Author
|
Topic: Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant (Read 8241 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #15 on: 2002-09-25 03:32:59 » |
 |
A couple of the newest developments I could find on this issue. If anyone else has better info or links, please feel free to post them. Thanks,
-Jake
http://thehill.com/090402/cloning.shtm
SEPTEMBER 4 , 2002
Specter sees chance of early vote on cloning
By Noelle Straub
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) claims he has lined up the 60 votes needed to pass cloning legislation, clearing the way for a possible vote on the controversial issue as early as this month.
Specter is one of the main proponents of a bill that would ban cloning for reproductive purposes but allow its use to produce embryonic stem cells for medical research.
“We might do it in September,” Specter said. “[Majority Leader Tom] Daschle [D-S.D.] says he’ll schedule it if we have 60 votes. I think we’re right at that, so we may have it in September.”
But with all the other work the Senate has to accomplish before its Oct. 4 target adjournment date, it remains to be seen whether the cloning issue can be brought up for a vote.
Daschle’s top priorities include passage of legislation establishing a Homeland Security Department, action on still-pending appropriations bills for the new fiscal year and a pension security measure.
Despite the heavy schedule, Daschle spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer said there’s “certainly a possibility” cloning could also come up this fall.
But Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who is leading the push to ban cloning for all purposes, said he did not think Specter and his supporters would be able to pass it that soon. “I’d be doubtful of that, that they’d have the 60,” he said.
The only question before Congress is whether to allow medical research involving cloned human embryos. All sides agree that cloning to produce babies should be prohibited.
The House already passed a bill outlawing cloning for any purpose and President Bush supports a total ban. Brownback and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) introduced a bill that mirrors the House approach.
Earlier this year, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced their own bill that would allow cloning for research purposes. But they later joined forces with Specter to cosponsor the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2002 (S. 2439), which is designed to attract backing from some undecided senators.
The bill’s 12 cosponsors include Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), an abortion opponent whose decision in April to support the bill greatly improved its chances of passage.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson wrote Brownback in May stating that the administration does not support the Specter bill. The letter informed Brownback that Thompson would recommend a presidential veto of any bill that would ban cloning for reproduction but allow it to go forward for research.
Lobbying groups on both sides of the issue have been working furiously to sway undecided senators.
Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, one of the most vocal groups fighting cloning for any purpose, predicted that neither side is likely to secure 60 votes this year.
Johnson said the bill “would permit human embryo farms to be established,” but then ban allowing the cloned embryos to survive past a certain point. “It’s a question of whether it is a good idea to allow an industry to be established based on the manufacture of human embryos,” he said.
On the other side of the issue, patient advocacy groups, universities and scientific organizations have joined forces to form the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, which supports research cloning in hopes it could lead to better treatment or cures for diseases.
Sean Tipton, a member of the coalition’s board, predicted that Specter’s bill would garner the necessary 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. But he said the group is still discussing if and when the Specter bill should be brought to the floor, given the difficulty of pushing a comparable measure through the House and avoiding a Bush veto.
“I do think the 60 votes are there,” he said. “The more challenging question is what priority to put on it, because I think the most we’re going to gain is to continue to show that the pro-research, pro-patient side has all the momentum. I’m not sure we could get a law enacted.”
But Tipton insisted that an effort to educate lawmakers on the complex scientific issues surrounding cloning eventually would tip the balance in favor of allowing it for medical research.
“When the coalition starting working on this in January, our whip count showed us with seven votes,” he said. “A vote in the House this summer would have a very different result than last summer’s.”
Having long promised to bring up the issue, Daschle proposed in June staging two votes — first on Brownback’s bill and then on a bill allowing cloning for medical research. But Brownback rejected the deal, saying the procedure would stack the decks in favor of the alternative approach.
Daschle then said he had fulfilled his commitment to bring up the issue, and Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) agreed.
Brownback now insists the delay has worked to his benefit because scientists have continued to make progress working with existing stem cell lines that do not require further cloning.
“That’s why we think we’ve got a better shot as this is actually drawn out, because the research keeps moving our way,” he argued.
But cloning advocates contend the chance to educate members on the complex issue has allowed them to sway more votes.
An advisory panel that Bush had appointed to study the issue completed a report in July recommending a four-year moratorium on cloning for research purposes.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20020923/ap_on_re_us/stem_cell_law&e=1
Calif. Approves Stem Cell Research
Mon Sep 23, 7:04 PM ET
By JENNIFER COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - In a move that runs counter to Bush administration policy, California has adopted a new law that opens the state's doors to stem cell researchers.
Gov. Gray Davis ( news - web sites) signed legislation Sunday that expressly permits the research, which has been strongly opposed by anti-abortion groups and the Roman Catholic church because it involves the use of fetal and embryonic tissue.
The issue captured headlines more than a year ago when President Bush ( news - web sites) restricted federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to a select number of existing cell lines.
Supporters of the California legislation say the law will attract scientists who someday may be able to cure chronic diseases through the research. Proponents include actor Christopher Reeve, who has been a stem cell research activist since an accident left him paralyzed from the neck down. He believes stem cell research could help treat paralysis.
