Embryo Research

[Griffin NoName]

We are building up to a Commons debate on the Embryo Bill. It hasn't even begun and it's already a news item.

Someone was saying the stuff about "tampering" with human life.

Can someone tell me exactly what is so different  about "prolonging" human life by giving medical aid when someone would otherwise have died. Isn't that tampering? 

I probably need a "not meant to offend" icon here.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The US already lost that debate, back when W short-changed us ALL and killed stem cell research.

Most of the really good brain-trust left for Other Parts of the world.

I'm with you-- an embryo or stem cell is no more human than a transplanted kidney is.

*sigh*

[Darlica]

I think this is very interesting.
I also think that in this question is firmly linked to the question about the rights to legal abortions.

My opinion is that humanity has too much to gain from stem cell research to refrain from it, however good ethical guidelines are desperately needed.
The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all.

I think stem cell research, would be an excellent use for unwanted sperm and eggs that was meant for In Vitro Fertilisation but are now closing in on their expiring date, given that the donors have signed a release form of cause.

   

[Griffin NoName]

Yes it is linked to abortion debates of course. (It's also linked to voluntary euthanasia.)

But it's this specific "tampering" arguement that interests me.

It all just seems logically inconsistent.

If my body had been left to nature to take it's course untampered I'd be dead. Thirty years ago. Hence, I say, I am only here because my life was tampered with. I can't see that there's anything to discuss.

Except issues around what to do when we create monsters that devour us etc. But that's merely about controls. Not easy, but a different issue.

[Griffin NoName]

My opinion is that humanity has too much to gain from stem cell research to refrain from it, however good ethical guidelines are desperately needed.
The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all.

Not what the Commons is debating, as I understand it. "Right to Life" etc is a different debate.

Ethics yes, but ethics of science.  In fact, my arguement holds in any case. A young baby cannot survive unaided. Therefore taking care of such a young baby is tampering.

[Griffin NoName]

This debate was supposed to be about tampering with human life.

The issue of tampering has nothing to do with quality, quantity, pro-life, or anything else.

I see tampering as a straight-forward "do we allow any alteration of what might otherwise be construed a totally natural process"?

I wanted to pare it down to it's simplest, and I wanted to debate that.

I am not averse to the other types of discussion but I wanted to focus on the absolutely fundamental principle at the root of the upcoming Commons debate, not preceding debates.

I am inclined to split this topic. Would anyone object?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Oops. Sorry. Go for it, if you want to split it.



To the proper topic. Pretty straight forward, I think.

Medicine in general is tampering with natural processes. Vaccines especially, since they prevent millions of deaths that would other wise occur.

Most people would agree that medicine is good, since is prevents death and/or pain.

Use of embryos (non-human-person life) in medicine is tampering, preventing death or crippling illnesses.

Therefore, using embryos should be ok.

Yes, I know, the wording and format is off. But I think it still stands.

[Griffin NoName]

I've split it.... whch leaves me triple posting above here



Given what you say in your last post here Scribble, can one conclude that those who are fussing about "tampering" are being less than honest about what they are actually arguing about?

Why is tampering to extend life per se good? 

No one is suggesting embryo research is about ending life, or preventing natural life developing. 


Is this a hidden agenda to re-discuss issues that have already been agreed by Parliament?

No wonder progress is always so slow. <sigh>

[Darlica]

This debate was supposed to be about tampering with human life.

The issue of tampering has nothing to do with quality, quantity, pro-life, or anything else.

I see tampering as a straight-forward "do we allow any alteration of what might otherwise be construed a totally natural process"?

I wanted to pare it down to it's simplest, and I wanted to debate that.

I am not averse to the other types of discussion but I wanted to focus on the absolutely fundamental principle at the root of the upcoming Commons debate, not preceding debates.

I am inclined to split this topic. Would anyone object?

I'm very sorry if I lead the the discussion of topic.
If you want to split it do so, or we just continue with your intended topic here. I can always start a different thread about Stem cell research or the right to legal abortions at a later date, I probably will since those topics are close to my heart.
Sorry again.

Of cause we should be tampering with human life, that is what medicine are all about!
Would those advocating a ban on stem cell research like to be with out Penicillin, blood transfusions, or transplantations? I guess some would but IMHO they should go and live with the Amish.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Given what you say in your last post here Scribble, can one conclude that those who are fussing about "tampering" are being less than honest about what they are actually arguing about?

Why is tampering to extend life per se good? 

No one is suggesting embryo research is about ending life, or preventing natural life developing. 


