by: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am Sun 23 Mar 08
I think it is a lack of scientific understanding that guides those who oppose this research. Apart from Spinoza, who reads like he is influenced by Peter Singer. But animal use in research is an entirely different conversation.
The reason that these embryos would be human is that all of the genomic DNA (the DNA that specifies how to make any animal / plant / etc) from will be removed from the egg. Genomic DNA is what makes cows to be cows, humans to be humans, and venus fly traps to be venus fly traps. Mitochondria are responsible for making a lot the energy needed to power a cell. They're a remnant of an earlier time in our evolutionary past when the cell type that went on to form most complex life formed a symbiotic relationship with an energy-producing bacteria. Lot of the genes for the energy are now in our own genomes, but some is still stored in the mitochondria.
As mitochondria are such an essential component for life, the functional genes are highly conserved across all species. The differences in mitochondrial DNA cited by Scunnered are in non-coding regions, similar to those used for normal DNA fingerprinting.
Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
I think it is a lack of scientific understanding that guides those who oppose this research. Apart from Spinoza, who reads like he is influenced by Peter Singer. But animal use in research is an entirely different conversation.
The reason that these embryos would be human is that all of the genomic DNA (the DNA that specifies how to make any animal / plant / etc) from will be removed from the egg. Genomic DNA is what makes cows to be cows, humans to be humans, and venus fly traps to be venus fly traps. Mitochondria are responsible for making a lot the energy needed to power a cell. They're a remnant of an earlier time in our evolutionary past when the cell type that went on to form most complex life formed a symbiotic relationship with an energy-producing bacteria. Lot of the genes for the energy are now in our own genomes, but some is still stored in the mitochondria.
As mitochondria are such an essential component for life, the functional genes are highly conserved across all species. The differences in mitochondrial DNA cited by Scunnered are in non-coding regions, similar to those used for normal DNA fingerprinting.
Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Posted by: Gerry, Uddingston on 11:37am Sun 23 Mar 08
I appreciate Dr. Mingers well written defence of embryo research, but I'm afraid he is on a no winner with this one in Cardinal O'Brien's eyes. He is caught on the horns of a moral dilemma. If the embryo produced is human, using it for research and then discarding it is "murder". If the mitochondria are only predominantly human but not completely, then what type of being would be "born" if the embryo were nurtured in conditions that allowed it to go to term? I think this is where the charge of "monstrous" comes from. From previous experience it is a stonewall certainty that some one, somewhere will attempt to perform this experiment in the name of progress.
I appreciate Dr. Mingers well written defence of embryo research, but I'm afraid he is on a no winner with this one in Cardinal O'Brien's eyes. He is caught on the horns of a moral dilemma. If the embryo produced is human, using it for research and then discarding it is "murder". If the mitochondria are only predominantly human but not completely, then what type of being would be "born" if the embryo were nurtured in conditions that allowed it to go to term? I think this is where the charge of "monstrous" comes from. From previous experience it is a stonewall certainty that some one, somewhere will attempt to perform this experiment in the name of progress.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 11:52am Sun 23 Mar 08
Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes:
[quote]Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.[/quote]
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes:
Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Posted by: Mick, Oxford on 12:03pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes:
[quote]Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.[/quote]
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
[/quote] Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.
Scunnert wrote:
Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes:
Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.
Posted by: zeno, www.thinkhumanism.co
m on 12:49pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Spinoza wrote:
"Dr Minger attempts to sustain his argument with a modicum of information and appeals to authority"
Eh? Appeal to authority? That's what O'Brien does - and, in fact, all he can ever do!
Spinoza wrote:
"Dr Minger attempts to sustain his argument with a modicum of information and appeals to authority"
Eh? Appeal to authority? That's what O'Brien does - and, in fact, all he can ever do!
Posted by: Ted Harvey on 1:18pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Several downright embarrassing contributions here from people with presumably a better grasp of knowledge-lite religion than science, because they clearly do not understand the science, and so they erect shallow, elegant but pointless observations i.e.
- Scunnert’s crude ‘cut and pasting’ from unrelated sources to create a spurious and false premise
- Spinoza and his arrogant, and over-wordy, wholesale dismissal of the professional views of scientists because (he has decreed) it lacks a voice for moral consideration – at least his language is a little less offensive than Cardinal O’Brien and his intemperate and God-like dismissal of the Prime Minister etc. etc. as somehow doing ‘monstrous’ things
- Big Eye certainly is not ‘big’ on the science because he clearly does not begin to understand it
- Gerry just goes for the fundamentalist religious mantra of ‘ we believe an embryo is always, no matter what, a life, therefore you must all accept that and base on your laws, science and morals on our mantra’, anything different is just monstrous, so there (not much changed since Gallileo’s time then?).
Several downright embarrassing contributions here from people with presumably a better grasp of knowledge-lite religion than science, because they clearly do not understand the science, and so they erect shallow, elegant but pointless observations i.e.
- Scunnert’s crude ‘cut and pasting’ from unrelated sources to create a spurious and false premise
- Spinoza and his arrogant, and over-wordy, wholesale dismissal of the professional views of scientists because (he has decreed) it lacks a voice for moral consideration – at least his language is a little less offensive than Cardinal O’Brien and his intemperate and God-like dismissal of the Prime Minister etc. etc. as somehow doing ‘monstrous’ things
- Big Eye certainly is not ‘big’ on the science because he clearly does not begin to understand it
- Gerry just goes for the fundamentalist religious mantra of ‘ we believe an embryo is always, no matter what, a life, therefore you must all accept that and base on your laws, science and morals on our mantra’, anything different is just monstrous, so there (not much changed since Gallileo’s time then?).
Posted by: The Bookseller, Edinburgh on 1:33pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Cardinal O'Brien is as qualified to comment on embryo research as Dr Minger is to comment on the influence of the gnostic gospels on the development of doctrine in the early Church.