"Since stem cells were first isolated in 1998, the political debate has had a chilling affect on our scientists," Reeve said Sunday. "It is painful to contemplate what advances could have been made" if that research wasn't stifled.
Stem cells, which are found in human embryos, umbilical cords and placentas, can divide and become any kind of cell in the body. Opponents contend the research is tantamount to murder because it starts with the destruction of a human embryo.
On board Air Force One as President Bush flew to New Jersey on Monday, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) initially chalked up the California law to states' rights.
"The president has always said states have authority within their states," Fleisher said.
Later, Fleisher amended his remarks.
"The president thinks that all policies — state or federal — need to promote a culture that respects life and, in that, he does differ from what California and the governor there have done," he said.
State Sen. Deborah Ortiz ( news, bio, voting record) wrote the bill that states that California will explicitly allow embryonic stem cell research, and allows for both the destruction and donation of embryos.
The bill requires fertility clinics that do in-vitro fertilization procedures to inform women that they have the option to donate discarded embryos to research. It requires written consent and bans the sale of embryos.
Ortiz and supporters of her bill said the research could be valuable in curing or alleviating chronic and degenerative conditions, such as Parkinson's disease ( news - web sites), Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.
The law will attract "the best and the brightest" researchers to California and halt the migration of stem cell researchers to other countries where it is permitted, said Larry Goldstein, a professor at University of California, San Diego.
Since the federal government won't pay for stem cell research, researchers in California will have to be vigilant about keeping studies separate, said Susanne Huttner, associate vice provost for research for the University of California.
Movie producer/director Jerry Zucker joined Davis and Reeve in the announcing the law, saying he learned about stem cell research after discovering that his young daughter had diabetes.
"After learning the daily routine, we began to ask what was being done to cure diabetes," he said. "Everyone told us that embryonic stem cell research is her best hope for a cure."
Zucker said he immediately discovered "that the biggest obstacle in finding a cure for our daughter is our own government."
Congress hasn't acted on any stem cell research bills, or a bill to ban human cloning, and Ortiz said there was still a question over whether California's law would be pre-empted by a federal statute.
Measures pending in Congress range from allowing research to criminalizing it and prosecuting those who traveled abroad for treatment derived from stem cell research.
Davis has signed another bill which makes permanent a temporary ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes, said his spokesman Steve Maviglio. That ban was set to expire at the end of the year.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #16 on: 2002-12-30 03:50:34 » |
|
cross posted from virus Email list, thanks to Rhino for URL's. Love, -Jake 
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=27502
[Jake Sapiens]
I'm betting it's the real deal. Even if not, the real deal is just around the corner no doubt. I think we in the CoV should take a stand in favor of cloning rights, as a natural consequence of individual reproductive choice and freedom, as well as a further technological step in fulfilling our transhumanist vision.
Love, -Jake
[rhinoceros]
I guess it was about this announcement:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993217
First cloned baby "born on 26 December"
by Emma Young
New Scientist, December 27, 2002
The world's first cloned baby was born on 26 December, claims the Bahamas-based cloning company Clonaid. But there has been no independent confirmation of the claim.
The girl, named Eve by the cloning team, was said to have been born by Caesarean section at 1155 EST. The birth at an undisclosed location went "very well", said Brigitte Boisselier, president of Clonaid. The company was formed in 1997 by the Raelian cult, which believes people are clones of aliens.
"The baby is very healthy. She is doing fine," Roisselier told a press conference in Hollywood, Florida, on Friday. The seven-pound baby is a clone of a 31-year-old American woman, whose partner is infertile, she said.
Proving that the baby is a clone of another person would be possible by showing that their DNA is identical. Genetic tests on the baby and "mother" will now be carried out and the results will be available "in eight or nine days", Boisselier said.
She told reporters: "You can still go back to your office and treat me as a fraud. You have one week to do that." Boisselier added that Michael Guillen, science editor at ABC News and a former Harvard University mathematician, will carry out the genetic tests.
<snip>
[rhinoceros]
I think Jake is right in principle, even if I don't see any compelling reasons to hold a Transhumanist vision.
Of course, the secrecy of the event did not permit peer review and the Raelian cult of alien clones makes some eyebrows rise, but we can wait for 8 or 9 days to see what they have to show. Anyway, next month Antinori's clone baby is expected. (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993116)
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
The Hysteria Continues
« Reply #17 on: 2003-01-17 11:51:03 » |
|
The Friday Jan 17, USA Today print edition lead headline was the same as this teaser snipped from USA Today:
Quote:| The real face of cloning What will world look like if renegade scientists persist in experiments to clone a human? |
, but continued,
Quote:.
