stem cell research & human cloning

[lilithu]

In November of 1998, after years of studying embryonic mouse stem cells, biologists at the University of Wisconsin figured out how to isolate stem cells from human embryos and grown them in culture. This opened the possibility of human embryonic stem cell research, the possibility for the cures of a number of debilitating diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, MS, ALS, heart disease... and a host of ethical questions that society has yet to answer. A search of Congressional legislation yields no legislative activity on stem cell research from 1989 (as far back as the online records go) to 1996. Starting in the 105th Congress (1997-1998) there was one piece of legislation on stem cell research, and about a half dozen attempting to ban human cloning, and there have been various pieces of legislation introduced ever since. So far in the current 109th session of Congress, 8 pending pieces of legislation relating to stem cell research have been introduced (or reintroduced from previous sessions) and referred to various committees. Hence, it is clear that the discovery led to Congressional activity but no legislative decision has been made at the federal level.

In the mean time, in 2001 President Bush federally funded embryonic stem cell research to pre-existing lines of cultured embryonic stem cells. There has been much debate over whether the existing cell lines are adequate for research. Of the original lines, only 11 remain. Bush only had the power to restrict federal funding, leaving an opening for embryonic stem cell research to continue funded by state and private money. In response to Bush’s restrictions, in 2002, California became the first state to pass legislation that simultaneously prohibits human cloning and legally protects stem cell research. In 2004, New Jersey followed suit. Two other states, Arkansas and North Dakota have voted to ban all types of human cloning, including “therapeutic cloning” (the intentional creation of embryonic stem cells). Bills both favoring and against stem cell research are currently pending in 25 states. While Congress has yet to act, the issue of stem cell research is being decided at the state level.

It is interesting to note that the two states who have passed legislation in favor of "therapeutic cloning" are both economically dependant on biomedical research companies within their borders. In contrast, the two states that have banned "therapeutic cloning" both have strong, organized represenation from the religious right. Because embryonic stem cell research requires harvesting from human embryos, this issue has been emotionally linked with the abortion issue. However, the majority of embryos are created in vitro (never see a human womb), some for the express purpose of research, but much more often for the purpose of human fertility treatments (in vitro fertilization). These embryos are frozen for storage at a few days development and would be otherwise destroyed. On the other hand, some believe that a human embryo is a human being at conception, with all the rights thereofe. Still others worry that embryonic stem cell research will further erode our respect for human life.

What are your views on this issue?

 

[Scott1]

In short, the "therapeutic" case for human cloning is as medically questionable as it is morally abhorrent.

Full text here.

 

[lilithu]

Full text here.

Scott, I respect your moral opposition to the use of human embryos in research. The main reason that I started this thread (and poll) was to get feedback from a variety of views. However, the link that you provided is unconvincing scientifically. (I'm not commenting on the moral position.) It simply isn't true that adult stem cells can completely replace the uses of embryonic stem cells. While adult stem cells are far more plastic than originally thought, they still remain partially "determined" and cannot take on all the roles that embryonic stem cells potentially can.

Plus, the article doesn't address the fact that most of these embryos have already been (and are continuing to be) created in fertility clinics. The standard procedure for in vitro fertilization is to create many more fertilized embryos than are necessary for implantation. The "surplus" would be destroyed anyway if not used for research. It may be the case that you feel this practice is wrong as well. I respect that. But then, would you legally ban or modify in vitro fertilization? And what about the pre-existing embryos?
-lilith

 

[Pah]

The term cloning is used by scientists to describe many different processes that involve making duplicates of biological material.
National Human Genome Research Institue, National Institute of Health, http://www.genome.gov/10004765

For those who believe that the embryo has the moral status of a person from the moment of conception, research or any other activity that would destroy it is wrong. For those who believe the human embryo deserves some measure of respect, but disagree that the respect due should equal that given to a fully formed human, it could be considered immoral not to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to develop potential cures for disease affecting millions of people. An additional concern related to public policy is whether federal funds should be used for research that some Americans find unethical.
ibid

In July 2001, the House of Representatives voted 265 to 162 to make any human cloning a criminal offense, including cloning to create an embryo for derivation of stem cells rather than to produce a child. In August 2002, President Bush, contending with a DHHS decision made during the Clinton administration, stated in a prime-time television address that federal support would be provided for research using a limited number of stem cell colonies already in existence (derived from leftover IVF embryos). Current bills before Congress would ban all forms of cloning outright, prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes, and impose a moratorium on cloning to derive stem cells for research, or prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes while allowing cloning for therapeutic purposes to go forward. As of late June, the Senate has taken no action. President Bush's Bioethics Council is expected to recommend the prohibition of reproductive cloning and a moratorium on therapeutic cloning later this summer.
ibid

All stem cell research approved by the government is derived from embryos.

 

[BUDDY]

I am morally opposed to embyonic stem cell research and human cloning. There are plenty of other places to get stem cell s to continue the research and I am okay with that.