The difference is that if Dr Minger were to express his beliefs on the gnostic gospels he wouldn't be denying anyone the cure to debilitating, dignity stripping illness and an old-age of confusion, pain and hopelessness.
The Catholic church calls for a free vote in parliament, but silences debate within its own congregation by issuing unbalanced, counter-factual tirades of hate from its pulpits.
Easter - it's all about the eggs you know.
Cardinal O'Brien is as qualified to comment on embryo research as Dr Minger is to comment on the influence of the gnostic gospels on the development of doctrine in the early Church.
The difference is that if Dr Minger were to express his beliefs on the gnostic gospels he wouldn't be denying anyone the cure to debilitating, dignity stripping illness and an old-age of confusion, pain and hopelessness.
The Catholic church calls for a free vote in parliament, but silences debate within its own congregation by issuing unbalanced, counter-factual tirades of hate from its pulpits.
Easter - it's all about the eggs you know.
Posted by: Gerry on 1:43pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Sorry Ted, I did not say what I was going for. I simply said I could understand the cardinal's position and according to it, Dr. Minger was on the horns of a dilemma; no matter whether the embryo was human or not, there was a moral issue that the cardinal had to address. It also seems that more than religious are experiencing some difficulty with the issues raised. A big concern I have is that if by some means an embryo was nurtured to term what type of "being" would it be? If it were "predominantly human", what would that mean?
Sorry Ted, I did not say what I was going for. I simply said I could understand the cardinal's position and according to it, Dr. Minger was on the horns of a dilemma; no matter whether the embryo was human or not, there was a moral issue that the cardinal had to address. It also seems that more than religious are experiencing some difficulty with the issues raised. A big concern I have is that if by some means an embryo was nurtured to term what type of "being" would it be? If it were "predominantly human", what would that mean?
Posted by: The Bookseller, Edinburgh on 2:04pm Sun 23 Mar 08
@ Gerry
A 'predominantly human' would be human. The entire content of the egg would be human. Only the egg itself would be cow. If you put a chicken in an alligator egg and it hatched out you wouldn't confuse it with an alligator. The so-called hybrid embryos would never come to term though so the question is a moot point.
@ Gerry
A 'predominantly human' would be human. The entire content of the egg would be human. Only the egg itself would be cow. If you put a chicken in an alligator egg and it hatched out you wouldn't confuse it with an alligator. The so-called hybrid embryos would never come to term though so the question is a moot point.
Posted by: Big Eye, Paisley on 2:30pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Dr Mengele claimed his work would benefit future generations and would lead to as yet unknown cures.
Anybody think he was right?
Dr Mengele claimed his work would benefit future generations and would lead to as yet unknown cures.
Anybody think he was right?
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:31pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Al[/bold] wrote:
At least one of the parties is offering help to human beings, shame it's not the church.[/quote] Al,
I wouldn't expect them to get their finger out and actually do something to help the sick, there's no money or publicity in it.
Al wrote:
At least one of the parties is offering help to human beings, shame it's not the church.
Al,
I wouldn't expect them to get their finger out and actually do something to help the sick, there's no money or publicity in it.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:32pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Big Eye[/bold] wrote:
Dr Mengele claimed his work would benefit future generations and would lead to as yet unknown cures. Anybody think he was right?[/quote] Ask the Pope? He was Nazi.
Big Eye wrote:
Dr Mengele claimed his work would benefit future generations and would lead to as yet unknown cures. Anybody think he was right?
Ask the Pope? He was Nazi.
Posted by: julie, garland on 5:32pm Sun 23 Mar 08
I don't have a problem with this; the ethics of using cow material to benefit humans seems acceptable because of the fact we eat cows. I do have a serious objection to using stem cells from human embryos, because this means human babies must be killed. (We don't eat human babies!)Am also puzzled as to why more scientists don't support using adult stem cells to help people with these diseases, since this method kills nobody and has been many times proven effective, while embryonic use has zero effectiveness. anyway than
I don't have a problem with this; the ethics of using cow material to benefit humans seems acceptable because of the fact we eat cows. I do have a serious objection to using stem cells from human embryos, because this means human babies must be killed. (We don't eat human babies!)Am also puzzled as to why more scientists don't support using adult stem cells to help people with these diseases, since this method kills nobody and has been many times proven effective, while embryonic use has zero effectiveness. anyway than
Posted by: scunnert on 5:57pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: [quote]Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.[/quote] Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different. [/quote] Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.[/quote] From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.
Mick wrote:
Scunnert wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.
From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.
Posted by: scunnert on 6:02pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ted Harvey[/bold] wrote:
Several downright embarrassing contributions here from people with presumably a better grasp of knowledge-lite religion than science, because they clearly do not understand the science, and so they erect shallow, elegant but pointless observations i.e. - Scunnert’s crude ‘cut and pasting’ from unrelated sources to create a spurious and false premise - Spinoza and his arrogant, and over-wordy, wholesale dismissal of the professional views of scientists because (he has decreed) it lacks a voice for moral consideration – at least his language is a little less offensive than Cardinal O’Brien and his intemperate and God-like dismissal of the Prime Minister etc. etc. as somehow doing ‘monstrous’ things - Big Eye certainly is not ‘big’ on the science because he clearly does not begin to understand it - Gerry just goes for the fundamentalist religious mantra of ‘ we believe an embryo is always, no matter what, a life, therefore you must all accept that and base on your laws, science and morals on our mantra’, anything different is just monstrous, so there (not much changed since Gallileo’s time then?). [/quote] Ted - try adding something to the debate instead of just offering your juvenile insults of other posters comments. Of my contribution you say:
[quote]- Scunnert’s crude ‘cut and pasting’ from unrelated sources to create a spurious and false premise[/quote]
Expand - explain - or refute with facts.
