Science avoids one dilemma, finds another?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

07/23/2009 01:17:21 PM · #1

Scientists breed mice from skin cells in China

This is really interesting stuff. It's amazing how the understanding of stem cells and cloning has advanced in less than our lifetimes. The title of the thread refers to the fact this demonstration may diffuse the ethical controversy over using embryonic stem cells by reducing (or even eliminating) the need to use them. However, the article points out a potential Brave New World where it could be possible to clone people from their skin cells (without their consent) or grow clones for the purpose of harvesting organs.

I find this to be an excellent example of how Science is a powerful tool, but needs the realm of Philosophy to guide it along ethical paths. I like Einstein's quote, "Religion without Science is blind. Science without Religion (or philosophy for you humanists out there) is lame."

ErikV

Nikon D7000

07/23/2009 01:34:24 PM · #2

I am already working on cloning

librodo and

IreneM so I can put the clones to work taking photos I can enter in future challenges. But don't worry, I won't do something unethical like clone another

DrAchoo.

07/23/2009 01:36:26 PM · #3

Originally posted by ErikV:

I am already working on cloning librodo and IreneM so I can put the clones to work taking photos I can enter in future challenges. But don't worry, I won't do something unethical like clone another DrAchoo.

Sweet! Will you order me up a

njsabs2323 /

LalliSig combo while you are at it. Someone's gotta make it to Iceland though to grab some hairs from Larus...

07/23/2009 01:57:16 PM · #4

I'll make a few points:

1) Thank goodness Obama lifted the ban - This article sadly demonstrates how the U.S. has fallen behind on scientific research, where it just may have been at the forefront of this new wave of technology & medicine. I can't believe we discouraged the advancement of such a promising line of research for so long. These are the kinds of policies that not only cost jobs & money, but diminish our world reputation in the field of science, and halt the influx of smart minds into the states.

2) What humans can do, they will do - if they have a reason. I agree, obviously, cloned humans roaming the earth is a scary scenario. But if it can be done, you better believe someone will do it, and we should jump on board to be there with a strong voice when and if the time comes to institute international policies concerning this stuff. Our abstention from legitimate research will do nothing to prevent any horror scenarios.

07/23/2009 02:04:22 PM · #5

This has happened before, using human skin cells.
Canadian Discovery

The good news about all of this is that these are ethically derived stem cells. Because no human embryos are used, the discussion that this destroys human life is out.

I am no Bush supporter, but one has to wonder, if there hadn't been a ban on the use of embryonic stem cells, there may not have been a push for ethically derived stem cells.

07/23/2009 02:11:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by VitaminB:

This has happened before, using human skin cells.
Canadian Discovery

That work was the work this was built upon. While we knew we could get what looked to be stem cells from skin cells, this was an important piece of proof that they are, indeed, identical to stem cells.

07/23/2009 02:23:08 PM · #7

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
This has happened before, using human skin cells.
Canadian Discovery

That work was the work this was built upon. While we knew we could get what looked to be stem cells from skin cells, this was an important piece of proof that they are, indeed, identical to stem cells.

Yeah, even in the article in the Canadian discovery, the speak of a Japanese discovery that made it all possible.

I teach biology at a catholic high school, and raise the issue in class with the following propositions:

In Support of Embryonic Stem Cells
Embryonic stem cells hold the potential to treat and possibly cure many of the ailments that humans suffer from. The embryos used are excess embryos from in-vitro fertilization, and if they are being discarded, they should be used as they contain cells that have the potential to differentiate into many other types of cells. They are better to the alternative sources such as umbilical cord and skin cell clones, as they are more plentiful, grow quickly and are easy to manipulate.

In Support of Alternate Sources of Stem Cells
Embryonic stem cells hold the potential to treat and possibly cure many of the ailments that humans suffer from. The use of embryos to obtain stem cells, however, is regarded as unethical by many. There are alternative sources of stem cells, such as umbilical cord tissue and skin cell clones, that should be utilized instead.

07/23/2009 02:23:54 PM · #8

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Because no human embryos are used, the discussion that this destroys human life is out.

I am no Bush supporter, but one has to wonder, if there hadn't been a ban on the use of embryonic stem cells, there may not have been a push for ethically derived stem cells.