 

[Pah]

National Conference of State Legislatures[/url

There are four primary sources for embryonic stem cells: existing stem cell lines, aborted or miscarried fetuses/embryos, unused in vitro fertilized embryos, and cloned embryos. Current federal policy limits federally funded research to research conducted on embryonic stem cell lines created before August 2001. Federal funding of research involving cloning for the purpose of reproduction or research is prohibited. However, there is no federal law banning human cloning altogether. The Food and Drug Administration has claimed authority over the regulation of human cloning technology as an investigational new drug (IND) and stated that at this time, they would not approve any projects involving human cloning for safety reasons, but Congress has not passed legislation confirming the FDA's authority to prohibit cloning.

The site also has a table of state law current as of 2003.

 

[Fluffy]

No cloning. No embryonic research of any kind. But using cells from consenting human adults is ok.

I voted for this option but, I stupidly missed the final option which I really should have gone for.

I really feel like this: Cloning is a form of reproduction (viable but not as a effective in my opinion as sexual reproduction). Therefore I see no reason why it should not be allowed if people wish to have offspring in this way. However, cloning embryos for scientific research or any other reason other than leading a normal life I do not agree with. Also I think better research needs to be done to make sure this method is safe and does not do any long lasting damage (All I know about are the genetic defects in dolly the sheep, caused by her cloning but I dont know how much cloning techniques have been refined since then.)

Stem cell research I am less clear cut on. I feel that it is probably better to use already aborted foetuses for stem cell research etc. as long as this doesnt produce culture of aborting to sell the foetuses for research, or create a demand in any way. However, I would prefer to see the majority of stem cell research done on adult or cord blood stem cells.

Also, is it possible to extract a few stem cells from a growing foetus without killing it?

 

[lilithu]

Hi Fluffy, namaste.

I voted for this option but, I stupidly missed the final option which I really should have gone for.

I really feel like this: Cloning is a form of reproduction (viable but not as a effective in my opinion as sexual reproduction). Therefore I see no reason why it should not be allowed if people wish to have offspring in this way. However, cloning embryos for scientific research or any other reason other than leading a normal life I do not agree with.

You hold a very unusual view, at least with respect to the United States. That's not a judgement of the rightness or wrongness of your view (obviously); just an observation. In the U.S., there are few supporters for reproductive cloning (despite this poll). Ten states have outlawed it. Otoh, there is stronger support for therapeutic cloning, even tho it requires the killing of the embryo. I'm not exactly sure why the discrepancy. (I actually think you do make a good point about the clone having a normal life versus being killed and used for someone elses needs.) At least part of it would be that human reproductive cloning is too dangerous right now.

Also I think better research needs to be done to make sure this method is safe and does not do any long lasting damage (All I know about are the genetic defects in dolly the sheep, caused by her cloning but I dont know how much cloning techniques have been refined since then.)

Dolly was born with "old" cells. The nucleus of an adult ewe (the donor) was transfered into an egg whose own nucleus had been removed. The "pre-embryo" was then implanted into a host mother and allowed to develop naturally. However, instead of having cells the age of a newborn, Dolly had cells the age of the donor. Dolly was the one success out 276 tries. More recent advances in reproductive cloning have got the success rate up to 1-2%, but that's still ridiculously low. Cloned animals suffer from immune deficiencies, significantly higher rates of cancer, and die young.

In 2002, a biotech group associated with a cult, claimed to have cloned the first human, a baby girl named "Eve." But that claim was never substantiated. Cloning still remains too risky and too expensive to be a viable means of reproduction at this time.

Stem cell research I am less clear cut on. I feel that it is probably better to use already aborted foetuses for stem cell research etc. as long as this doesnt produce culture of aborting to sell the foetuses for research, or create a demand in any way. However, I would prefer to see the majority of stem cell research done on adult or cord blood stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are actually more desirable than foetal stem cells. Embryonic stem cells (4-5 days old) are relatively easy to isolate and are "pluripotent." That is, they can give rise to many different cell types. Most foetal stem cells (> 8 weeks) have lost their pluripotency, except those in the germline (which would form the gonads). These cells are harder to isolate. Also, aborted foetuses are a controversial source. Whereas using surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization treatments is less controversial, since those embryos would otherwise be destroyed. Adult and cord blood stem cells are not pluripotent. They are limited in the number of types of cells that they can give rise to. (Altho that's not always a disadvantage.)

Also, is it possible to extract a few stem cells from a growing foetus without killing it?

Without killing it? Maybe. Without seriously damaging it. No. Plus, it's not necessary.

Thanks for the considered response.
-lilith

 

[Cr0wley]

I am morally opposed to embyonic stem cell research and human cloning. There are plenty of other places to get stem cell s to continue the research and I am okay with that.

Agreed, cloning is a stupid idea. There are WAY too many humans on this world already, we don't need more.

