stem cell reasearch
I posted this on a frienster discusson group.. I am putting it here for safe keeping as after 30days post drop off..
I APPOLIGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THE MANY TYPOS AND GRAMMATICAL MISTAKES
I love it when people who don't know speak as if they do....
First there are 2 areas of Stem Cell research.. First is adult stem cells.. the United states has always been on the fore front of this area and currently we fund it with over 300 million dollars to private research and many times that through DOD.. I have a number of friends that are grad students working for the DOD and some of their fellow students are working on Adult stem cells.. The exact amount of money that the DOD is spending is not known because actually funding level per projects are no disclosed to the general public for obvious reasons.. The DOD's research budget is north of 69 billion a year and this is where most research is routed for the us.. Everything from GPS to Spread Spectrum Radar comes from DOD research..
Back to adult stem cells.. For many years and with some amazing advancements.. Though still not able to make the lame walk. We have managed to restore feeling in paralyzed limbs and even have limited movement. This will be where much of the actually medical advancements will come.. Basically Stem Cells are separate from a person's own blood stream then replicated and put back into an area of damaged tissue primarily in The nervous system often lower back spinal cord injuries... No one is debating the morality or funding for this research..
The second major kind of stem cell research is Embryonic Stem cell.. This is where an egg is fertilized and allow to grow and then killed and harvested for cells for research purposes.. Few if any scientist think that medical advancements will come from this form of research.. But that is still unknown. The main purpose of this research is to study effective means of growing stem cells and understanding how they differ from other cells.. These can not simply be inserted into a person's damaged body as they have the genetic information of the life form they were taking from.. Clearly this would be a bad thing.. Still there is some use in this form of research..
When President bush took office limited amounts of money were available for stem cell research and No money was used for embryonic stem cell.. Many American tax payers feel that life begins at conception.. most people will admit a baby is being grown in a pregnant women's belly.. Still some don't think it is a life form until actual birth so the baby growing in my housemate’s belly is not a belly but a group of cells.. Regardless of which side you are most people understand that both sides have a right to their opinion..
Now the wisdom of president Bush is he saw that there was useful research to be done with embryonic stem cells and became the FIRST president to authorize federal funding of EMBRIONIC stem cell research.. I just want everyone to be clear about this because it is a common myth that he doesn't support it.. And it has nothing to do with what George W Bush actually supports.. It is the concept that many tax payers do not want to fund research that is immoral.. What President Bush Authorized was that Embryonic stem cells which were currently being studied would be funded by the Federal government to the tune of 30 million dollars a year which was far more then the private sector was spending on this research. He authorized that only existing lines of stem cells were to be used in research funded by the American tax payer..
Many people argue that stem cells are harvested from frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization and many mothers after delivering a baby have offered to donate these embryos to science and this is where most of the embryos come from.. President Bush did not ban this practice only said that the federal government would not fund this research.. So far a handful of schools, the state of California and some private research groups have taken new lines of stem cells and began research. There is far more research on embryonic stem cell now then there was.. To the dismay of many Americans.
Still lets be clear about this because the American liberal media has managed to confuse the ignorant in this country and else where around the world. President Bush did not BAN embryonic stem cells research, he actually funded them for the first time.. I think there is great confusing about this and we need to understand this.. His decisions for the most part is generally accepted and I think the ignorant of this country needs to apologize for their criticisms, though I doubt they will.. Also they should understand that some people believe that life begins at conception. They should understand that they have a right to their belief and if they do not want to fund research that kills life that should be their right.. Though, again I doubt the ignorant will care about the beliefs of anyone but themselves.
As for Korea, a very disturbing thing is happing in this country and many, many scientist are actively trying to ban this practice.. and it is the cloning of human life.. Though the concept is not new to us and many movies have been made with "clones". Often for humor as in Multiplicity, or various action movies... Yet the research being done is not to create an exact match of me to help me with my day to day tasks and keep my wife happy.. It is not so the people of AARP can make funny commercials about one man doing it himself..
The main purpose of this research is research.. They are to make banks of cloned embryos and some day humans where controlled testing can be done.. Most people are think this is immoral and that the life of a cloned individual should have the same value of a natural human.. Most people would prefer that no human experimentation or cloning be permitted at all.. Yet there are some in this world and this country that seem to think that the life created from a cloned cell should be the property of the research group or company that created it.
The second part and most advertised and mislead is to create replacement tissue for other humans.. How understand this is not take a cell from a life form hardly living.. as we know inserting one healthy stem cell in a damaged heart is not going to make it all better.. far from it.. no would millions of them.. What they are talking about is allow the life form to grown until a heart can be harvested then terminating the life form and growing the heart to a useful size.. Now I don't know many people needing a heart transplant who can wait for a heart to grow large enough to sustain life but it is possible if started soon enough.. as a 1 year old heart I am sure will function better then a badly damaged heart and will only grow and become better with time.. The first research to be done has only been on skin.. this is one experimentation because even skin grown in this fashion is not cost effective or useful for the most part.. there are enough advancements in skin graphing and artificial skin that this will never be the goal.. The goal is to harvest organs..
This is far worse then China selling the organs of criminals sentenced to death.. this is a very serious issue that needs global attention and out rage.. Yet our friend Mylenie is trying to confuse the public to think that this research is forefront medicine and should be not only legal in this country but funded also.. Maybe she is just ignorant as most people are, or maybe she will act ignorant.. My guess is if she responds at all she will merely call me fascist or some other insult and never address the facts of this reply..
below are a few links and the text that you should read.. please do.. I am sorry I can't provide more as this has taken too much time as is..
Anything in bold is my own comments please read these parts at least.
-----
First this is the presidents actually speach he made when the first federal funding for embryonic stem cells was authorized. Those who wish to remain ignorant feel free to skop to the next artical.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.h tml
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.
The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.
The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.
The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.
As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.
On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.
An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.
And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.
As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."
In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.
Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.
I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.
My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.
This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.
I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.
Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.
--------
The next link is the liberal MSNBC reporting on Korea's cloning, please note the lack of detail and how wondeful, moral and humane the practice sounds. It seems as if there is little or no contraversy and he just wants to heal the sick.. Please note that no other scientist are quoted and no support for the other side exist.. this is called bias..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8061078/
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korean cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk said Wednesday he plans to open a stem cell bank by the end of the year to help speed up the quest to grow replacement tissue to treat diseases. Notice "GROW REPLACEMENT TISSUE"
The bank would consolidate current stem cell lines in one research location. To treat a patient, researchers would look for a cell line that provides a close match to a patient’s immune system, Hwang said in an interview with The Associated Press. It would resemble the process now used in finding donors for organ transplants. In other words a factory of fertizizing custom eggs letting them grow and then killing them for stem cells that the body will not reject
“We hope to open a world stem cell bank, as early as this year, in Korea,” Hwang said. “We will start with what we have, offering them to those patients who sincerely want them for the right reasons.” "start with", "right reason" not sure where they will end
Hwang said he was willing to eventually put the bank under the management of an international agency.