Ted Harvey wrote:
Several downright embarrassing contributions here from people with presumably a better grasp of knowledge-lite religion than science, because they clearly do not understand the science, and so they erect shallow, elegant but pointless observations i.e. - Scunnert’s crude ‘cut and pasting’ from unrelated sources to create a spurious and false premise - Spinoza and his arrogant, and over-wordy, wholesale dismissal of the professional views of scientists because (he has decreed) it lacks a voice for moral consideration – at least his language is a little less offensive than Cardinal O’Brien and his intemperate and God-like dismissal of the Prime Minister etc. etc. as somehow doing ‘monstrous’ things - Big Eye certainly is not ‘big’ on the science because he clearly does not begin to understand it - Gerry just goes for the fundamentalist religious mantra of ‘ we believe an embryo is always, no matter what, a life, therefore you must all accept that and base on your laws, science and morals on our mantra’, anything different is just monstrous, so there (not much changed since Gallileo’s time then?).
Ted - try adding something to the debate instead of just offering your juvenile insults of other posters comments. Of my contribution you say:
- Scunnert’s crude ‘cut and pasting’ from unrelated sources to create a spurious and false premise
Expand - explain - or refute with facts.
Posted by: Mick, Oxford on 6:42pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: [quote]Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.[/quote] Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different. [/quote] Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.[/quote] From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.[/quote] Obviously not. If you want to get particularly technical, they use dietary carbon and respired oxygen to create the adenosine-trisphosph
ate needed as a co-factor for pretty much every enzymatic reaction in the body. However, cow ATP is exactly the same as human ATP, so the analogy with batteries holds perfectly well. I was using analogy to make the argument point understandable to a non-scientist, and you are deliberately splitting hairs in an attempt to undermine that point.
scunnert wrote:
Mick wrote:
Scunnert wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.
From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.
Obviously not. If you want to get particularly technical, they use dietary carbon and respired oxygen to create the adenosine-trisphosph
ate needed as a co-factor for pretty much every enzymatic reaction in the body. However, cow ATP is exactly the same as human ATP, so the analogy with batteries holds perfectly well. I was using analogy to make the argument point understandable to a non-scientist, and you are deliberately splitting hairs in an attempt to undermine that point.
Posted by: Gerry, Uddingston on 7:03pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Bookseller
Appreciate your measured response, but there are some aspects that remain contentious. Predominantly human being human needs a bit of teasing out. Assuming that totally cow is at one end of a "genetic" spectrum and totally human is at the other, then somewhere between these two positions is predominantly one or the other, but it cannot be totally one or the other. I also appreciate you not being dismissive of my suggestion of the possibility of any hybrid embryo coming to term, but do you claim this because the regulations surrounding the legislation would prevent it, the technology is not available or it is completely impossible, no matter what advances there are in technology in the future?
Bookseller
Appreciate your measured response, but there are some aspects that remain contentious. Predominantly human being human needs a bit of teasing out. Assuming that totally cow is at one end of a "genetic" spectrum and totally human is at the other, then somewhere between these two positions is predominantly one or the other, but it cannot be totally one or the other. I also appreciate you not being dismissive of my suggestion of the possibility of any hybrid embryo coming to term, but do you claim this because the regulations surrounding the legislation would prevent it, the technology is not available or it is completely impossible, no matter what advances there are in technology in the future?
Posted by: Ian, Airdrie on 8:41pm Sun 23 Mar 08
Could there be anyone less well qualified to discuss this issue than Keith O Brien?
He is, when all is said and done, a professional fantasist. His entire life is spent trying to convince people that a fantasy is true.
In the mean time, the scientists he is attacking are working on problems which matter to real people - finding cures for illness, figuring out how these terrible conditions develop and looking for a solution.
O Brien's solution is to "pray" to his fantasy "god". I know who I prefer on my team if I were to develop a degenerative illness.
It's not even as if O Brien can claim to be a moral voice. He represents a church which has turned a blind eye to the abuse of children, even enabling further abuse.
I hope that the MPs do have a free vote - so that we can clearly identify which ones are not suitable to hold their position!
Could there be anyone less well qualified to discuss this issue than Keith O Brien?
He is, when all is said and done, a professional fantasist. His entire life is spent trying to convince people that a fantasy is true.
In the mean time, the scientists he is attacking are working on problems which matter to real people - finding cures for illness, figuring out how these terrible conditions develop and looking for a solution.
O Brien's solution is to "pray" to his fantasy "god". I know who I prefer on my team if I were to develop a degenerative illness.
It's not even as if O Brien can claim to be a moral voice. He represents a church which has turned a blind eye to the abuse of children, even enabling further abuse.
I hope that the MPs do have a free vote - so that we can clearly identify which ones are not suitable to hold their position!
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 10:27pm Sun 23 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: [quote]Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.[/quote] Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different. [/quote] Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.[/quote] From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.[/quote] Obviously not. If you want to get particularly technical, they use dietary carbon and respired oxygen to create the adenosine-trisphosph
ate needed as a co-factor for pretty much every enzymatic reaction in the body. However, cow ATP is exactly the same as human ATP, so the analogy with batteries holds perfectly well. I was using analogy to make the argument point understandable to a non-scientist, and you are deliberately splitting hairs in an attempt to undermine that point. [/quote] Much more satisfying, although simplified, description Mick - thanks for that. More like nit picking than splitting hairs though. My point really was that the processes involving mitochondria are subtle and dynamic and are could cause some of the disorders the proposed research seeks to understand. To dismiss the presence of bovine mitochondria in the manufactured embryo seems, therefore, at cross purposes with the stated goal.
tinyurl.com/7zub7
[quote]Mutations in mtDNA cause human diseases.