The preference of the author, who supposedly (and probably actually, given the very consistent and persistant media anti-science bias) represents the opinion of mainstream CNN gawkers according to (let us not forget, the very rightwing Christian biased) Gallup, carries through and deepens in the body of the article, which follows. The accompanying photograph and sidebar is perhaps worth reproducing too, in order to obtain a taste for the guff being fed to the great unwashed masses (refer to the attachment below for the picture if  fails.):
Quote:| This cloned calf, that later died, was born with deformed lungs and was unable to breathe without the aid of a respirator. Advanced Cell Technology |
Source: USA Today
Authors: Tim Friend
Dated: 2003-01-17
Noticed By: Hermit
The Raelians, a religious group that believes space aliens created life on Earth, grabbed headlines with their day-after-Christmas claim that they had helped bring the first human clone into the world. That claim remains unproven, and most experts consider it a hoaxBut as the dust settles from the carnival atmosphere of the past few weeks, other claims that clones are coming remain. The day of the clone may still be at hand.
"It is absolutely inevitable that groups are going to try to clone a human being. But they are going to create a lot of dead and dying babies along the way," says bioethicist Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y.
Lost in the hype surrounding claims of human cloning are hard scientific facts that show cloning animals is fraught with perils both before and after birth. Scientists are able to clone sheep, cattle, pigs, goats and mice, but not without significant errors that commonly result in oversized fetuses, placental defects, lung, kidney and cardiovascular problems, brain abnormalities, immune dysfunction and severe postnatal weight gain.
Efforts to clone primates have proven even more difficult and might be impossible with current methods, scientists say. Of particular concern are embryos that appear healthy but at the genetic level are a "gallery of horrors," says Tanja Dominko, who conducted primate cloning research at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center in Beaverton.
Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., is the only scientific group that has acknowledged making cloned human embryos for research purposes. ACT medical director Robert Lanza says he hopes one day to create cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's based on cells harvested from cloned embryos. But so far, his team has found that cloning human embryos is no simple task. Only one has reached the six-cell stage, and it had significant genetic abnormalities.
Lanza says techniques are improving for purposes of medical research but not enough for reliably creating healthy babies.
'Devastating birth defects'
If cloned babies start showing up in hospital nurseries, scientists predict that they will be hooked up to respirators because their hearts and lungs will have been deformed. Feeding tubes also might be necessary for infants who have brain damage and cannot suckle. Others may have extensive physical abnormalities. Even those born with a normal appearance probably would experience epilepsy, autism or behavioral abnormalities.
"All of the data on animal cloning demonstrates exceptionally high rates of fetal loss, abortion (and) neonatal deaths, and many cloned animals have devastating birth defects," says Gerald Schatten, vice chairman of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
"When people are working with farm animals or laboratory mice and there is a newborn that is suffering, veterinarians can euthanize the animal. Are people who are attempting to clone humans going to euthanize suffering children?"
Two fertility specialists, Severino Antinori of Rome and Panos Zavos of Lexington, Ky., have announced independent efforts to clone humans. Antinori announced in March that a clone would be born around January. Zavos was to have begun his cloning efforts last fall. Antinori, Zavos and Brigitte Boisselier of Clonaid, the Raelian company that claims to have brought two cloned babies into the world, have made dozens of television appearances, and to the chagrin of some critics, have acquired an air of legitimacy by being invited to testify before Congress and the National Academy of Sciences.
Yet none of these people has provided any evidence of the ability to actually clone a human safely, Murray says. And when asked how they plan to avoid the types of deformities found in cloned animals, all three repeatedly have stated that the scientists who clone animals don't know what they are doing.
"If you are doing it the way of the animal cloners, yes, there is a risk," Zavos told USA TODAY in August when he introduced an anonymous couple who said they plan to have a cloned baby. "We have the science of maternal fetal medicine, and we will be monitoring the pregnancies very carefully."
Many of the birth defects observed in cloned animals are similar to the gross physical deformities and mental retardation found in rare genetic disorders caused by a phenomenon known as genetic imprinting, says Arthur Beaudet, professor of genetics at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
These disorders arise when the genes of the mother and father do not align for embryonic development as nature intended.
Here's how imprinting occurs: At the moment of natural conception, the 30,000 genes in the DNA of the father must combine in the fertilized egg with the 30,000 genes of the mother. Then there are two copies of every gene, and together they form a master program to build an embryo cell by cell, sometimes with genes from the father turned off to let the mother's genes do the work, and other times the mother's genes stay silent to let the father's do their part.
Imprinting disorders arise when either the mother's or father's genes imprint themselves on the program in places where they should have been minding their own business — like mom and dad talking at the same time rather than taking turns. In other words, both copies of a gene are turned on when one of them should be silent, and the result is a genetic error that may cause a developmental disorder.
Perils of reprogramming
In cloning, a scientist plucks the DNA containing the copies of all of the mother and father's genes from a fully formed adult cell and inserts it into an egg that has been stripped of its own nucleus of genes. Because there is no conception to spark the creation of an embryo, scientists must somehow reprogram that adult DNA back to the brink of embryonic development as if fertilization had just occurred.
Reprogramming is perhaps the most active area of cloning research, but scientists do not know how to do it. So they must insert the DNA from adult cells into dozens or even hundreds of eggs, give a little jolt of electricity to stimulate the cell to divide and keep their fingers crossed. Most scientists agree that only about 1% to 2% of these attempts in animals lead to a live birth. Of live births, only about 20% appear to be normal.