“But, it would mean that South Korea is taking the initiative in fighting human disease,” he said.
because until now no reasearch has been done in fighting human disease
Hwang and his researchers at Seoul National University created the first embryonic stem cells that genetically match injured or sick patients, work that was published in the journal Science last month. That came just a year after his team shocked the world by cloning a human embryo. "shocked" meaning angered and out ragged.. not impressed or amazed
The match means the stem cells, the building blocks of all bodily tissues, are unlikely to be rejected by the body’s immune system. Researchers hope the cells can be used to repair damage caused by ailments such as spinal cord injuries, diabetes or a genetic immune disease.
Hwang now wants to move his research into making embryonic stem cells grow into specific organs and tissues. grow specific organs and tissues, which they are already doing, growing little ones of rich person so they can take a usable heart or kidney
Center of international controversy at least the admit even thought they still only quote Hwang no need to hear from the other side
The publication of Hwang’s work has made him one of South Korea’s busiest and the most celebrated clebrated because of the inernational controversy ? figures, his image gracing newspaper articles and television shows almost daily. His team is notorious for working long hours without weekends or holidays and even sleeping in the lab, most scientist do this even the ones who are not experimenting on human life but late Wednesday afternoon he found time to talk with a reporter about his project’s current status and long-term goals.
Hwang’s work is at the center of an international controversy again controversy.. but what controversy what is the other sides agrument over whether to ban all forms of human cloning or to allow it for medical research — known as therapeutic cloning — they actually named it which South Korea has committed by law to pursue. then made it legal
Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of whether it was cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. Opponents, including President Bush, argue that is the same as destroying life. He has banned federal funding for research on all but a handful of old embryonic stem-cell lines.
Hwang knows he’s treading on sensitive territory and rebutted critics who say he is destroying life. critics who say he is destroying life ... more like the majority who say he is destroying life
“What we are doing is not creating embryos. An embryo, basically supposes a birth of a life. But we have no intention or goals whatsoever to create life,” said Hwang. “When the genetic material is removed from human egg, it becomes a vacant egg shell, I would like to call it that.” I am sure you would like to call a human egg harvested of it's guts as a vacant egg shell, I am sure if he could he would cut me open take out the good stuff then say he only killed an empty human shell or maybe skin bag
Ultimately, though, Hwang said he was a scientist and not a politician. mad, immoral scientist
“Our ultimate goal is for those with incurable disease to lead social lives, and to recover their humane right to happiness.” just no life for the babies you harvest from
-----
Just to follow up this is an artical one year later. I will spare copping it as it has no real news, I think MSNBC has a real hard on for this guy though
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8061078/
-----
This artical is very much pro human cloning, yet from scientific america which I am really found of.. Unfortunatly it was before the Korean announcment of a human embryo clone.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CE1B1-CC78-1CF 4-93F6809EC5880000&sc=I100322
The Ethical Considerations
By Ronald M. Green
Advanced Cell Technology assembled a board of outside ethicists to weigh the moral implications of therapeutic cloning research, which aims to generate replacement tissues to treat a range of diseases. Here are the five major questions the board considered before the company went forward with cloning the first human embryo.
What is the moral status of the organisms created by cloning?
If a cloned organism were implanted into a womb, as was done in the case of Dolly the sheep, it could possibly go on to full development and birth. Because of this potential, some would argue that the organism produced in human therapeutic cloning experiments is the equivalent of any ordinary human embryo and merits the same degree of respect and protection.
Most members of our advisory board did not agree. We pointed out that, unlike an embryo, a cloned organism is not the result of fertilization of an egg by a sperm. It is a new type of biological entity never before seen in nature. Although it possesses some potential for developing into a full human being, this capacity is very limited. At the blastocyst stage, when the organism is typically disaggregated to create an embryonic stem cell line, it is a ball of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. (Embryos normally do not attach to the wall of the uterus and begin development until after the blastocyst stage.) It has no organs, it cannot possibly think or feel, and it has none of the attributes thought of as human. Although board members understood that some people would liken this organism to an embryo, we preferred the term "activated egg," and we concluded that its characteristics did not preclude its use in work that might save the lives of children and adults.
Is it permissible to create such a developing human entity only to destroy it??
Those who believe that human life begins at conception—and who also regard activated eggs as morally equivalent to human embryos—cannot ethically approve therapeutic cloning research. For them, such research is equivalent to killing a living child in order to harvest its organs for the benefit of others. Some of those who think this way, however, might nonetheless find acceptable research on human stem cells derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. They reason, rightly or wrongly, that these embryos are certain to be destroyed and that at least some good might result from using the cells. But therapeutic cloning remains totally unacceptable to such people because it involves the deliberate creation of what they deem to be a human being in order to destroy it.
Many who do not accord moral status to the entities produced by therapeutic cloning disagree with that view. Like our board members, they argue that the benefits of this research and the possible therapies it could produce far outweigh the claims of the activated eggs. Remarkably, some who share this moral view nonetheless oppose the research on symbolic grounds. They maintain that it is unseemly to create human life in any form only to destroy it. They worry that it might start society down a slippery slope that could lead to the scavenging of organs from adults without their consent.
These symbolic and "slippery slope" arguments often have powerful emotional force, but they are hard to assess. Is it really true that using activated eggs for lifesaving therapies will lead to these imagined abuses? On the contrary, if medical science can increase people’s chances of healthy survival, might not this research even enhance respect for human life? Members of the board took note of the fact that the U.K., until very recently, has legally permitted the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos in research since the early 1990s [see Cloning and the Law]. There has been no apparent ill effect of this permission on British society. In the end, the symbolic and slippery slope arguments did not persuade board members that therapeutic cloning research should not go forward.
Is it right to seek human eggs for scientific research?
The need to obtain a supply of human eggs leads to one of the most sensitive ethical issues cloning research. In each of her monthly cycles, a woman usually produces only one or two mature eggs. To increase that to a number that can be used in research, she must be given stimulatory medications such as those used in reproductive IVF procedures. In rare cases, these drugs can provoke a so-called hyperstimulation syndrome that can lead to liver damage, kidney failure or stroke. According to some studies, ovulation-stimulating drugs have also been associated with a heightened risk for ovarian cancer. The surgery to retrieve the eggs also carries risks, such as the dangers of general anesthesia and bleeding. Is it ethical to subject a woman to these risks for research purposes? If women are offered payment to undergo these risks, might that cause human reproductive material to become viewed as a commodity that can be commercialized? We do not permit the sale of human organs or babies. Are eggs any different?