A number of human diseases are caused by mutations in genes in our mitochondria:
cytochrome b
12S rRNA
ATP synthase
subunits of NADH dehydrogenase
several tRNA genes
Although many different organs may be affected, disorders of the muscles and brain are the most common. Perhaps this reflects the great demand for energy of both these organs. (Although representing only ~2% of our body weight, the brain consumes ~20% of the energy produced when we are at rest.)
Some of these disorders are inherited in the germline. In every case, the mutant gene is received from the mother because none of the mitochondria in sperm survives in the fertilized egg. Other disorders are somatic; that is, the mutation occurs in the somatic tissues of the individual.
Example: exercise intolerance
A number of humans who suffer from easily-fatigued muscles turn out to have a mutations in their cytochrome b gene. Curiously, only the mitochondria in their muscles have the mutation; the mtDNA of their other tissues is normal. Presumably, very early in their embryonic development, a mutation occurred in a cytochrome b gene in the mitochondrion of a cell destined to produce their muscles.
The severity of mitochondrial diseases varies greatly. The reason for this is probably the extensive mixing of mutant DNA and normal DNA in the mitochondria as they fuse with one another. A mixture of both is called heteroplasmy. The higher the ratio of mutant to normal, the greater the severity of the disease. In fact by chance alone, cells can on occasion end up with all their mitochondria carrying all-mutant genomes — a condition called homoplasmy (a phenomenon resembling genetic drift).[/quote]
Ted Harvey will no doubt be embarrassed by my cut and paste job - too bad Ted - you have contributed nothing to this debate. However, if "scientists" want the public to support their efforts they really do need to do more than present "trust us" arguments, and condescending simplifications.
Mick wrote:
scunnert wrote:
Mick wrote:
Scunnert wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.
From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.
Obviously not. If you want to get particularly technical, they use dietary carbon and respired oxygen to create the adenosine-trisphosph
ate needed as a co-factor for pretty much every enzymatic reaction in the body. However, cow ATP is exactly the same as human ATP, so the analogy with batteries holds perfectly well. I was using analogy to make the argument point understandable to a non-scientist, and you are deliberately splitting hairs in an attempt to undermine that point.
Much more satisfying, although simplified, description Mick - thanks for that. More like nit picking than splitting hairs though. My point really was that the processes involving mitochondria are subtle and dynamic and are could cause some of the disorders the proposed research seeks to understand. To dismiss the presence of bovine mitochondria in the manufactured embryo seems, therefore, at cross purposes with the stated goal.
tinyurl.com/7zub7
Mutations in mtDNA cause human diseases.
A number of human diseases are caused by mutations in genes in our mitochondria:
cytochrome b
12S rRNA
ATP synthase
subunits of NADH dehydrogenase
several tRNA genes
Although many different organs may be affected, disorders of the muscles and brain are the most common. Perhaps this reflects the great demand for energy of both these organs. (Although representing only ~2% of our body weight, the brain consumes ~20% of the energy produced when we are at rest.)
Some of these disorders are inherited in the germline. In every case, the mutant gene is received from the mother because none of the mitochondria in sperm survives in the fertilized egg. Other disorders are somatic; that is, the mutation occurs in the somatic tissues of the individual.
Example: exercise intolerance
A number of humans who suffer from easily-fatigued muscles turn out to have a mutations in their cytochrome b gene. Curiously, only the mitochondria in their muscles have the mutation; the mtDNA of their other tissues is normal. Presumably, very early in their embryonic development, a mutation occurred in a cytochrome b gene in the mitochondrion of a cell destined to produce their muscles.
The severity of mitochondrial diseases varies greatly. The reason for this is probably the extensive mixing of mutant DNA and normal DNA in the mitochondria as they fuse with one another. A mixture of both is called heteroplasmy. The higher the ratio of mutant to normal, the greater the severity of the disease. In fact by chance alone, cells can on occasion end up with all their mitochondria carrying all-mutant genomes — a condition called homoplasmy (a phenomenon resembling genetic drift).
Ted Harvey will no doubt be embarrassed by my cut and paste job - too bad Ted - you have contributed nothing to this debate. However, if "scientists" want the public to support their efforts they really do need to do more than present "trust us" arguments, and condescending simplifications.
Posted by: The Bookseller, Edinburgh on 1:17pm Mon 24 Mar 08
@ Gerry... on the off-chance you check back!
On the cow-human spectrum I would argue that legally any offspring brought to term would be fully-human. Morally they'd have to be regarded as human also, or else surely we'd give credence to the argument that people with mental or physical abnormalities are in some way 'not fully human', which leads us down Dr Mengele's dark path. For the same reason offspring would have to be mentally and physically assessed as human also. Genetically their make-up would be not 100% human, but so infinitesimally close to it as to be regarded as human by government, society, community, medicine and law. Whether the Catholic church would regard them as human is another issue... but given the inhumane treatment handed out by the Catholic church over the years to many different groups I doubt that this would mark them out too much. God's reputation seems to be all about the 'love' these days, so I guess He'd err towards 'human' as well (though I confess I don't know the Dude personally)
As for bringing one of these embryos to term, the regulations say no (incineration after 14 days.) The logical possibility must be yes. I'm not sure if it could happen now or not, but I guess that with the right staff, enough research and money to back a programme to reach such a goal then it could be acheived. They put a man on the moon and all that. Personally I don't have the resources... but if you're thinking of breeding piebald children with a high milk yield then I'm sure Tesco would be keen if the costs were low!
@ Gerry... on the off-chance you check back!