The prevalence of genetic disorders in cloned animals and the lack of knowledge about reprogramming are the primary reasons the scientists who work on cloning and issues of reprogramming say they are skeptical that anyone can clone a human without genetic errors, Beaudet and others say.
"Just from the scientific safety considerations alone, this is completely appalling," says Schatten, who is leading efforts to clone rhesus monkeys, efforts that have been unsuccessful. "Those of us actively engaged in research cloning have invested years and years of dedicated efforts and have encountered enormous difficulties in generating a single" cloned embryo.
Congress introduced another bill Jan. 8 to make human cloning in the USA illegal. But it has been unable to pass a number of anti-cloning bills because the bills have included a ban on research using cloning techniques to create stem cells.
Researchers want to create tiny pre-embryos — a ball of cells that have not yet taken any form — as sources of stem cells; this type of research is called therapeutic cloning. Supporters believe these primordial stem cells hold promise for treating a wide range of disorders including Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes. They fear that the bath water will be thrown out with the baby and that Congress will ban embryonic stem cell research.
Opponents say it is immoral to use human embryos for research. Obtaining stem cells means destroying the embryo, which many people consider the same as abortion.
But some experts believe the real stake in the heart of human cloning will come the first time angry parents sue a laboratory or a doctor over a genetically damaged cloned child. A strong case for malpractice could be made. And the same arguments that scientists are making today against human cloning will become fodder for expert witnesses.
"People will forgive a health care provider for making a mistake as long as enough basic information was provided in advance, and the alternative to a treatment was death or a miserable life," says Scott McMillen of McMillen, Reinhart and Voght, malpractice attorneys in Orlando. "But in cloning we're not trying to save a life. We're trying to create a life from scratch, and to do that with negligence would be actionable. And ultimately it is a jury that will decide whether there was negligence."
Defense attorneys might be hard pressed to find a sympathetic jury. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup PollJan. 3-5 shows 86% of Americans say human cloning should be illegal.
Boisselier says the parents of the supposedly cloned children created by Clonaid all have "agreed to share the risk." But Murray says parents can change their minds and sue, and the people who are so eager to clone humans should recall the Jesse Gelsinger case.
Headed to the witness stand
Gelsinger died Sept. 17, 1999, at age 18, four days after entering a gene-therapy experiment at the University of Pennsylvania to treat his inherited liver disorder. At first, Gelsinger's parents were sympathetic to the scientists. But as information emerged about risks and side effects that Gelsinger and his parents were never told about, they sued the hospital and everyone involved in the experiment.
Gelsinger's parents stated in the lawsuit that risks were downplayed and that the doctors were negligent in performing the experiment. The university settled the suit for an undisclosed amount.
McMillen says human cloning raises key questions of informed consent. Boisselier and Zavos have testified before Congress that human cloning in their hands is not as risky as animal cloning and that they are unlikely to create damaged babies. In a trial, those comments could come back to haunt them as they face cloning experts as expert witnesses for plaintiffs.
"I expect that the animal cloners who have said that it is too soon to clone humans would rally to the witness stand," McMillen says.
What is unknown is whether parents can recover anything from a group that has few assets, whether cloners that perform procedures outside the USA are liable or whether the cloners will have malpractice insurance.
What is certain is that parents of cloned children who have genetic defects will face high medical costs, and someone will have to pay the bills. Imprinting disorders that cause mental retardation and physical abnormalities carry medical costs of $1 million to $20 million over the lifetime of the child, says Beaudet, who treats children with imprinting disorders.
"There are many longer-term issues to be considered, such as: If we in fact develop this human cloning technology, who will have access to it, and who will pay for the procedures, and who will pay for the medical care if these children are born with medical defects?" asks Mark Rothstein, director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville.
Would insurance cover?
Experts in the health insurance industry say the questions have not been addressed on whether infants born with genetic disorders caused by cloning would or should be covered. But legal experts say insurers might be justified in denying coverage if an infant is born as the result of a procedure that mainstream science says is likely to cause birth defects.
At the moment, however, insurers believe they might be obligated to pay for costs. "Obviously this is a new area," says Susan Pisano of the American Association of Health Plans, which represents the managed-care community. "Traditionally whether or not there has been some technology or procedure that has led to a pregnancy, the baby has been covered as a dependent. It is important to look at the safety aspects of this.
"But I also think discussions about these new developments need to be broad. This is an issue for all of society."
Several insurance companies declined to comment on the record. But all suggested that unless changes are made to specifically exclude cloned babies, the babies would be covered under group health plans. Individual plans could exclude a high-risk clone.
Murray says he is concerned for the people who would want to have themselves cloned. Boisselier, Zavos and Antinori have said the couples seeking their business are motivated by the desire to have a child who has their genes or to re-create a child who died.
Murray, whose daughter was murdered in 2000, says it reflects "despair, grief and narcissism run wild. These aren't wicked motives, but trying to spare yourself the grief reflects a deep misunderstanding. Grief doesn't work that way, and cloning will not bring back a child."