In responding to these concerns, members of the board took note of two facts. First, a substantial market in human eggs for reproductive purposes already exists. Young women are being paid substantial sums to provide eggs that can help single women or couples have children. If women can undergo risks for this purpose, we asked, why should they not be allowed to undertake the same risks to further medical research that could save human lives? And if they can be paid for the time and discomfort that egg donation for reproductive purposes involves, why can’t they receive reasonable payment for ovulation induction for research purposes?
Second, we noted that research volunteers often accept significant risks to advance medical knowledge. If a person can agree to undergo a dangerous malaria vaccine study to help cure disease, why should they be prevented from donating eggs for similar lifesaving research?
In the end, we concluded that it would be unduly paternalistic to prohibit women from donating eggs for this research. At the same time, we established a rigorous informed-consent procedure so that egg donors would be made fully aware of the possible dangers. We insisted that ovulation-stimulating medications be administered at safe dosages. And we set payment for participation at a modest level: $4,000 (about $40 an hour), which is roughly the average paid in New England for egg donation for reproductive purposes. We wanted to prevent payment from becoming an undue influence that could blind women to the risks.
What are the ethical issues relating to the person whose cells are being cloned?
It may seem that individuals who provide the cells (usually skin fibroblasts) that are fused with enucleated eggs in therapeutic cloning research face no risk apart from the remote possibility of an infection at the site of the skin biopsy. But cloning is a controversial issue that exposes all research participants to novel risks. Cell donors, for example, might find themselves at the center of a media storm if they are identified as having allowed themselves to be cloned. To prevent this, the ethics advisory board insisted on procedures ensuring strict confidentiality for both egg and cell donors (unless they choose to come forward).
One question that occupied much of our time was whether children could donate cells for this research. We concluded that in general this is not advisable, because on reaching maturity the child may feel morally compromised by having been made to contribute to a cloning procedure. We made an exception, however, in the case of an infant with a fatal genetic disease. We knew that a stem cell line based on the child’s DNA might be a powerful tool in research aimed at curing the disease. Although the child would probably not survive long enough to benefit from this research, we concluded that the parents had a right to make this decision on the child’s behalf. This child’s cells have not yet been used in a cloning procedure.
ill therapeutic cloning facilitate reproductive cloning, the birth of a cloned baby?
A final major question raised by this research is whether it will hasten the day when people undertake human reproductive cloning. This concern presumes that reproductive cloning is and always will be ethically wrong. Many who hold this view cite the incidence of deaths and birth defects in cloned animals. Others worry about more remote dangers. They point to possible psychological risks to children produced in families in which a parent may also be a child’s genetic twin. They fear that cloned children may face unrealistic expectations to live up to the achievements of their genetic predecessor. And they worry about possible social risks of cloning if societies decide to replicate a limited number of desired genomes on a large scale for military or other purposes. In opposition to this, some people hail the prospect of cloning. They see it as a new way to provide biologically related offspring for some infertile couples or as a means of reducing the risks of some inherited genetic diseases.
Whatever one thinks about the ethics of reproductive cloning, placing a ban on therapeutic cloning will not make reproductive cloning less likely. Although therapeutic cloning could help scientists perfect techniques for reproductive cloning, it could also make much clearer the dangers of trying to produce a human being in this way. There is already evidence that some cloned animals can experience improper gene expression and disruptions in imprinting, the normal pattern of silencing genes not needed in particular tissues. Such problems could discourage prospective parents from using this technology to have a baby. Thus, therapeutic cloning research could actually reduce the likelihood that cloning would be seen as a viable reproductive option.
A ban on therapeutic cloning also would not prevent unsupervised researchers from going ahead with reproductive cloning efforts on their own [see Reproductive Cloning: They Want to Make a Baby]. Groups such as the Raëlians, a religous cult, or renegade scientists such as Richard G. Seed, a physicist based in Riverside, Ill., who has also been involved in embryology, have announced their intent to clone a human being and presumably will try to do so regardless of whether therapeutic cloning research is banned. A ban on therapeutic cloning will block useful research while allowing less responsible people to try reproductive cloning wherever they can find a permissive legal environment. By shutting down responsible research on the cell biology of human cloning, such a ban would also guarantee that the first efforts at cloning a human being would be based on scanty scientific information.
Our ethics board has had to wrestle with new and challenging questions, but we believe we have managed to give Advanced Cell Technology a firm ethical base for its therapeutic cloning research program. After researchers derive stem cells from cloned human activated eggs, ethicists will need to determine at what point it will be safe to try to transplant such cells back into volunteer donors. The tasks ahead for ethics boards like ours are demanding. The reward is assisting at the cutting edge of medical knowledge.
------------
Below is the side that the liberal media does not want you to see it is a website and I took some text from it.. feel free to explore at your will
this was a testimony By Dr. David A. Prentice from 2002 dealing with human cloning long before we got our first embryo.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding human cloning.
Human cloning is human asexual reproduction. It may be accomplished by introducing the nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized egg cell whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated, producing a human embryo who is virtually genetically identical to an existing or previously existing human being.
Proponents of human cloning hold out two hopes for its use: (1) creating live born children for infertile couples or those grieving over the loss of a loved one, so-called "reproductive cloning", and (2) promises of medical miracles to cure diseases by harvesting embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos created from patients, euphemistically termed "therapeutic cloning".
First let us be clear on the terms. All human cloning is reproductive, in that it creates - reproduces - a new developing human intended to be virtually identical to the cloned subject. In point of fact, both "reproductive" (or live birth) cloning and "therapeutic" cloning (more properly termed experimental cloning) use exactly the same techniques to create the clone, and the cloned embryos are indistinguishable. The process, as well as the product, is identical. The only distinction between the embryos is what comes next-either implantation in the hopes of a live birth, or destruction in the hopes of a medical miracle.
The National Academy of Sciences panel report released Jan. 18, 2002 describes it this way:
"The method used to initiate the reproductive cloning procedure is called either nuclear transplantation or somatic cell nuclear transfer."…
"If the procedure is successful, the cell will divide several times to produce a pre-implantation embryo - "blastocyst" -- that is composed of about 150 cells."…
"If the blastocyst is placed in a uterus, it can implant and form a fetus, which then may develop further and result in a newborn."…
"Unlike reproductive cloning, the creation of embryonic stem cells by nuclear transplantation does not involve implantation of a blastocyst in a uterus. Instead, cells are isolated from a blastocyst about five days after the nuclear transplantation procedure and used to make stem cell lines..."
Thus, the only difference in the procedure is whether the embryo is implanted or destroyed. A ban only on implantation of the embryos is completely unenforceable. Once cloned embryos are available, it is almost inevitable that some will be implanted. And will the law then mandate an abortion, the destruction of a born child, or incarceration of the mother and/or child?
In fact, the embryo at that stage, whether produced by cloning or by the old-fashioned method of joining egg and sperm, is the same-embryos produced by the different methods could not be distinguished under the microscope. (Please see diagram appended to my written submission.) And despite the attempts to employ various euphemisms, scientifically, genetically, what is created is a human being; its species is Homo sapiens, it is neither fish nor fowl, monkey nor cow-it is human.