But the stem cell research to aid people already born, that I can agree with...

 

[Fluffy]

There are WAY too many humans on this world already, we don't need more.

Thats an interesting way of looking at it. Would you oppose all forms of reproduction (for a period of time) soley to reduce world population? If not why is it merely this form that takes your fancy?

 

[ker krypter]

yes and yes

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Food and Drug Administration has claimed authority over the regulation of human cloning technology as an investigational new drug (IND)

Here we go. Well, any possibility of this being a good thing just went down the drain. Pretty soon they are going to determine that pregnancy is a disease, and medicate women to control the population.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm all for using stem cells (from any source) in the effort to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for people that suffer from these diseases. I say this knowing full well that I am in the minority - that is, I do not see embryonic stem cells in the same light that most people do.

I would not espouse the intentional abortion of fetuses for the purpose of obtaining stem cells, but once the decision has been made to carry out an abortion, it almost seems criminal to me that we would not utilize that tissue to the fullest extent that science can use it.

TVOR

 

[Jaymes]

EnhancedSpirit... please do tell that to someone who has need for the results stem cells produce. I'm sure they'd love hearing it's all Bad and Evil because the Big Bad Corporation does it.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

EnhancedSpirit... please do tell that to someone who has need for the results stem cells produce. I'm sure they'd love hearing it's all Bad and Evil because the Big Bad Corporation does it.

No, Jensa. I saved that arguement for another thread. I only speak against manipulation and lies.

I'm not against medicine, I'm not against doctors, I'm not against healing. I'm not against the miraculous things that researchers can uncover, and discover.

 

[lilithu]

I'm all for using stem cells (from any source) in the effort to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for people that suffer from these diseases. I say this knowing full well that I am in the minority - that is, I do not see embryonic stem cells in the same light that most people do.

I would not espouse the intentional abortion of fetuses for the purpose of obtaining stem cells, but once the decision has been made to carry out an abortion, it almost seems criminal to me that we would not utilize that tissue to the fullest extent that science can use it.

TVOR

Hey TVOR, namaste.

What about the intentional creation of embryos? That is, what about intentionally performing IVF (in vitro fertilization) to create human embryos for the express purpose of killing them to harvest stem cells?

You said "from any source" but do not espouse intentional abortion. So it wasn't entirely clear to me where you stand on theraputic cloning, for example. Is if all fine as long as the embryo has never touched a human womb? And if so, why does that make a difference?

 

[lilithu]

Here we go. Well, any possibility of this being a good thing just went down the drain.

Well, some part of the federal govt has got to regulate this biotechnology. If not the FDA, then who? (tho I do wonder about refering to human foetuses as "drugs.")

Pretty soon they are going to determine that pregnancy is a disease, and medicate women to control the population.

That's already been done. It's called Planned Parenthood.

Before the pro-choicers (of which I am one) start jumping on me, I'm refering to the founding mission of that organization, not what they do today. And if you don't know about it, you ought to.

 

[michel]

I'm all for using stem cells (from any source) in the effort to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for people that suffer from these diseases. I say this knowing full well that I am in the minority - that is, I do not see embryonic stem cells in the same light that most people do.

I would not espouse the intentional abortion of fetuses for the purpose of obtaining stem cells, but once the decision has been made to carry out an abortion, it almost seems criminal to me that we would not utilize that tissue to the fullest extent that science can use it.

TVOR

I couldn't have put it better myself TVOR; the trouble is that allowing anything in Society lays the path bare for people to abuse the system, and I can understand the people who feel that this is territory that is too fraught with bad implications to be considered. As usual, any 'Good' that can come out of this will be prohibited because of the danger of exploitation.

 

[Original Freak]

No human reproductive cloning, but "therapeutic" cloning (creating embryonic stem cells) is ok.

I don't see any real reason for cloning a person. The only thing that can come close for me is to have a child that would otherwise be impossible. The reason I can't agree to this is the fact there is no shortage of orphaned children who can use a set of loving parents. Until this problem is solved the other is not a viable solution to me.




Alzheimer’s, paralysis, blindness, cancer, and so many other’s. I say take the available cells and use them to our advantage. Find the cures, I’m sure we can and it’s a freakin shame we haven’t gone forward full steam ahead.

 

[johnnys4life]

Umm...do you guys read the news? Do you even know what these people are doing? I read in the Columbus Dispatch that these wacko scientists are injecting human embryo stem cells into sheeps and creating animals that have partly human brains.

The idea that a human's brain could be trapped in the body of a sheep is no longer a farfetched science fiction horror story - in fact it could be happening already. The scientists claim that the sheep who have human internal organs are great for harvesting organs, but they are getting more and more bold in what they are trying to do. It is so incredibly twisted.

They claim they have never seen the sheep "act like anything but sheep" but they say thier "ethics" (bah) committee advised them to immediately kill any sheep that they see acting like humans.

And as for cloning - get ready for the aryan nation.