These parents must realize that a clone has a good chance of being brain-damaged. A narcissist might end up with a mentally retarded version of himself or herself.
Just a few years ago, human cloning appeared to be something that would be left to science fiction while mainstream scientists pursued cloning techniques to create medical therapies. Scientists seem baffled that two fertility specialists and the Raelians have commandeered the debate with unsubstantiated claims.
Murray says it is tragic.
"People will keep claiming to have created cloned babies, and eventually someone will succeed, but at what cost? A lot of damaged children and disappointed parents.
"That is the very sad baggage that cloning will carry into the world."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #18 on: 2003-01-20 05:06:32 » |
|
It would be nice to know whether the risk of deformed foetuses is an actual one or not in order to gauge bias. My understanding from the animal experiments is that it was?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #19 on: 2003-01-20 13:46:37 » |
|
Quote from: kharin on 2003-01-20 05:06:32 It would be nice to know whether the risk of deformed foetuses is an actual one or not in order to gauge bias. My understanding from the animal experiments is that it was?
|
It certainly was a problem in early animal cloning experiments primarily due to the fact that the importance of telomere tail length was not originally understood or addressed. This problem has been successfully overcome (e.g. Science News On-line, Cloning extends life of cells—and cows?). A second issue was the very low yield achieved, and recent developments (many in the UK and Japan - countries which have attracted many ex-US researchers) are rapidly increasing the yield of cloning experiments to a point where failures after implantation are gradually becoming an exception rather than the rule.
A consideration whichI suspect is not given sufficient weight by the opponents of cloning (or even the supporters - presumably on the grounds that they wish to avoid becoming targets of the violent anti-abortion crusades here in the US) is that human cloning would proceed in vitro to a point where only provably potent (viable) zygotes would be implanted. Abnormalities insufficiently severe to trigger a natural miscarriage would generally be detected (and presumably culled) between week 8 and 12 when a full chromosone mark-up could be performed using amniocentesis, and a simple comparison made between the fetus and the donor, to detect possible post-implantation failures (i.e. carriers of unplanned genetic anomolies due to transcription errors, translocations or transpositions during cell division) .
While it is undoubtedly the case that some "monsters" may be born through cloning, the level of care given to surrogates would undoubtedly be such that far fewer "monsters" would be born in a cloning regime than under "natural" circumstances. As we don't appear to regulate natural "monster production" - even where it is entirely predictable, and as previously noted, quite prevalent (particularly in the US where genetic screening programs and preventive abortions are definitely far too infrequent) , it seems positively Deesian that cloning opponents appear to consider that the possibility of "monsters" being produced by cloning experiments should suffice to have such research suppressed.
Certainly, I have not heard *any* valid arguments (discounting the usual chorus of slippery slope and religiously founded objections), which appear to counter the immense benefits that all forms of cloning appear to offer, not the least of which being the implementation of "directed evolution" (contradiction though this may superficially imply). Neither have I heard any proscription methodology being proposed which will put the genii back into the bottle. In my opinion, all that efforts to proscribe cloning will do is to alter the locales of research, and in consequence, the availability, acceptability and cost of availing oneself of the benefits of such research. After all, all the efforts of the US government to indict methamphetamine production have failed (signally) - and cloning is no more complex than that - and a great deal safer.
Meanwhile, it seems that the slightly more educated are to be entertained by watching the neo-Luddites everywhere make like Canute... My guess is that if mankind and modern society survive the intervening period, that the final outcome of their efforts will be similar to those reportedly achieved by that rather remarkable monarch.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #20 on: 2003-01-21 11:54:14 » |
|
First of all, it is good to see you posting again Hermit :-)
In referencing the Advanced Cell Technologies claims, the author of the USA Today propaganda fails to mention that the ACT researchers failed in producing any clone whatesoever. Yes I know that they claim to have reached a supposedly newly demarcated "6-cell stage". However, an egg with its DNA removed will cleave many more times than this before stopping under the control of the remaining mRNA in the cytoplasm. There is no reason to classify their product as anything other than a terminal non-viable group of cells. Also when I did read up on the ACT claim some time back, I remember nothing about claims of "genetic damage". Whether this was invented after the fact or not, the ACT incident provides a good example of nothing relevant to the issue of cloning since they failed to produce a clone in the first place. The author's apparently central reliance on ACT claims and information is irresponsible and probably intellectually and scientifically dishonest in light of the fact that the author falsely misrepresents the results of that experiment as having actually produced a clone.
Also, I have never heard of the "genetic imprininting" described in the article, but I have heard of GENOMIC imprinting. If this is what they are talking about, then I don't see that it is such the bad thing that the author makes it out to be. If that is what they are talking about, then I would add that there are dangers the way it naturally occurs too, in some cases causing fragile X syndrome leading to mental retardation among other things.
This author, (and many more like him) apparently wish to raise as much hysteria as possible about the dangers of cloning by failing to compare these dangers to the dangers associated with natural childbirth. This author, without explcitly saying so, has raised one of the most common fallacies of Luddism. If it is artificial it must be evil and dangerous, and if it is natural it must be safe. His selective use of information and his refusal to compare cloning to the risks associated with natural childbirth, outline this pattern of propagandist deception.