On the cow-human spectrum I would argue that legally any offspring brought to term would be fully-human. Morally they'd have to be regarded as human also, or else surely we'd give credence to the argument that people with mental or physical abnormalities are in some way 'not fully human', which leads us down Dr Mengele's dark path. For the same reason offspring would have to be mentally and physically assessed as human also. Genetically their make-up would be not 100% human, but so infinitesimally close to it as to be regarded as human by government, society, community, medicine and law. Whether the Catholic church would regard them as human is another issue... but given the inhumane treatment handed out by the Catholic church over the years to many different groups I doubt that this would mark them out too much. God's reputation seems to be all about the 'love' these days, so I guess He'd err towards 'human' as well (though I confess I don't know the Dude personally)
As for bringing one of these embryos to term, the regulations say no (incineration after 14 days.) The logical possibility must be yes. I'm not sure if it could happen now or not, but I guess that with the right staff, enough research and money to back a programme to reach such a goal then it could be acheived. They put a man on the moon and all that. Personally I don't have the resources... but if you're thinking of breeding piebald children with a high milk yield then I'm sure Tesco would be keen if the costs were low!
Posted by: mj, durham on 1:53pm Mon 24 Mar 08
how long before the arbirary 14 day rule for the killing of these embryos is raised to allow their development into fetuses for organ donation and beyond. we're on a slippery slope
tinyurl.com/2ofrbw
how long before the arbirary 14 day rule for the killing of these embryos is raised to allow their development into fetuses for organ donation and beyond. we're on a slippery slope
tinyurl.com/2ofrbw
Posted by: Jeanine Perez, Sioux Falls SD on 3:37pm Mon 24 Mar 08
My son was a healthy 17 year old who went into cardiac arrest practicing football. His heart stopped for 10 minutes and was brought back to life after 10 shocks and a last ditch shot to the heart. He was an advanced student who wanted to go into the medical field or physical therapy field. He loved life, people and God! He now has a defibillator placed and has a traumatic brain injury (anoxia). He has come along way from lying in a bed to a wheelchair and now walking. He can take care of himself but cannot be independent because he has no working memory and he talks to fast and runs his words together. He constantly asks about going to college because he couldn't wait to get out into the world to do good for others. It is hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church does not want all those humans like my son or humans dieing from many other neurological disorders to be given their life back. My son loves the Catholic church as I raised him that way and I also was raised that way. BUT, I want my son back and if research can help him and all the millions of humans suffering then we should live our faith and help those suffering. Let the scientist do what they know best and let the Catholics do what we know best. Pray for a cure for those dieing and suffereing. My son died that day and God brought him back for a reason and in order for him to make a difference in lives he needs this chance for a better life. God Bless you all!
My son was a healthy 17 year old who went into cardiac arrest practicing football. His heart stopped for 10 minutes and was brought back to life after 10 shocks and a last ditch shot to the heart. He was an advanced student who wanted to go into the medical field or physical therapy field. He loved life, people and God! He now has a defibillator placed and has a traumatic brain injury (anoxia). He has come along way from lying in a bed to a wheelchair and now walking. He can take care of himself but cannot be independent because he has no working memory and he talks to fast and runs his words together. He constantly asks about going to college because he couldn't wait to get out into the world to do good for others. It is hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church does not want all those humans like my son or humans dieing from many other neurological disorders to be given their life back. My son loves the Catholic church as I raised him that way and I also was raised that way. BUT, I want my son back and if research can help him and all the millions of humans suffering then we should live our faith and help those suffering. Let the scientist do what they know best and let the Catholics do what we know best. Pray for a cure for those dieing and suffereing. My son died that day and God brought him back for a reason and in order for him to make a difference in lives he needs this chance for a better life. God Bless you all!
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 4:14pm Mon 24 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jeanine Perez[/bold] wrote:
My son was a healthy 17 year old who went into cardiac arrest practicing football. His heart stopped for 10 minutes and was brought back to life after 10 shocks and a last ditch shot to the heart. He was an advanced student who wanted to go into the medical field or physical therapy field. He loved life, people and God! He now has a defibillator placed and has a traumatic brain injury (anoxia). He has come along way from lying in a bed to a wheelchair and now walking. He can take care of himself but cannot be independent because he has no working memory and he talks to fast and runs his words together. He constantly asks about going to college because he couldn't wait to get out into the world to do good for others. It is hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church does not want all those humans like my son or humans dieing from many other neurological disorders to be given their life back. My son loves the Catholic church as I raised him that way and I also was raised that way. BUT, I want my son back and if research can help him and all the millions of humans suffering then we should live our faith and help those suffering. Let the scientist do what they know best and let the Catholics do what we know best. Pray for a cure for those dieing and suffereing. My son died that day and God brought him back for a reason and in order for him to make a difference in lives he needs this chance for a better life. God Bless you all![/quote] Jeanine - sorry to hear about your son. I work with people with ABI's and know first hand how devastating it can be for families. You should know that significant healing can take place for up to ten years in ABI cases. Also adult stem cell therapies are showing promise:
tinyurl.com/3a8gaw
tinyurl.com/3bfk9l
Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
Download This List
Peer-Reviewed References (not a complete listing, sample references)
[bold]Adult Stem Cells[/bold]
[italic]Cancers:[/italic]
Brain Cancer
Retinoblastoma
Ovarian Cancer
Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
Testicular Cancer
Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplasia
Breast Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Various Solid Tumors
Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Ewing’s Sarcoma
Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
POEMS syndrome
Myelofibrosis
[italic]Auto-Immune Diseases[/italic]
Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
Systemic Lupus
Sjogren’s Syndrome
Myasthenia
Autoimmune Cytopenia
Scleromyxedema
Scleroderma
Crohn’s Disease
Behcet’s Disease
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Juvenile Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis
Polychondritis
Systemic Vasculitis
Alopecia Universalis
Buerger’s Disease
[italic]Cardiovascular[/italic]
Acute Heart Damage
Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
[italic]Ocular[/italic]
Corneal regeneration
[italic]Immunodeficiencies[/italic]
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
[italic]Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries[/italic]
Parkinson’s Disease
Spinal Cord Injury
Stroke Damage
[italic]Anemias and Other Blood Conditions[/italic]
Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Aplastic Anemia
Red Cell Aplasia
Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
Thalassemia
Primary Amyloidosis
Diamond Blackfan Anemia
Fanconi’s Anemia
Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
[italic]Wounds and Injuries[/italic]
Limb Gangrene
Surface Wound Healing
Jawbone Replacement
Skull Bone Repair
[italic]Other Metabolic Disorders[/italic]
Hurler’s Syndrome
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Krabbe Leukodystrophy
Osteopetrosis
Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy
[italic]Liver Disease[/italic]
Chronic Liver Failure
Liver Cirrhosis
[italic]Bladder Disease[/italic]
End-Stage Bladder Disease
[bold]Embryonic Stem Cells[/bold]
NONE
Peer-Reviewed References (not a complete listing, sample references)
The Facts - Prentice, D. "Adult Stem Cells" Appendix K in Monitoring Stem Cell Research: A Report of the President's Council on Bioethics (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), 309-346.