What is unethical about using embryos to help people? Doctors fertilize many eggs for in vitro fertilization, then toss out the rest - this is done so that women who cannot otherwise become pregnant may have children, is that wrong?

I'm not saying we should go about things haphazardly, but my point is, why do embryos get priority over real, live, suffering human beings who could benefit from this technology?

-Adam

07/23/2009 02:31:37 PM · #9

Originally posted by AP:

Where would the line be drawn? In some of the dilemmas I brought up IVF embryos are not an option. What about creating an embryo that is your clone and then growing the fetus to the point where you can harvest a kidney or liver? As you point out, this likely could be done. But should it be done? I disagree with your assertion that whatever can be done will be done and thus should be done. Science and technology are amoral. We have all sorts of technology to do things we later understand as being unethical. It remains the job of philosophy to discuss which things ought to be done.

Message edited by author 2009-07-23 14:32:24.

07/23/2009 02:33:43 PM · #10

Originally posted by AP:

Many people maintain that human life begins at conception, not at 3 months gestation, or 6 months, or another arbitrary date. So, fertilized human embryos are humans to them, and 'tossing out the rest' is like tossing out babies. Mind you, these same people are also opposed to in vitro fertilization as well.

I'm not saying that it is wrong that women who cannot get pregnant can have kids... I think everyone that wants to have children should.

Then there is the argument that 'its going to happen anyway... embryo's are going to be thrown out, so you may as well use them'. This is true, in vitro is an established, and accepted practice, and excess embryos are being made. I for one would like to see in vitro become more efficient in its success rates so that creating multiple embryos is not necessary, leaving no embryos to be discarded. But, as long as they find uses for the embryos, there will be no incentive to become more efficient.

07/23/2009 02:37:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,...

I just want to correct a common definitional mistake that is often brought up when discussing these issues. What you mean to say is that many people maintain that "personhood" begins at conception. That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult. "Life" is really a scientific term and it is a no-brainer that a human embryo qualifies as a "human life".

Not pointing at you specifically here, but I see this all the time and it only serves to muddle what is already a murky debate.

07/23/2009 02:41:08 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,...

I just want to correct a common definitional mistake that is often brought up when discussing these issues. What you mean to say is that many people maintain that "personhood" begins at conception. That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult. "Life" is really a scientific term and it is a no-brainer that a human embryo qualifies as a "human life".

Not pointing at you specifically here, but I see this all the time and it only serves to muddle what is already a murky debate.

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. I will be sure to bring that up in my classes as well.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/23/2009 02:49:55 PM · #13

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It remains the job of philosophy to discuss which things ought to be done.

Yes, that's definitely where we agree!

My philosophy is that the prevention of human suffering should be of the highest priority. Embryos don't suffer - a fly has a more developed nervous system - but human beings do suffer, and suffer they do immensely. I am willing to make that trade off, 'collateral damage' if you will, although that sounds callous, in order to help real world human beings.

Same can be said for the U.S. & Vatican's condom policy in Africa - I think the prevention of the suffering that accompanies AIDs is far more tragic than the use of contraception.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/23/2009 02:50:12 PM · #14

Originally posted by VitaminB:

The good news about all of this is that these are ethically derived stem cells. Because no human embryos are used, the discussion that this destroys human life is out.

If one of these cells is capable of being grown into a person, how is it ethically distinguishable from a fertilized ovum?

07/23/2009 02:54:21 PM · #15

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
The good news about all of this is that these are ethically derived stem cells. Because no human embryos are used, the discussion that this destroys human life is out.

If one of these cells is capable of being grown into a person, how is it ethically distinguishable from a fertilized ovum?

I think the more apt comparison would be a sperm or egg cell. Although the skin derived stem cell would contain the full complement of 46 chromosomes (different from sperm or egg), they would need further manipulation to become an embryo. In fact, I'm not sure that exact process has even been done. In the article mentioned, the stem cells were placed into an existing mouse embryo where they fell into line and developed the mouse. They did not simply manipulate the stem cells to cause them to start to divide like an embryo.

07/23/2009 02:58:30 PM · #16

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,...

That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult.

Well I'd like to challenge you on that...

First it needs to be refined - if 'conception' is the key, then what about when that embryo splits and becomes twins, or the fuses back into a chimera? Is this new life and then the extinguishing of a life?