There are good scientific reasons why live birth cloning should be banned. It has an enormous failure rate-95-99% of clones die before or soon after birth. Out of 277 cloned embryos, one Dolly the sheep was produced, and even this "successful" clone is beset with abnormalities-it was recently disclosed that she has developed early arthritis and may need to be put down. This past summer a group at the Whitehead Institute achieved 5 born mice from 613 cloned embryos, and all of the born mice showed abnormalities in expression of their genes.
We can expect that of those few cloned humans who survive to live birth, most will die shortly thereafter and the others be plagued by abnormalities due to the cloning process. In addition, the surrogate mothers of clones experience physiological problems. Because of the clone's abnormalities, carrying a clonal pregnancy to term will pose unique threats to the woman involved. In short, this whole notion is fraught with peril, constitutes an unethical form of human experimentation, and should be banned.
No human cloning is therapeutic cloning. In medical ethics, "therapeutic research" is defined as research that could provide therapeutic benefit to the individual subjected to research risks. Thus "therapeutic cloning" is obviously not therapeutic for the embryo-the new human is specifically created in order to be destroyed as a source of tissue. For clarity's sake this practice should be called human experimental cloning.
Creating new human life solely to destroy it for the potential benefit of others is unethical. It turns human life into a commodity, creating a caste system of lesser humans for scientific sacrifice, what the renowned biochemist Erwin Chargaff calls "a kind of capitalist cannibalism." The real question which much be addressed: Is the young human a person or a piece of property?
Human experimental cloning is also unnecessary for medical progress. Theoretically the embryonic stem cells from the cloned human embryo would be used to generate matched tissues for transplant into the patient from whom the embryo was cloned. However, the promises put forth for therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells are not supported by the scientific literature, and numerous promising non-embryonic alternatives, including adult stem cells, are available for producing the therapies about which cloning advocates can only speculate. Furthermore, an enormous supply of human eggs will need to be made available to treat even a small group of patients, subjecting a large population of women of childbearing age to unethical health risks inherent in harvesting the necessary quantities of eggs for cloning.
The National Academy of Sciences report also spoke of the risk to women's health from cloning:
"Because many eggs are needed for human reproductive cloning attempts, human experimentation could subject more women to adverse health effects -- either from high levels of hormones used to stimulate egg production or because more women overall would be sought to donate eggs, which involves surgery with its own inherent risks, the panel noted."
But since the same procedure is used to create embryos for the harvest of embryonic stem cells, the same problem applies. In fact, the problem will be even greater, because the procedure used to create embryonic stem cell lines is itself inefficient.
On examining the promises, premises, and published data regarding embryonic stem cells, the claims for embryonic stem cell advantages over adult stem cells are unsubstantiated, and remain speculative, a fad. There are no current clinical treatments based on embryonic stem cells, and in fact very few published successes using animal models of disease. In fact, those who work with embryonic stem cells even have difficulty obtaining pure cultures of specific cell types in the laboratory dish. For example, an Israeli group reported this past summer that they had obtained insulin-secreting cells from human embryonic stem cells. While this might initially sound like a potential treatment for diabetes, what the popular press did not report, and what was revealed by the scientific paper, was that only 1% of the cells in the culture dish secreted insulin. The remaining 99% of the cells were a mixture of other cell types, including nerve, muscle, a few beating heart cells, and also cells which continued to proliferate. Those growing cells point out another problem with embryonic stem cells-the potential for tumor formation. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research readily admit that when injected, embryonic stem cells tend to form tumors. In a report just last week on the possibility that embryonic stem cells could treat Parkinson's disease in rats, 20% of rats injected with embryonic stem cells died from tumors formed in their brains. A treatment which kills one-fifth of the patients is not very promising. And this past summer, a group from the Whitehead Institute reported that embryonic stem cells are genomically unstable, meaning that the expression of their genes is unstable. This might in fact explain why there is such difficulty in obtaining pure cultures and why they tend to form tumors.
Too often a false choice has been put forth-that we must either destroy embryos or allow patients to die. However, there are other choices and alternatives, in particular adult stem cells. Those who say adult stem cells are not a valid alternative are relying on obsolete, outdated information. A wealth of scientific papers published over the last few years documents that adult stem cells are a much more promising source of stem cells for regenerative medicine. They do show capacity to generate virtually all adult tissues. Most, if not all, tissues appear to contain stem cells, or can be formed from stem cells from other body tissues. Even fat has been found to contain stem cells that can be transformed into other tissues. Frankly, this could constitute an unlimited supply of stem cells. In point of fact, any time someone has looked in a tissue for stem cells, they have found them. Adult stem cells are easy to find and easy to isolate.
Many published references now also show that adult stem cells can multiply almost indefinitely, providing sufficient numbers for clinical treatments. Adult stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating animal models of disease, including such diseases as diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's disease, and heart disease. Moreover, adult stem cells are already being used clinically to treat many diseases, including various cancers, autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, and arthritis, and anemias including sickle cell anemia. Adult stem cells are being used to form new cartilage, grow new corneas to restore sight to blind patients, treat stroke patients, and repair damage after heart attacks. The patient's own stem cells can be used for the treatment, preventing the problems of immune rejection, and there is no tumor formation. More scientists now admit that adult stem cells will be the ones to provide therapeutic benefits to patients. Attached to my written submission I have provided an abbreviated list of references regarding scientific advances in adult stem cell research for the Committee. An extensive reference list can be found at the web site of Do No Harm (http://www.stemcellresearch.org).
Given the significant negatives associated with embryonic stem cells, and the proven successes of adult stem cells, there is no valid medical reason to clone human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, avoiding the ethical quandary of destroying some human beings for the potential benefit of others.
Indeed, the obstacles to human cloning as a source of medical benefits may well prove insurmountable. Recent overviews in the journals Nature, Science, Stem Cells and New Scientist all point out that the idea of therapeutic cloning is falling from favor because researchers are finding it to be too costly, inefficient, and unnecessary-those who still support it are relying on obsolete information. (Please see quotes appended to my written submission.)
It should also be emphasized that the proposed ban on human cloning does not restrict any vital or viable medical research. Cloning and nuclear transfer techniques for production of DNA, other molecules, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, and animals are all allowed. The proposed prohibition only restricts human cloning, for which there have been no federal funds and for which there will be no federal funds in the foreseeable future.
In summary, human cloning is unsafe, unethical, and unnecessary. There are no valid or compelling grounds-ethical, scientific, or medical-to proceed with human cloning. A comprehensive ban on human cloning is the only sufficient answer.
---
Well there are many other articles you can read I think this is a fair spectrum of them all..
so before you mouth of saying we are behind better know what we are behind in.. because we are ahead in ethics..
I APPOLIGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THE MANY TYPOS AND GRAMMATICAL MISTAKES
I love it when people who don't know speak as if they do....
First there are 2 areas of Stem Cell research.. First is adult stem cells.. the United states has always been on the fore front of this area and currently we fund it with over 300 million dollars to private research and many times that through DOD.. I have a number of friends that are grad students working for the DOD and some of their fellow students are working on Adult stem cells.. The exact amount of money that the DOD is spending is not known because actually funding level per projects are no disclosed to the general public for obvious reasons.. The DOD's research budget is north of 69 billion a year and this is where most research is routed for the us.. Everything from GPS to Spread Spectrum Radar comes from DOD research..
Back to adult stem cells.. For many years and with some amazing advancements.. Though still not able to make the lame walk. We have managed to restore feeling in paralyzed limbs and even have limited movement. This will be where much of the actually medical advancements will come.. Basically Stem Cells are separate from a person's own blood stream then replicated and put back into an area of damaged tissue primarily in The nervous system often lower back spinal cord injuries... No one is debating the morality or funding for this research..
The second major kind of stem cell research is Embryonic Stem cell.. This is where an egg is fertilized and allow to grow and then killed and harvested for cells for research purposes.. Few if any scientist think that medical advancements will come from this form of research.. But that is still unknown. The main purpose of this research is to study effective means of growing stem cells and understanding how they differ from other cells.. These can not simply be inserted into a person's damaged body as they have the genetic information of the life form they were taking from.. Clearly this would be a bad thing.. Still there is some use in this form of research..
When President bush took office limited amounts of money were available for stem cell research and No money was used for embryonic stem cell.. Many American tax payers feel that life begins at conception.. most people will admit a baby is being grown in a pregnant women's belly.. Still some don't think it is a life form until actual birth so the baby growing in my housemate’s belly is not a belly but a group of cells.. Regardless of which side you are most people understand that both sides have a right to their opinion..
Now the wisdom of president Bush is he saw that there was useful research to be done with embryonic stem cells and became the FIRST president to authorize federal funding of EMBRIONIC stem cell research.. I just want everyone to be clear about this because it is a common myth that he doesn't support it.. And it has nothing to do with what George W Bush actually supports.. It is the concept that many tax payers do not want to fund research that is immoral.. What President Bush Authorized was that Embryonic stem cells which were currently being studied would be funded by the Federal government to the tune of 30 million dollars a year which was far more then the private sector was spending on this research. He authorized that only existing lines of stem cells were to be used in research funded by the American tax payer..
Many people argue that stem cells are harvested from frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization and many mothers after delivering a baby have offered to donate these embryos to science and this is where most of the embryos come from.. President Bush did not ban this practice only said that the federal government would not fund this research.. So far a handful of schools, the state of California and some private research groups have taken new lines of stem cells and began research. There is far more research on embryonic stem cell now then there was.. To the dismay of many Americans.
Still lets be clear about this because the American liberal media has managed to confuse the ignorant in this country and else where around the world. President Bush did not BAN embryonic stem cells research, he actually funded them for the first time.. I think there is great confusing about this and we need to understand this.. His decisions for the most part is generally accepted and I think the ignorant of this country needs to apologize for their criticisms, though I doubt they will.. Also they should understand that some people believe that life begins at conception. They should understand that they have a right to their belief and if they do not want to fund research that kills life that should be their right.. Though, again I doubt the ignorant will care about the beliefs of anyone but themselves.
As for Korea, a very disturbing thing is happing in this country and many, many scientist are actively trying to ban this practice.. and it is the cloning of human life.. Though the concept is not new to us and many movies have been made with "clones". Often for humor as in Multiplicity, or various action movies... Yet the research being done is not to create an exact match of me to help me with my day to day tasks and keep my wife happy.. It is not so the people of AARP can make funny commercials about one man doing it himself..
The main purpose of this research is research.. They are to make banks of cloned embryos and some day humans where controlled testing can be done.. Most people are think this is immoral and that the life of a cloned individual should have the same value of a natural human.. Most people would prefer that no human experimentation or cloning be permitted at all.. Yet there are some in this world and this country that seem to think that the life created from a cloned cell should be the property of the research group or company that created it.
The second part and most advertised and mislead is to create replacement tissue for other humans.. How understand this is not take a cell from a life form hardly living.. as we know inserting one healthy stem cell in a damaged heart is not going to make it all better.. far from it.. no would millions of them.. What they are talking about is allow the life form to grown until a heart can be harvested then terminating the life form and growing the heart to a useful size.. Now I don't know many people needing a heart transplant who can wait for a heart to grow large enough to sustain life but it is possible if started soon enough.. as a 1 year old heart I am sure will function better then a badly damaged heart and will only grow and become better with time.. The first research to be done has only been on skin.. this is one experimentation because even skin grown in this fashion is not cost effective or useful for the most part.. there are enough advancements in skin graphing and artificial skin that this will never be the goal.. The goal is to harvest organs..
This is far worse then China selling the organs of criminals sentenced to death.. this is a very serious issue that needs global attention and out rage.. Yet our friend Mylenie is trying to confuse the public to think that this research is forefront medicine and should be not only legal in this country but funded also.. Maybe she is just ignorant as most people are, or maybe she will act ignorant.. My guess is if she responds at all she will merely call me fascist or some other insult and never address the facts of this reply..
below are a few links and the text that you should read.. please do.. I am sorry I can't provide more as this has taken too much time as is..
Anything in bold is my own comments please read these parts at least.
-----
First this is the presidents actually speach he made when the first federal funding for embryonic stem cells was authorized. Those who wish to remain ignorant feel free to skop to the next artical.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.h tml
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.
The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.
The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.
The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.
As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.
On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.
An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.
And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.
As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."
In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.
Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.
I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.
My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.
This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.
I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.
Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.
--------
The next link is the liberal MSNBC reporting on Korea's cloning, please note the lack of detail and how wondeful, moral and humane the practice sounds. It seems as if there is little or no contraversy and he just wants to heal the sick.. Please note that no other scientist are quoted and no support for the other side exist.. this is called bias..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8061078/
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korean cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk said Wednesday he plans to open a stem cell bank by the end of the year to help speed up the quest to grow replacement tissue to treat diseases. Notice "GROW REPLACEMENT TISSUE"
The bank would consolidate current stem cell lines in one research location. To treat a patient, researchers would look for a cell line that provides a close match to a patient’s immune system, Hwang said in an interview with The Associated Press. It would resemble the process now used in finding donors for organ transplants. In other words a factory of fertizizing custom eggs letting them grow and then killing them for stem cells that the body will not reject
“We hope to open a world stem cell bank, as early as this year, in Korea,” Hwang said. “We will start with what we have, offering them to those patients who sincerely want them for the right reasons.” "start with", "right reason" not sure where they will end
Hwang said he was willing to eventually put the bank under the management of an international agency.