Jeanine Perez wrote:
My son was a healthy 17 year old who went into cardiac arrest practicing football. His heart stopped for 10 minutes and was brought back to life after 10 shocks and a last ditch shot to the heart. He was an advanced student who wanted to go into the medical field or physical therapy field. He loved life, people and God! He now has a defibillator placed and has a traumatic brain injury (anoxia). He has come along way from lying in a bed to a wheelchair and now walking. He can take care of himself but cannot be independent because he has no working memory and he talks to fast and runs his words together. He constantly asks about going to college because he couldn't wait to get out into the world to do good for others. It is hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church does not want all those humans like my son or humans dieing from many other neurological disorders to be given their life back. My son loves the Catholic church as I raised him that way and I also was raised that way. BUT, I want my son back and if research can help him and all the millions of humans suffering then we should live our faith and help those suffering. Let the scientist do what they know best and let the Catholics do what we know best. Pray for a cure for those dieing and suffereing. My son died that day and God brought him back for a reason and in order for him to make a difference in lives he needs this chance for a better life. God Bless you all!
Jeanine - sorry to hear about your son. I work with people with ABI's and know first hand how devastating it can be for families. You should know that significant healing can take place for up to ten years in ABI cases. Also adult stem cell therapies are showing promise:
tinyurl.com/3a8gaw
tinyurl.com/3bfk9l
Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
Download This List
Peer-Reviewed References (not a complete listing, sample references)
Adult Stem Cells
Cancers:
Brain Cancer
Retinoblastoma
Ovarian Cancer
Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
Testicular Cancer
Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplasia
Breast Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Various Solid Tumors
Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Ewing’s Sarcoma
Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
POEMS syndrome
Myelofibrosis
Auto-Immune Diseases
Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
Systemic Lupus
Sjogren’s Syndrome
Myasthenia
Autoimmune Cytopenia
Scleromyxedema
Scleroderma
Crohn’s Disease
Behcet’s Disease
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Juvenile Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis
Polychondritis
Systemic Vasculitis
Alopecia Universalis
Buerger’s Disease
Cardiovascular
Acute Heart Damage
Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
Ocular
Corneal regeneration
Immunodeficiencies
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries
Parkinson’s Disease
Spinal Cord Injury
Stroke Damage
Anemias and Other Blood Conditions
Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Aplastic Anemia
Red Cell Aplasia
Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
Thalassemia
Primary Amyloidosis
Diamond Blackfan Anemia
Fanconi’s Anemia
Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
Wounds and Injuries
Limb Gangrene
Surface Wound Healing
Jawbone Replacement
Skull Bone Repair
Other Metabolic Disorders
Hurler’s Syndrome
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Krabbe Leukodystrophy
Osteopetrosis
Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy
Liver Disease
Chronic Liver Failure
Liver Cirrhosis
Bladder Disease
End-Stage Bladder Disease
Embryonic Stem Cells
NONE
Peer-Reviewed References (not a complete listing, sample references)
The Facts - Prentice, D. "Adult Stem Cells" Appendix K in Monitoring Stem Cell Research: A Report of the President's Council on Bioethics (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), 309-346.
Posted by: Gerry, Uddingston on 5:28pm Mon 24 Mar 08
Bookseller
Thanks for your posting on the possibility of taking a "hybrid/human" embryo to term. Were it but as straightforward as you state. What would be the relationship of the clone(?) to the DNA donor, or other clones from the same donor. I'm sure you had tongue in cheek when you would have me challange the humanity of children born from the sperm and the egg of "naturally" human parents. Your position also presumes that there are no unforeseen or unforeseeable consequences on the inclusion of bovine mitochondria, however insignificant their expected function within the cells. Maybe I'm just a worrier, but I have the same apprehension about the Hadron collider experiments that bang protons together at 99.99999....% of speed of light in an attempt to find the Higgs particle. http://www.boingboin
g.net/2008/02/29/ted
-2008-brian-cox-o.ht
ml
The energies involved could be sufficient to generate black holes and we know how voracious these little beggers can be!!
No, I'm not thinking of breeding piebald children, it was hard enough without this additional hassle and anyway its simpler with horses for courses and cows for milk.
Bookseller
Thanks for your posting on the possibility of taking a "hybrid/human" embryo to term. Were it but as straightforward as you state. What would be the relationship of the clone(?) to the DNA donor, or other clones from the same donor. I'm sure you had tongue in cheek when you would have me challange the humanity of children born from the sperm and the egg of "naturally" human parents. Your position also presumes that there are no unforeseen or unforeseeable consequences on the inclusion of bovine mitochondria, however insignificant their expected function within the cells. Maybe I'm just a worrier, but I have the same apprehension about the Hadron collider experiments that bang protons together at 99.99999....% of speed of light in an attempt to find the Higgs particle. http://www.boingboin
g.net/2008/02/29/ted
-2008-brian-cox-o.ht
ml
The energies involved could be sufficient to generate black holes and we know how voracious these little beggers can be!!
