I think this is close to what I am asking about
:
1) It appears that Harvard Stem Cell Institute (as do a few others world wide) derive/or wish to derive most of their embryonic stem cell lines from a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) IE cloning...from their (Harvard's) web site:
Kieth This is done in an effort to create a line that they can use that will require no embryonic stem cells once that line is established.
Also,
From Wikipedia:
"...Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a laboratory technique for creating a clonal embryo...."
"...After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism...."
Wikipedia
Sort of yes but not exactly
Here is a link to the entire Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic...clear_transfer
This certainly does not sound like left over IVF embryos to me...in fact, that is dispelled in the quote above.
Actually yes they are and that is the point. They are using the limited left over embryos they are able to get and then using the genetic material to "clone" more. It is not easy to obtain them. I have only sent them less than 10 total in the past three years and that took months of paperwork and hoop jumping to get it done.
Further, it appears that embryonic stem cells have a distinct advantage (at least a perceived advantage) over adult stem cells in that adult stem cells are limited as to what they can "morph" into where as embryonic stem cells can basically "morph" into any kind of cell...right/wrong? This explains the push for the research as I wanted to know.
Yes in short that is the answer. "Adult" stem cells seem to be somewhat programed as to what they may become whereas embryonic stem cells are not and have the potential to become anything.
This whole thing smells fishy. Cloning embryos (does not count as a clone until implantation remember), distributing them world wide...(see below from this web site):http: //www.mcb.harvard.edu/melton/hues/ :
"...As with all of our published reagents, it is our intention to make these cell lines as freely available to the research community as possible. In this instance, the HUES cells may be subject to patent and federal or state legislative restrictions that are beyond our control. Harvard University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) have worked hard to establish a simple procedure that will enable us to provide the cells to the research community with as few encumbrances as possible..."
Where does it end? Remember, one characteristic of a narcicist is that the methodolgies used by one are justifiable as long as the end goal of their desire is met. I am really concerned about someone who says that moral values do not matter as long as science is advanced (Obama).
you are missing the point of this. They are creating cell lines that will keep going and by doing so they will not need as many/any cells from embryos.
One thing to keep in mind is that the field of science is one that still maintains a very high level of integrity. Honesty and sharing with your peers both for the sake of research as well as a review of your methods, techniques, and results is a big part of “doing business”. Once these lines are created they can/will be shared with other researchers to further their work and again reduce the number of embryos needed to continue such research. Keep in mind that these cell lines are very protected by the facilities that created them and it is not like you can pick up the phone and call Harvard and order a couple of dozen, it is just not an easy thing to do even for those who are truly in the field. It is most unfortunate that much of what people hear and believe is far from the truth. You know well that IVF is a good thing and that in MOST hands it is done responsibly, however, we all know about octomom, so of course just like any profession there are bad apples and most of those are outcast from their peers (the fool doctor responsible for octomom is an outcast in our professional society and has been for a long time). Will “bad” things ever happen with ESC’s, who knows but in my professional opinion it will not.
By the way, all the talk about blastocysts, embryos, etc. are terms derived from the eugenically based evolutionary chart are they not? In mimic form of so-called human race evolution an individual person also "evolves" through various stages. That is why scientists can determine what stage "life" begins according to a flow chart of evolutionary divisions. Here is how it goes (correct me if I am wrong):
I will have to say you are wrong. I am not sure, however, I am sure the terms zygote, morula (you forgot one if you want to follow this chart) and blastocyst go way back, I will have to pull out my old developmental bio book at the office tomorrow. This chart is also wrong in that a zygote (two pronuclear bodies) and a blastocyst ARE EMBRYOS so while a zygote becomes a morula and then a blastocyst, all are already embryos so truely sperm and egg become embryo.... Note some people do use the term "pre embryo" but it is not a standard thing
stage 1)-Sperm and egg become a zygote
stage 2)-Zygote becomes a blastocyst
stage-3)-Blastocyst becomes an embryo
stage-4)-Embryo becomes a fetus
stage-5)- Fetus becomes an infant
stage-6)-Infant becomes a child
stage-7)-Child becomes an adult
stage-8)-Adult becomes a geriatric (old person)
stage-9)-Geriatric becomes a corpse
The question becomes what determines a "person's" value? Is it completing a certain stage? Is it size, weight, complexity? Is it one's value to society? Is it the inheritance of rights (as Obama discussed in his senate floor speech against BAIPA)?
If the earliest stages are defined as not being a human then why? What about the later stage...is that the next step in devaluaing people? It was in germany:
Viktor Brack:
“In many hospitals and nursing homes of the Reich there are countless people with incurable diseases of every kind, people who are of no use at all to the rest of humanity, who are only a burden on society, incurring endless costs for their maintenance, and there is absolutely no prospect of these people ever recovering and becoming useful members of society again. They sit and vegetate like animals, they are social misfits undeserving of life – and yet physically they are perfectly healthy human beings who may well live on for many more years. They eat the food that could be given to others, and in many cases they need twice or three times as much nursing care. The rest of society needs to be protected against these people. Given that we need to make provision now for keeping healthy people alive, it is all the more necessary to get rid of these creatures first, even if only to take better care for now of the curable patients in our hospitals and nursing homes. The space thus freed up is needed for all kinds of things essential to the war effort: military hospitals, civilian hospitals and auxiliary hospitals.”
I am done now.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Keith Farmer