This much said, I agree that cloning carries risks with it, some realized, and some probably yet to be discovered. The primary problems as I have understood it come down to two major issues- 1) as Hermit has noted the telomere length places a limit on the number of times mitotic division can proceed from one cell of a given telomere length. 2) The bigger issue right now probably lies in getting the DNA to properly "reboot" once put in an egg cell.
The same sequential strand of DNA assumes many configurations throughout the differentiated cells of an adult, depending on which sections of DNA are active for the particular tissue type. The unused sections will generally remain "packaged" in an unused and unusable state. The trick is to get the genome to return to the proper configuration of an embryonic undifferentiated cell. Failure to "reboot" this way can lead to developmental problems causing greater damage than the supposed "genetic damage" which the USA Today skreed touts as such a big risk. However, most of these problems lead to a non-viable spontaneously aborted fetus/embryo. As far as I understand it, the dangers of genetic damage with cloning are probably comparable to the dangers of genetic damage occuring in any normal pregnancy.
With that much said, I personally would not currently recommend cloning over natural reproduction if natural reproduction were normally possible. Also for those situations where normal reproduction is not possible, the risks are considerably less than the dangers of using fertility drugs to unnaturally induce human litters of up to seven. Compared to human cloning, the political establishment seems to hypocritically have no apparent concern for this much more dangerous practice.
As for this article, it completely lacks credibility and only effectively serves as an example of deceptive propaganda. I have my doubts that the author even actually understands the subject of which he writes.
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #21 on: 2003-02-28 14:08:59 » |
|
On another thread, Ophis noted the political news on cloning which I though belonged on this thread, so I will paste it here as well . . .
No Human Cloning in the US
« on: Today at 12:06:38 »
If you ask me, this is yet another sad example of the State putting its "nose" where it has no business...
America’s House of Representatives has voted, for the second time, to ban all forms of human cloning. But the bill faces a tough test in the Senate, where an alternative bill would allow therapeutic cloning, which offers the hope of treating diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes.
Read more: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1618207
« Last Edit: Today at 12:07:17 by Ophis »
[Jake] Yes, it seems to have started up again. Only this time the Republicans have an even larger majority in the house and a majority in the senate which they didn't have before. In addition Bush has managed to all but handpick the Senate majority leader (Frist). Things look pretty grim, and I would no longer count on just a ban on reproductive cloning. The Religious Right want a complete ban, including therapeutic cloning, and they have more power than ever before. Unfortunately evil sometimes wins, and right now I feel pessimistic on this issue.
Love,
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #22 on: 2003-03-02 23:55:32 » |
|
My expectation is that should mankind survive for any significant amount of time into the future, that cloning will be much more relevant than either the USA or the Judeo-Christian memeset driving the opposition to it. As such, cloning may well help to drive the replacement of H. sapiens.
No species in history has lasted forever (although some have lasted for much longer than others. Man, by any measure is a newcomer - our earliest identifiable cousins date back to (depending on who you listen to) at most some 2.8 million to 12 million years. Many species have had shorter runs than that - in more constant periods. Attempting to preserve ourselves in stasis in an evolving Universe will condemn us to irrelevancy. Even our existing evolutionary rate (one consistant allelle change per 2,500 years) is not nearly fast enough to track the changes we ourselves are imposing on our surroundings. And existing (Darwinian) evolution is neither beneficial, nor harmful, it simply happens. We could probably already do a better (superior fit to environment, much less waste (genetic failures who do not reproduce)) job of self-selecting than can nature (always "red in tooth and claw"). Bear in mind that even with Darwinian evolution, not all beneficial allelle frequency changes will be kept (they may not be beneficial in a given microenvironment or a benefit may come with other harmful implications) and not all harmful changes will be eliminated (they may not affect reproductive capability or preference - e.g. genetic senility usually occurs to late in life to generally affect breeding preferences).
So, unless mankind is eliminated, becomes redundant or is thrown back into the stone-age, cloning will continue and the probability is, will eventually become our primary reproductive mechanism, because if we are to develop at a pace matching our potential, we need to dispose of many of the stray odds and ends left behind by evolution, many of which are harmful, reduce the number of "poisonous" genes carried in our RNA and begin to make deliberate rather than random changes in our make-up in order to maintain relevance in a Universe where our creations vastly outstrip our own capabilities.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
On the ethics of human cloning
« Reply #23 on: 2003-03-12 07:30:31 » |
|
I, Clone
The Three Laws of Cloning will protect clones and advance science
Source: Scientific American
Author: Michael Shermer
Dated: 2003-03-10
In his 1950 science-fiction novel I, Robot, Isaac Asimov presented the Three Laws of Robotics: "1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
The irrational fears people express today about cloning parallel those surrounding robotics half a century ago. So I would like to propose Three Laws of Cloning that also clarify three misunderstandings: 1. A human clone is a human being no less unique in his or her personhood than an identical twin. 2. A human clone has all the rights and privileges that accompany this legal and moral status. 3. A human clone is to be accorded the dignity and respect due any member of our species.