No, I'm not thinking of breeding piebald children, it was hard enough without this additional hassle and anyway its simpler with horses for courses and cows for milk.
Posted by: Even more scunnert, Lothian on 5:39am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: [quote]Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.[/quote] Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different. [/quote] Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.[/quote] From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.[/quote] Obviously not. If you want to get particularly technical, they use dietary carbon and respired oxygen to create the adenosine-trisphosph
ate needed as a co-factor for pretty much every enzymatic reaction in the body. However, cow ATP is exactly the same as human ATP, so the analogy with batteries holds perfectly well. I was using analogy to make the argument point understandable to a non-scientist, and you are deliberately splitting hairs in an attempt to undermine that point. [/quote] Much more satisfying, although simplified, description Mick - thanks for that. More like nit picking than splitting hairs though. My point really was that the processes involving mitochondria are subtle and dynamic and are could cause some of the disorders the proposed research seeks to understand. To dismiss the presence of bovine mitochondria in the manufactured embryo seems, therefore, at cross purposes with the stated goal.
tinyurl.com/7zub7
[quote]Mutations in mtDNA cause human diseases.
A number of human diseases are caused by mutations in genes in our mitochondria:
cytochrome b
12S rRNA
ATP synthase
subunits of NADH dehydrogenase
several tRNA genes
Although many different organs may be affected, disorders of the muscles and brain are the most common. Perhaps this reflects the great demand for energy of both these organs. (Although representing only ~2% of our body weight, the brain consumes ~20% of the energy produced when we are at rest.)
Some of these disorders are inherited in the germline. In every case, the mutant gene is received from the mother because none of the mitochondria in sperm survives in the fertilized egg. Other disorders are somatic; that is, the mutation occurs in the somatic tissues of the individual.
Example: exercise intolerance
A number of humans who suffer from easily-fatigued muscles turn out to have a mutations in their cytochrome b gene. Curiously, only the mitochondria in their muscles have the mutation; the mtDNA of their other tissues is normal. Presumably, very early in their embryonic development, a mutation occurred in a cytochrome b gene in the mitochondrion of a cell destined to produce their muscles.
The severity of mitochondrial diseases varies greatly. The reason for this is probably the extensive mixing of mutant DNA and normal DNA in the mitochondria as they fuse with one another. A mixture of both is called heteroplasmy. The higher the ratio of mutant to normal, the greater the severity of the disease. In fact by chance alone, cells can on occasion end up with all their mitochondria carrying all-mutant genomes — a condition called homoplasmy (a phenomenon resembling genetic drift).[/quote]
Ted Harvey will no doubt be embarrassed by my cut and paste job - too bad Ted - you have contributed nothing to this debate. However, if "scientists" want the public to support their efforts they really do need to do more than present "trust us" arguments, and condescending simplifications. [/quote] Scientists present their work in a simplified manner to allow morons like you to understand, and even then you fail to grasp what they are saying. I can't believe you had to look up what a mitochondria is, you must be really thick.
Scunnert wrote:
Mick wrote:
scunnert wrote:
Mick wrote:
Scunnert wrote: Mick, Oxford on 11:10am today writes: Having some cow mitochondria in a human embryo is in no real sense different from using Energiser batteries instead of Duracell.
Naw Mick - it is, in a very real sense, entirely different.
Would you care to elaborate? From a biochemical perspective, there is very little real difference, and no functional difference. Especially as these embryos will be kept alive for no more than 14 days.
From a biochemical perspective Mick Mitochondria is clearly not a Duracell or an Energiser battery.
Obviously not. If you want to get particularly technical, they use dietary carbon and respired oxygen to create the adenosine-trisphosph
ate needed as a co-factor for pretty much every enzymatic reaction in the body. However, cow ATP is exactly the same as human ATP, so the analogy with batteries holds perfectly well. I was using analogy to make the argument point understandable to a non-scientist, and you are deliberately splitting hairs in an attempt to undermine that point.
Much more satisfying, although simplified, description Mick - thanks for that. More like nit picking than splitting hairs though. My point really was that the processes involving mitochondria are subtle and dynamic and are could cause some of the disorders the proposed research seeks to understand. To dismiss the presence of bovine mitochondria in the manufactured embryo seems, therefore, at cross purposes with the stated goal.
tinyurl.com/7zub7
Mutations in mtDNA cause human diseases.
A number of human diseases are caused by mutations in genes in our mitochondria:
cytochrome b
12S rRNA
ATP synthase
subunits of NADH dehydrogenase
several tRNA genes
Although many different organs may be affected, disorders of the muscles and brain are the most common. Perhaps this reflects the great demand for energy of both these organs. (Although representing only ~2% of our body weight, the brain consumes ~20% of the energy produced when we are at rest.)
Some of these disorders are inherited in the germline. In every case, the mutant gene is received from the mother because none of the mitochondria in sperm survives in the fertilized egg. Other disorders are somatic; that is, the mutation occurs in the somatic tissues of the individual.
Example: exercise intolerance
A number of humans who suffer from easily-fatigued muscles turn out to have a mutations in their cytochrome b gene. Curiously, only the mitochondria in their muscles have the mutation; the mtDNA of their other tissues is normal. Presumably, very early in their embryonic development, a mutation occurred in a cytochrome b gene in the mitochondrion of a cell destined to produce their muscles.
The severity of mitochondrial diseases varies greatly. The reason for this is probably the extensive mixing of mutant DNA and normal DNA in the mitochondria as they fuse with one another. A mixture of both is called heteroplasmy. The higher the ratio of mutant to normal, the greater the severity of the disease. In fact by chance alone, cells can on occasion end up with all their mitochondria carrying all-mutant genomes — a condition called homoplasmy (a phenomenon resembling genetic drift).