“But, it would mean that South Korea is taking the initiative in fighting human disease,” he said.
because until now no reasearch has been done in fighting human disease
Hwang and his researchers at Seoul National University created the first embryonic stem cells that genetically match injured or sick patients, work that was published in the journal Science last month. That came just a year after his team shocked the world by cloning a human embryo. "shocked" meaning angered and out ragged.. not impressed or amazed
The match means the stem cells, the building blocks of all bodily tissues, are unlikely to be rejected by the body’s immune system. Researchers hope the cells can be used to repair damage caused by ailments such as spinal cord injuries, diabetes or a genetic immune disease.
Hwang now wants to move his research into making embryonic stem cells grow into specific organs and tissues. grow specific organs and tissues, which they are already doing, growing little ones of rich person so they can take a usable heart or kidney
Center of international controversy at least the admit even thought they still only quote Hwang no need to hear from the other side
The publication of Hwang’s work has made him one of South Korea’s busiest and the most celebrated clebrated because of the inernational controversy ? figures, his image gracing newspaper articles and television shows almost daily. His team is notorious for working long hours without weekends or holidays and even sleeping in the lab, most scientist do this even the ones who are not experimenting on human life but late Wednesday afternoon he found time to talk with a reporter about his project’s current status and long-term goals.
Hwang’s work is at the center of an international controversy again controversy.. but what controversy what is the other sides agrument over whether to ban all forms of human cloning or to allow it for medical research — known as therapeutic cloning — they actually named it which South Korea has committed by law to pursue. then made it legal
Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of whether it was cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. Opponents, including President Bush, argue that is the same as destroying life. He has banned federal funding for research on all but a handful of old embryonic stem-cell lines.
Hwang knows he’s treading on sensitive territory and rebutted critics who say he is destroying life. critics who say he is destroying life ... more like the majority who say he is destroying life
“What we are doing is not creating embryos. An embryo, basically supposes a birth of a life. But we have no intention or goals whatsoever to create life,” said Hwang. “When the genetic material is removed from human egg, it becomes a vacant egg shell, I would like to call it that.” I am sure you would like to call a human egg harvested of it's guts as a vacant egg shell, I am sure if he could he would cut me open take out the good stuff then say he only killed an empty human shell or maybe skin bag
Ultimately, though, Hwang said he was a scientist and not a politician. mad, immoral scientist
“Our ultimate goal is for those with incurable disease to lead social lives, and to recover their humane right to happiness.” just no life for the babies you harvest from
-----
Just to follow up this is an artical one year later. I will spare copping it as it has no real news, I think MSNBC has a real hard on for this guy though
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8061078/
-----
This artical is very much pro human cloning, yet from scientific america which I am really found of.. Unfortunatly it was before the Korean announcment of a human embryo clone.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CE1B1-CC78-1CF 4-93F6809EC5880000&sc=I100322
The Ethical Considerations
By Ronald M. Green
Advanced Cell Technology assembled a board of outside ethicists to weigh the moral implications of therapeutic cloning research, which aims to generate replacement tissues to treat a range of diseases. Here are the five major questions the board considered before the company went forward with cloning the first human embryo.
What is the moral status of the organisms created by cloning?
If a cloned organism were implanted into a womb, as was done in the case of Dolly the sheep, it could possibly go on to full development and birth. Because of this potential, some would argue that the organism produced in human therapeutic cloning experiments is the equivalent of any ordinary human embryo and merits the same degree of respect and protection.
Most members of our advisory board did not agree. We pointed out that, unlike an embryo, a cloned organism is not the result of fertilization of an egg by a sperm. It is a new type of biological entity never before seen in nature. Although it possesses some potential for developing into a full human being, this capacity is very limited. At the blastocyst stage, when the organism is typically disaggregated to create an embryonic stem cell line, it is a ball of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. (Embryos normally do not attach to the wall of the uterus and begin development until after the blastocyst stage.) It has no organs, it cannot possibly think or feel, and it has none of the attributes thought of as human. Although board members understood that some people would liken this organism to an embryo, we preferred the term "activated egg," and we concluded that its characteristics did not preclude its use in work that might save the lives of children and adults.
Is it permissible to create such a developing human entity only to destroy it??
Those who believe that human life begins at conception—and who also regard activated eggs as morally equivalent to human embryos—cannot ethically approve therapeutic cloning research. For them, such research is equivalent to killing a living child in order to harvest its organs for the benefit of others. Some of those who think this way, however, might nonetheless find acceptable research on human stem cells derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. They reason, rightly or wrongly, that these embryos are certain to be destroyed and that at least some good might result from using the cells. But therapeutic cloning remains totally unacceptable to such people because it involves the deliberate creation of what they deem to be a human being in order to destroy it.
Many who do not accord moral status to the entities produced by therapeutic cloning disagree with that view. Like our board members, they argue that the benefits of this research and the possible therapies it could produce far outweigh the claims of the activated eggs. Remarkably, some who share this moral view nonetheless oppose the research on symbolic grounds. They maintain that it is unseemly to create human life in any form only to destroy it. They worry that it might start society down a slippery slope that could lead to the scavenging of organs from adults without their consent.
These symbolic and "slippery slope" arguments often have powerful emotional force, but they are hard to assess. Is it really true that using activated eggs for lifesaving therapies will lead to these imagined abuses? On the contrary, if medical science can increase people’s chances of healthy survival, might not this research even enhance respect for human life? Members of the board took note of the fact that the U.K., until very recently, has legally permitted the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos in research since the early 1990s [see Cloning and the Law]. There has been no apparent ill effect of this permission on British society. In the end, the symbolic and slippery slope arguments did not persuade board members that therapeutic cloning research should not go forward.
Is it right to seek human eggs for scientific research?
The need to obtain a supply of human eggs leads to one of the most sensitive ethical issues cloning research. In each of her monthly cycles, a woman usually produces only one or two mature eggs. To increase that to a number that can be used in research, she must be given stimulatory medications such as those used in reproductive IVF procedures. In rare cases, these drugs can provoke a so-called hyperstimulation syndrome that can lead to liver damage, kidney failure or stroke. According to some studies, ovulation-stimulating drugs have also been associated with a heightened risk for ovarian cancer. The surgery to retrieve the eggs also carries risks, such as the dangers of general anesthesia and bleeding. Is it ethical to subject a woman to these risks for research purposes? If women are offered payment to undergo these risks, might that cause human reproductive material to become viewed as a commodity that can be commercialized? We do not permit the sale of human organs or babies. Are eggs any different?
In responding to these concerns, members of the board took note of two facts. First, a substantial market in human eggs for reproductive purposes already exists. Young women are being paid substantial sums to provide eggs that can help single women or couples have children. If women can undergo risks for this purpose, we asked, why should they not be allowed to undertake the same risks to further medical research that could save human lives? And if they can be paid for the time and discomfort that egg donation for reproductive purposes involves, why can’t they receive reasonable payment for ovulation induction for research purposes?