Although such simplifications risk erasing the rich nuances found in ethical debates over pioneering research, they do aid in attenuating risible fears often associated with such advances. It appears that the Raelians have not succeeded in Xeroxing themselves, but it is clear that someone, somewhere, sometime soon is going to generate a human clone. And once one team has succeeded, it will be Katy bar the door for others to bring on the clones.
If cloning produces genetic monstrosities that render it impractical as another form of fertility enhancement, then it will not be necessary to ban it, because no one will use it. If cloning does work, however, there is no reason to forbid it, because the three common reasons given for implementing restrictions are myths. I call them the Identical Personhood Myth, the Playing God Myth, and the Human Rights and Dignity Myth.
The Identical Personhood Myth is well represented by activist Jeremy Rifkin: "It's a horrendous crime to make a Xerox of someone. You're putting a human into a genetic straitjacket." Baloney. He and fellow cloning critics have the argument bass ackward. As environmental determinists, they should be arguing: "Clone all you like--you'll never produce another you, because environment matters as much as heredity." The best scientific evidence to date indicates that roughly half the variance among us is accounted for by genetics and the rest by environment. It is impossible to duplicate the near-infinite number of permutations that come into play during the development of each individual, so cloning is no threat to unique personhood.
Clone all you like--you'll never produce another you.
The Playing God Myth has numerous promoters, among the latest being Stanley M. Hauerwas, a professor of theological ethics at Duke University: "The very attempt to clone a human being is evil. The assumption that we must do what we can do is fueled by the Promethean desire to be our own creators." In support of this myth, he is not alone. A 1997 Time/CNN poll revealed that 74 percent of 1,005 Americans answered "yes" to the question "Is it against God's will to clone human beings?" Balderdash. Cloning may seem to be "playing God" only because it is unfamiliar. Consider earlier examples of once "God-like" fertility technologies that are now cheerfully embraced because we have become accustomed to them, such as in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer.
The Human Rights and Dignity Myth is embodied in the Roman Catholic Church's official statement against cloning, based on the belief that it denies "the dignity of human procreation and of the conjugal union," as well as in a Sunni Muslim cleric's demand that "science must be regulated by firm laws to preserve humanity and its dignity." Bunkum. Clones will be no more alike than twins raised in separate environments, and no one is suggesting that twins do not have rights or dignity or that they should be banned.
Instead of restricting or preventing the technology, I propose that we adopt the Three Laws of Cloning, the principles of which are already incorporated in the laws and language of the U.S. Constitution, and allow science to run its course. The soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions. For science to progress, it must be given the opportunity to succeed or fail. Let's run the cloning experiment and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Bush's Clone Ban Plan Irrelevant
« Reply #24 on: 2009-04-28 03:30:44 » |
|
The miracle stem cell cures made in Britain
British scientists are among the world leaders in stem cell research - and their latest discoveries could transform medicine forever
Source: The Telegraph
Authors: Richard Gray
Dated: 2009-04-29
We have been told for almost a decade that stem cells are the future of medicine: that these tiny clumps of tissue could become a biological "repair kit", able to regenerate or heal almost any part of the body. But amid all the prophecies of patches for damaged hearts, new nerve cells for spinal injuries or stroke victims, and insulin-producing cells for diabetics, few people predicted that it would be British-based scientists who would be leading the way in mapping out this new terrain.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, Professor Steve Jones bemoaned the failure of genetic research to deliver on its promises. Yet no such complaint could be made about stem cells, the "prototype" cells that are capable of growing into any of the 300 different kinds of cell in the body. As they make the leap from the lab to the clinic, new breakthroughs and developments are emerging from British universities on an almost weekly basis. Scientists, normally hesitant to overstate the significance of any work, are starting to talk about a new era of medicine.
"The technology has come of age a lot faster than people expected," says Professor Pete Coffey of University College London. "We all saw this as a technology that had potential for clinical application, but it has gone very quickly down that route."
Of all people, Prof Coffey should know. Last week, he signed a deal with one of the world's biggest drug companies, Pfizer, to develop a treatment for a common cause of blindness. He has shown it is possible to use stem cells to halt the damage caused by age-related macular degeneration, a condition affecting more than 500,000 Britons, in which the cells that support the retina are progressively lost.
It follows other remarkable accomplishments. Researchers at Sheffield University last month announced that they had managed to grow the tiny hair cells found in the ear, which could one day be used to repair hearing in deaf patients. Doctors at Moorfields Eye Hospital have also successfully grown new corneas for patients blinded in accidents. And researchers from Bristol, who were behind the first successful transplant of a human windpipe, constructed at the end of 2008, last week announced plans for a clinical trial to repair cartilage-based sports injuries.
"The amount of work that is going on is incredibly diverse," says Ben Sykes, director of the UK National Stem Cell Network. "It is part of what makes Britain one of the world leaders in stem cell research."
It has been a long road to get this far. The study of animal stem cells began in this country in the early 1960s, with work at Cambridge University, but the problem with humans was that adult stem cells, which are found in most tissues in the body, have already started specialising into certain cell types. The field did not start to take off until American scientists isolated embryonic stem cells, which can be harvested from embryos that are just a few days old and coaxed into becoming almost any type of cell.