Ted Harvey will no doubt be embarrassed by my cut and paste job - too bad Ted - you have contributed nothing to this debate. However, if "scientists" want the public to support their efforts they really do need to do more than present "trust us" arguments, and condescending simplifications.
Scientists present their work in a simplified manner to allow morons like you to understand, and even then you fail to grasp what they are saying. I can't believe you had to look up what a mitochondria is, you must be really thick.
Posted by: Tom Kearns, Kilwinning on 4:58pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Dr Minger asks the question of his work, "What could be more pro-life than this?" Could I ask the Doctor what he does with the embryos when he is finished with them? What could be more pro-death than that?
Dr Minger asks the question of his work, "What could be more pro-life than this?" Could I ask the Doctor what he does with the embryos when he is finished with them? What could be more pro-death than that?
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 4:58am Thu 27 Mar 08
Even more scunnert, Lothian on 5:39am Wed 26 Mar 08 writes:
[quote]Scientists present their work in a simplified manner to allow morons like you to understand, and even then you fail to grasp what they are saying. I can't believe you had to look up what a mitochondria is, you must be really thick.[/quote]
Thick - is that a scientific term? I better look that up.
What [bold]a mitochondria is[/bold] ? LoL
Even more scunnert, Lothian on 5:39am Wed 26 Mar 08 writes:
Scientists present their work in a simplified manner to allow morons like you to understand, and even then you fail to grasp what they are saying. I can't believe you had to look up what a mitochondria is, you must be really thick.
Thick - is that a scientific term? I better look that up.
What
a mitochondria is ? LoL
Posted by: Not as scunnert as before, Lothian on 5:14am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
Even more scunnert, Lothian on 5:39am Wed 26 Mar 08 writes:
[quote]Scientists present their work in a simplified manner to allow morons like you to understand, and even then you fail to grasp what they are saying. I can't believe you had to look up what a mitochondria is, you must be really thick.[/quote]
Thick - is that a scientific term? I better look that up.
What [bold]a mitochondria is[/bold] ? LoL
[/quote] thick adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun
–adjective
1. having relatively great extent from one surface or side to the opposite; not thin: a thick slice.
2. measured, as specified, between opposite surfaces, from top to bottom, or in a direction perpendicular to that of the length and breadth; (of a solid having three general dimensions) measured across its smallest dimension: a board one inch thick.
3. composed of or containing objects, particles, etc., close together; dense: a thick fog; a thick forest.
4. filled, covered, or abounding (usually fol. by with): tables thick with dust.
5. husky or hoarse; not distinctly articulated: The patient's speech is still quite thick.
6. markedly so (as specified): a thick German accent.
7. deep or profound: thick darkness.
8. (of a liquid) heavy or viscous: a thick syrup.
9. Informal. close in friendship; intimate.
10. mentally slow; stupid; dull. (SCUNNERT, THIS IS THE MEANING THAT APPLIES TO YOU)
11. disagreeably excessive or exaggerated: They thought it a bit thick when he called himself a genius.
Scunnert wrote:
Even more scunnert, Lothian on 5:39am Wed 26 Mar 08 writes:
Scientists present their work in a simplified manner to allow morons like you to understand, and even then you fail to grasp what they are saying. I can't believe you had to look up what a mitochondria is, you must be really thick.
Thick - is that a scientific term? I better look that up.
What a mitochondria is ? LoL
thick adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun
–adjective
1. having relatively great extent from one surface or side to the opposite; not thin: a thick slice.
2. measured, as specified, between opposite surfaces, from top to bottom, or in a direction perpendicular to that of the length and breadth; (of a solid having three general dimensions) measured across its smallest dimension: a board one inch thick.
3. composed of or containing objects, particles, etc., close together; dense: a thick fog; a thick forest.
4. filled, covered, or abounding (usually fol. by with): tables thick with dust.
5. husky or hoarse; not distinctly articulated: The patient's speech is still quite thick.
6. markedly so (as specified): a thick German accent.
7. deep or profound: thick darkness.
8. (of a liquid) heavy or viscous: a thick syrup.
9. Informal. close in friendship; intimate.
10. mentally slow; stupid; dull. (SCUNNERT, THIS IS THE MEANING THAT APPLIES TO YOU)
11. disagreeably excessive or exaggerated: They thought it a bit thick when he called himself a genius.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:17pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Not as scunnert as before, Lothian on 5:14am today
Thought you'd be back. Why would anyone come on a thread simply to insult a total stranger Have you no one in your life to talk to?
Not as scunnert as before, Lothian on 5:14am today
Thought you'd be back. Why would anyone come on a thread simply to insult a total stranger Have you no one in your life to talk to?
Posted by: Grabani on 12:32pm Fri 28 Mar 08
I have read only some of the comments above and therefore may repeat what has already been said...
The purpose for the government and research organization wanting this bill passed is simply MONEY. They want to ensure that the UK continues in the lucrative genetic research race, the rest is simply a lot of hot air about it eventual "life benefiting".
"It's about the MONEY silly!".
I have read only some of the comments above and therefore may repeat what has already been said...
The purpose for the government and research organization wanting this bill passed is simply MONEY. They want to ensure that the UK continues in the lucrative genetic research race, the rest is simply a lot of hot air about it eventual "life benefiting".
"It's about the MONEY silly!".
Posted by: Minerva, Hammersmith on 7:12pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Patient-specific stem cells are acquired through a cheek-swab - why the convoluted need for SCNT?
Patient-specific stem cells are acquired through a cheek-swab - why the convoluted need for SCNT?
Comment | Read Comments (38)
Print this story
Email to a friend