Second, we noted that research volunteers often accept significant risks to advance medical knowledge. If a person can agree to undergo a dangerous malaria vaccine study to help cure disease, why should they be prevented from donating eggs for similar lifesaving research?
In the end, we concluded that it would be unduly paternalistic to prohibit women from donating eggs for this research. At the same time, we established a rigorous informed-consent procedure so that egg donors would be made fully aware of the possible dangers. We insisted that ovulation-stimulating medications be administered at safe dosages. And we set payment for participation at a modest level: $4,000 (about $40 an hour), which is roughly the average paid in New England for egg donation for reproductive purposes. We wanted to prevent payment from becoming an undue influence that could blind women to the risks.
What are the ethical issues relating to the person whose cells are being cloned?
It may seem that individuals who provide the cells (usually skin fibroblasts) that are fused with enucleated eggs in therapeutic cloning research face no risk apart from the remote possibility of an infection at the site of the skin biopsy. But cloning is a controversial issue that exposes all research participants to novel risks. Cell donors, for example, might find themselves at the center of a media storm if they are identified as having allowed themselves to be cloned. To prevent this, the ethics advisory board insisted on procedures ensuring strict confidentiality for both egg and cell donors (unless they choose to come forward).
One question that occupied much of our time was whether children could donate cells for this research. We concluded that in general this is not advisable, because on reaching maturity the child may feel morally compromised by having been made to contribute to a cloning procedure. We made an exception, however, in the case of an infant with a fatal genetic disease. We knew that a stem cell line based on the child’s DNA might be a powerful tool in research aimed at curing the disease. Although the child would probably not survive long enough to benefit from this research, we concluded that the parents had a right to make this decision on the child’s behalf. This child’s cells have not yet been used in a cloning procedure.
ill therapeutic cloning facilitate reproductive cloning, the birth of a cloned baby?
A final major question raised by this research is whether it will hasten the day when people undertake human reproductive cloning. This concern presumes that reproductive cloning is and always will be ethically wrong. Many who hold this view cite the incidence of deaths and birth defects in cloned animals. Others worry about more remote dangers. They point to possible psychological risks to children produced in families in which a parent may also be a child’s genetic twin. They fear that cloned children may face unrealistic expectations to live up to the achievements of their genetic predecessor. And they worry about possible social risks of cloning if societies decide to replicate a limited number of desired genomes on a large scale for military or other purposes. In opposition to this, some people hail the prospect of cloning. They see it as a new way to provide biologically related offspring for some infertile couples or as a means of reducing the risks of some inherited genetic diseases.
Whatever one thinks about the ethics of reproductive cloning, placing a ban on therapeutic cloning will not make reproductive cloning less likely. Although therapeutic cloning could help scientists perfect techniques for reproductive cloning, it could also make much clearer the dangers of trying to produce a human being in this way. There is already evidence that some cloned animals can experience improper gene expression and disruptions in imprinting, the normal pattern of silencing genes not needed in particular tissues. Such problems could discourage prospective parents from using this technology to have a baby. Thus, therapeutic cloning research could actually reduce the likelihood that cloning would be seen as a viable reproductive option.
A ban on therapeutic cloning also would not prevent unsupervised researchers from going ahead with reproductive cloning efforts on their own [see Reproductive Cloning: They Want to Make a Baby]. Groups such as the Raëlians, a religous cult, or renegade scientists such as Richard G. Seed, a physicist based in Riverside, Ill., who has also been involved in embryology, have announced their intent to clone a human being and presumably will try to do so regardless of whether therapeutic cloning research is banned. A ban on therapeutic cloning will block useful research while allowing less responsible people to try reproductive cloning wherever they can find a permissive legal environment. By shutting down responsible research on the cell biology of human cloning, such a ban would also guarantee that the first efforts at cloning a human being would be based on scanty scientific information.
Our ethics board has had to wrestle with new and challenging questions, but we believe we have managed to give Advanced Cell Technology a firm ethical base for its therapeutic cloning research program. After researchers derive stem cells from cloned human activated eggs, ethicists will need to determine at what point it will be safe to try to transplant such cells back into volunteer donors. The tasks ahead for ethics boards like ours are demanding. The reward is assisting at the cutting edge of medical knowledge.
------------
Below is the side that the liberal media does not want you to see it is a website and I took some text from it.. feel free to explore at your will
this was a testimony By Dr. David A. Prentice from 2002 dealing with human cloning long before we got our first embryo.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding human cloning.
Human cloning is human asexual reproduction. It may be accomplished by introducing the nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized egg cell whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated, producing a human embryo who is virtually genetically identical to an existing or previously existing human being.
Proponents of human cloning hold out two hopes for its use: (1) creating live born children for infertile couples or those grieving over the loss of a loved one, so-called "reproductive cloning", and (2) promises of medical miracles to cure diseases by harvesting embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos created from patients, euphemistically termed "therapeutic cloning".
First let us be clear on the terms. All human cloning is reproductive, in that it creates - reproduces - a new developing human intended to be virtually identical to the cloned subject. In point of fact, both "reproductive" (or live birth) cloning and "therapeutic" cloning (more properly termed experimental cloning) use exactly the same techniques to create the clone, and the cloned embryos are indistinguishable. The process, as well as the product, is identical. The only distinction between the embryos is what comes next-either implantation in the hopes of a live birth, or destruction in the hopes of a medical miracle.
The National Academy of Sciences panel report released Jan. 18, 2002 describes it this way:
"The method used to initiate the reproductive cloning procedure is called either nuclear transplantation or somatic cell nuclear transfer."…
"If the procedure is successful, the cell will divide several times to produce a pre-implantation embryo - "blastocyst" -- that is composed of about 150 cells."…
"If the blastocyst is placed in a uterus, it can implant and form a fetus, which then may develop further and result in a newborn."…
"Unlike reproductive cloning, the creation of embryonic stem cells by nuclear transplantation does not involve implantation of a blastocyst in a uterus. Instead, cells are isolated from a blastocyst about five days after the nuclear transplantation procedure and used to make stem cell lines..."
Thus, the only difference in the procedure is whether the embryo is implanted or destroyed. A ban only on implantation of the embryos is completely unenforceable. Once cloned embryos are available, it is almost inevitable that some will be implanted. And will the law then mandate an abortion, the destruction of a born child, or incarceration of the mother and/or child?
In fact, the embryo at that stage, whether produced by cloning or by the old-fashioned method of joining egg and sperm, is the same-embryos produced by the different methods could not be distinguished under the microscope. (Please see diagram appended to my written submission.) And despite the attempts to employ various euphemisms, scientifically, genetically, what is created is a human being; its species is Homo sapiens, it is neither fish nor fowl, monkey nor cow-it is human.