Realising the potential, Britain became the first country in the world to introduce legislation to regulate and support this controversial new field, in 2002. While other powerhouses of research, such as the United States, found themselves hindered by arguments about the ethics of harvesting stem cells from human embryos, Britain ploughed ahead. Not only did funding bodies put £40 million into kick-starting laboratory studies, but researchers who obtained licences to use human embryos to obtain stem cells were required to put the resulting cells into a bank that could be accessed by other scientists – a unique, and crucial, innovation that gave poorly funded teams easy access to cells.
There are now more than 100 teams working on stem cell research in Britain. "The number of groups has expanded pretty rapidly from just a few to large numbers of really high-class academics," explains Dr Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell biology laboratory at King's College London. "We haven't had the kind of hiccups that our colleagues in the US have had, with individual states banning research and a federal ban on funding under the Bush administration."
Dr Minger, who came to Britain from Kentucky around 13 years ago, is evidence of the benefits Britain has reaped from America's unpredictable and sometimes hostile attitude towards stem cells. Prof Coffey's association with Pfizer is only the latest example of American organisations and individuals funding research in Britain to escape this uncertainty, although a recent decision by President Obama to lift the ban on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research may change all that.
"I think the risk in the UK is that all of our early gains in getting ahead of the game over the past 10 years will fall by the wayside if we don't keep putting the money in to exploit those findings," says Professor Anthony Hollander, from University of Bristol. "There is a danger the Americans will jump ahead of us and utilise our findings, as has happened to so many other industries. That would be a tragedy."
Whether the scientists based here will be allowed to translate their successes into the clinic will depend on a combination of suitable funding, co-operation from the bodies that regulate clinical trials and the support of pharmaceutical companies.
But that should not stop us from celebrating the fact that Britain has the potential to be at the forefront of something great.
THE BRITISH BREAKTHROUGHS
University College London
Using embryonic stem cells, researchers have been able to grow replacement cells to repair tissue destroyed by the most common cause of blindness, age-related macular degeneration. Prof Pete Coffey and Pfizer hope to begin clinical trials in patients within the year.
Another trial involving heart-attack patients is already under way, using stem cells taken from the patient’s own bone marrow. Professor John Martin, who is leading the research, believes the stem cells can help repair some of the damage caused by heart attacks.
University of Bristol
It was announced in November, in a blaze of publicity, that researchers including Professor Martin Birchall and Professor Anthony Hollander had worked with doctors in Barcelona to create the first organ to be grown from stem cells – a windpipe transplanted into Claudia Castillo, a 30-year-old from Barcelona. Prof Hollander announced last week that he had established a new company, Azellon, to create “cellular bandages” from patients’ bone-marrow stem cells which can be transplanted to repair torn knee cartilage. His colleague Dr Raimondo Ascione is also due to start work on another clinical trial using stem cells to repair damage caused during heart attacks.
University of Edinburgh
The university has a major centre for regenerative medicine, headed by Sir Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep. Scientists there recently announced that they had found a way to make an almost limitless supply of stem cells without using human embryos. Following earlier work by Japanese scientists, they “reprogrammed” skin cells from adults, in effect winding the clock back so that they behaved like embryonic cells. The breakthrough promises to help overcome many of the ethical controversies involved in using embryonic stem cells. Researchers are also undertaking a major study into finding treatments for multiple sclerosis.
King’s College London
One of the most exciting pieces of research – although still at an early stage – is a technique to repair damage in the brain caused by strokes, after Dr Mike Modo, together with researchers at Nottingham University, found that stem cells implanted into the brains of rats formed new brain tissue and nerve connections. Dr Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell laboratory, also holds one of only three UK licences to work with hybrid human-animal embryos, using the animal eggs as a “factory” from which to obtain human stem cells.
University of Sheffield
Dr Marcelo Rivolta last month announced that he could treat the damage to hair cells and neurons, deep inside the ear, that causes almost 90 per cent of hearing loss, by growing new cells and nerves.
Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
Patients who have lost their sight in chemical accidents or through rare genetic diseases have had it partially restored thanks to a stem cell treatment developed by Dr Julie Daniels and her team. Using stem cells from tissue donors, they were able to grow new corneas in the laboratory for transplant.
Cambridge University
The stem cell pioneer Professor Austin Smith and his team announced in February that they had managed to reprogram adult mouse cells so that they behaved in a similar way to embryonic stem cells. This approach had the added benefit that it did not involve the potentially harmful viruses used by other groups around the world to transfer the new genetic instructions to the patient’s cells.
Newcastle University
Britain’s first hybrid human-animal embryo was created there last year, in an effort to develop new stem cell treatments for disorders such as Parkinson’s and strokes.
Professor Lyle Armstrong led the research team that merged human genetic material with an egg from a cow. Other work at the centre has seen Dr Karim Nayernia coax bone marrow stem cells into forming sperm stem cells, which could help treat male infertility.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