But mainly the host of legal impracticalities that would necessarily follow from that proposition - Killing a 1-day pregnant woman is now double-murder?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/23/2009 02:58:54 PM · #17

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I don't think that stem cells derived from skin cells should be allowed to grow into a human. I view them as modified skin cells that are void of personhood. That is why the OP outlined the new dilemma, what if one of these were to grow into a person. The question then becomes, in that situation, when is personhood acheived.

Policy decisions have to be made to ensure that stem cells created for therapy are not used for reproductive cloning.

Originally posted by AP:

My philosophy is that the prevention of human suffering should be of the highest priority. Embryos don't suffer - a fly has a more developed nervous system - but human beings do suffer, and suffer they do immensely. I am willing to make that trade off, 'collateral damage' if you will, although that sounds callous, in order to help real world human beings.

I agree that human suffering should be prevented, but in the end, it is inevitable anyway. I dont think that one persons suffering should come at the expense of another. Just because an embryo doesn't 'feel it', doesn't mean they should be considered expendable. Ask an embryo in a few years if they would agree to be someone elses medical treatment, and you may get a different response.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/23/2009 02:58:57 PM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
The good news about all of this is that these are ethically derived stem cells. Because no human embryos are used, the discussion that this destroys human life is out.

If one of these cells is capable of being grown into a person, how is it ethically distinguishable from a fertilized ovum?

I think the more apt comparison would be a sperm or egg cell.

07/23/2009 03:05:22 PM · #19

Originally posted by AP:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Many people maintain that human life begins at conception,...

That is, human rights should be bestowed upon an embryo like they are a baby or adult.

Well I'd like to challenge you on that...

I wasn't stating my personal position in this. I was saying this is the position held by many. It's more proper to couch the argument around the term "personhood" than around the term "life".

07/23/2009 03:06:04 PM · #20

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I would hope not. I would like to think that all humans, regardless of the events of their embryonic development, can be considered fully human.

07/23/2009 03:07:34 PM · #21

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I think the more apt comparison would be a sperm or egg cell.

Is there an ethical difference between a ovum fertilized in vitro vs. one created by intercourse? If the end result of the scientific manipulation is a human clone, how do you ethically distinguish between the various possible precursors? [/quote]

Well, I think the important point for the discussion at hand would be the stem cells derived from the skin cells never need to become an embryo to be helpful. They can be directly manipulated into liver cells or nerve cells or muscle cells or whatever. They skip the whole "embryo" process.

Look at it this way. Your body is full of stem cells as we speak. You wouldn't consider them to be equivalent to embryos would you? There is no argument whether the pluripotent stem cells in your bone marrow should be given human rights...

07/23/2009 03:08:50 PM · #22

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Well, just because suffering is inevitable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit it. The world is a much less grim place than it was 500 years ago, and that is an undeniably good thing.

I don't see "potential" as a real justification - the key difference is that one person is already alive and suffering, and the other is not. There are trillions of potential humans that never make it to conception or if fertilized, get lost in the many stages of pregnancy.

If the actualization of 'potential' is what we want, then everybody should be getting pregnant as often as possible. If you then ask that child how he feels about it, of course be glad that he made it to the earth.

07/23/2009 03:11:04 PM · #23

Originally posted by AP:

First it needs to be refined - if 'conception' is the key, then what about when that embryo splits and becomes twins, or the fuses back into a chimera? Is this new life and then the extinguishing of a life?

But mainly the host of legal impracticalities that would necessarily follow from that proposition - Killing a 1-day pregnant woman is now double-murder?

I think conception is an acceptable marker of when a new human being is made. It is genetically distinct from its mother and father, so therefore cannot be considered equivalent to a skin cell, or liver cell. While many fertilized eggs do not make it to birth, many still do. So, the embryo is considered a distinct human.

Regarding legal implications, there have been cases when a pregnant woman is murdered, the accused is charged with double murder. These are usually in cases where she is obviously pregnant. Now, I dont agree with murder either, so I have no problem with charging murderers with double homicide in such cases.

07/23/2009 03:12:50 PM · #24

Originally posted by AP:

the key difference is that one person is already alive and suffering, and the other is not.

This is where our opinions and philosophies differ. Unless of course you mean to say that the embryo is alive, just not suffering ;)