There are good scientific reasons why live birth cloning should be banned. It has an enormous failure rate-95-99% of clones die before or soon after birth. Out of 277 cloned embryos, one Dolly the sheep was produced, and even this "successful" clone is beset with abnormalities-it was recently disclosed that she has developed early arthritis and may need to be put down. This past summer a group at the Whitehead Institute achieved 5 born mice from 613 cloned embryos, and all of the born mice showed abnormalities in expression of their genes.
We can expect that of those few cloned humans who survive to live birth, most will die shortly thereafter and the others be plagued by abnormalities due to the cloning process. In addition, the surrogate mothers of clones experience physiological problems. Because of the clone's abnormalities, carrying a clonal pregnancy to term will pose unique threats to the woman involved. In short, this whole notion is fraught with peril, constitutes an unethical form of human experimentation, and should be banned.
No human cloning is therapeutic cloning. In medical ethics, "therapeutic research" is defined as research that could provide therapeutic benefit to the individual subjected to research risks. Thus "therapeutic cloning" is obviously not therapeutic for the embryo-the new human is specifically created in order to be destroyed as a source of tissue. For clarity's sake this practice should be called human experimental cloning.
Creating new human life solely to destroy it for the potential benefit of others is unethical. It turns human life into a commodity, creating a caste system of lesser humans for scientific sacrifice, what the renowned biochemist Erwin Chargaff calls "a kind of capitalist cannibalism." The real question which much be addressed: Is the young human a person or a piece of property?
Human experimental cloning is also unnecessary for medical progress. Theoretically the embryonic stem cells from the cloned human embryo would be used to generate matched tissues for transplant into the patient from whom the embryo was cloned. However, the promises put forth for therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells are not supported by the scientific literature, and numerous promising non-embryonic alternatives, including adult stem cells, are available for producing the therapies about which cloning advocates can only speculate. Furthermore, an enormous supply of human eggs will need to be made available to treat even a small group of patients, subjecting a large population of women of childbearing age to unethical health risks inherent in harvesting the necessary quantities of eggs for cloning.
The National Academy of Sciences report also spoke of the risk to women's health from cloning:
"Because many eggs are needed for human reproductive cloning attempts, human experimentation could subject more women to adverse health effects -- either from high levels of hormones used to stimulate egg production or because more women overall would be sought to donate eggs, which involves surgery with its own inherent risks, the panel noted."
But since the same procedure is used to create embryos for the harvest of embryonic stem cells, the same problem applies. In fact, the problem will be even greater, because the procedure used to create embryonic stem cell lines is itself inefficient.
On examining the promises, premises, and published data regarding embryonic stem cells, the claims for embryonic stem cell advantages over adult stem cells are unsubstantiated, and remain speculative, a fad. There are no current clinical treatments based on embryonic stem cells, and in fact very few published successes using animal models of disease. In fact, those who work with embryonic stem cells even have difficulty obtaining pure cultures of specific cell types in the laboratory dish. For example, an Israeli group reported this past summer that they had obtained insulin-secreting cells from human embryonic stem cells. While this might initially sound like a potential treatment for diabetes, what the popular press did not report, and what was revealed by the scientific paper, was that only 1% of the cells in the culture dish secreted insulin. The remaining 99% of the cells were a mixture of other cell types, including nerve, muscle, a few beating heart cells, and also cells which continued to proliferate. Those growing cells point out another problem with embryonic stem cells-the potential for tumor formation. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research readily admit that when injected, embryonic stem cells tend to form tumors. In a report just last week on the possibility that embryonic stem cells could treat Parkinson's disease in rats, 20% of rats injected with embryonic stem cells died from tumors formed in their brains. A treatment which kills one-fifth of the patients is not very promising. And this past summer, a group from the Whitehead Institute reported that embryonic stem cells are genomically unstable, meaning that the expression of their genes is unstable. This might in fact explain why there is such difficulty in obtaining pure cultures and why they tend to form tumors.
Too often a false choice has been put forth-that we must either destroy embryos or allow patients to die. However, there are other choices and alternatives, in particular adult stem cells. Those who say adult stem cells are not a valid alternative are relying on obsolete, outdated information. A wealth of scientific papers published over the last few years documents that adult stem cells are a much more promising source of stem cells for regenerative medicine. They do show capacity to generate virtually all adult tissues. Most, if not all, tissues appear to contain stem cells, or can be formed from stem cells from other body tissues. Even fat has been found to contain stem cells that can be transformed into other tissues. Frankly, this could constitute an unlimited supply of stem cells. In point of fact, any time someone has looked in a tissue for stem cells, they have found them. Adult stem cells are easy to find and easy to isolate.
Many published references now also show that adult stem cells can multiply almost indefinitely, providing sufficient numbers for clinical treatments. Adult stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating animal models of disease, including such diseases as diabetes, stroke, Parkinson's disease, and heart disease. Moreover, adult stem cells are already being used clinically to treat many diseases, including various cancers, autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, and arthritis, and anemias including sickle cell anemia. Adult stem cells are being used to form new cartilage, grow new corneas to restore sight to blind patients, treat stroke patients, and repair damage after heart attacks. The patient's own stem cells can be used for the treatment, preventing the problems of immune rejection, and there is no tumor formation. More scientists now admit that adult stem cells will be the ones to provide therapeutic benefits to patients. Attached to my written submission I have provided an abbreviated list of references regarding scientific advances in adult stem cell research for the Committee. An extensive reference list can be found at the web site of Do No Harm (http://www.stemcellresearch.org).
Given the significant negatives associated with embryonic stem cells, and the proven successes of adult stem cells, there is no valid medical reason to clone human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, avoiding the ethical quandary of destroying some human beings for the potential benefit of others.
Indeed, the obstacles to human cloning as a source of medical benefits may well prove insurmountable. Recent overviews in the journals Nature, Science, Stem Cells and New Scientist all point out that the idea of therapeutic cloning is falling from favor because researchers are finding it to be too costly, inefficient, and unnecessary-those who still support it are relying on obsolete information. (Please see quotes appended to my written submission.)
It should also be emphasized that the proposed ban on human cloning does not restrict any vital or viable medical research. Cloning and nuclear transfer techniques for production of DNA, other molecules, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, and animals are all allowed. The proposed prohibition only restricts human cloning, for which there have been no federal funds and for which there will be no federal funds in the foreseeable future.
In summary, human cloning is unsafe, unethical, and unnecessary. There are no valid or compelling grounds-ethical, scientific, or medical-to proceed with human cloning. A comprehensive ban on human cloning is the only sufficient answer.
---
Well there are many other articles you can read I think this is a fair spectrum of them all..
so before you mouth of saying we are behind better know what we are behind in.. because we are ahead in ethics..
posted by Micahel Mantion at 11:21 PM
0 comments