Is this a hidden agenda to re-discuss issues that have already been agreed by Parliament?

Oh, I'd definitely say they're being less than honest.
This is really a modified abortion debate, if you ask me. Different view on the same old damn thing. And goodness knows the religious ones re itching to re-debate that. They don't like it when their Jesus looses. (I say "their Jesus" because I'm pretty sure they don't worship the sensible one Chatty does).

I'd say that extending life is good. Longer lived nations have fewer children, over all, since there's less pressure to make sure the genes go on. Your children are more likely to survive, so you don't >need< to have eighty bajillion of them. Two or three will do. And one of those kids probably won't bother to have children.

If you use an embryo, you end its potential to be another person. Functionally ending its life as more than a liver or whatever.

[Griffin NoName]

And goodness knows the religious ones re itching to re-debate that.

The Commons procedures are on top of that. The big three religios get to make their points before final reading. To no effect is expected. Like they get a built in "sounding off" slot. Tedious but like keeping kids happy. LOL. Then the bill proceeds to final reading.

If you use an embryo, you end its potential to be another person. Functionally ending its life as more than a liver or whatever.

Agreed. But the embryos to be played with wouldn't have the ability to grow into life even if no one played with them - as I understand it. And if I understand it wrongly then I can't see any objection to an ethical rule that they mustn't.

Time to reassess, when and if they would be viable.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

And goodness knows the religious ones re itching to re-debate that.

The Commons procedures are on top of that. The big three religios get to make their points before final reading. To no effect is expected. Like they get a built in "sounding off" slot. Tedious but like keeping kids happy. LOL. Then the bill proceeds to final reading.

Mmm, if one we had that.
I doubt that that takes care of all of it. Religious nuts of varying statuses can push the topic. And talk about their views to the paper.

But the embryos to be played with wouldn't have the ability to grow into life even if no one played with them - as I understand it.

Could you explain that, please?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

If you use an embryo, you end its potential to be another person. Functionally ending its life as more than a liver or whatever.

This is always the conundrum.  But, by the same token, every time a woman has "a visit from aunt flo" or a man has a wet dream, potential human lives/persons are eliminated.

Where to draw the line, then?

Even if the embryo is viable-- it cannot do anything on it's own, it's totally and completely dependent on a healthy womb.  Which at this point in time, means a volunteer human female.

Let us not also forget, that roughly 50% of all naturally fertilized embryos are ejected as a matter of routine, it's a natural part of the process of life.

..........

As far as tampering with the "natural order" of things?

We do that not just with medicine-- what is surgery, but tampering with life?

From a simple appendectomy  to a stomach-stapeling to open heart surgery to organ transplants to eye-corrective surgery to silicone implants ... all of these are tampering.

Then, there is the non-surgical, non-chemical tampering:  leg braces to help straighten a crooked leg, support hosery to support poor blood circulation, back-braces to support a damaged or injured spine, braces on teeth to make straight what the NATURAL ORDER made crooked.

Heck, eye glasses are tampering with the NATURAL tendency to nearsightedness and myopia.

Now that I'm thinking of it-- what are clothes, but "artificial feathers/fur" permitting us to live comfortably in climates we'd otherwise freeze in.

Tamper away, I say.... if it's a Bad Thing, we'll figure out something or other.

If god didn't want us to tamper, I don't think that god would've given us hands with opposable thumbs.... look at dolphins-- they are smart, likely as smart as us, if not smarter (ever see a dolphin worrying about a mortgage payment or which color to choose for her bride's maids?)

How much is too much? 

I, personally, cannot think of anything that is currently possible, as being too much.

[Aggie]

Where to draw the line, then?

Even if the embryo is viable-- it cannot do anything on it's own, it's totally and completely dependent on a healthy womb.  Which at this point in time, means a volunteer human female.

Let us not also forget, that roughly 50% of all naturally fertilized embryos are ejected as a matter of routine, it's a natural part of the process of life.

Maybe we need an Embryo Shelter, where they can be put up for "adoption" (implantation) by devoted pro-lifers; if they don't get adopted in 3 weeks, then off to science!



_{I'm sure the male pro-lifers would be all for it.}

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

_{I'm sure the male pro-lifers would be all for it.}

I have no doubt.

This is always the conundrum.  But, by the same token, every time a woman has "a visit from aunt flo" or a man has a wet dream, potential human lives/persons are eliminated.

Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten, remember?

Even if the embryo is viable-- it cannot do anything on it's own, it's totally and completely dependent on a healthy womb.  Which at this point in time, means a volunteer human female.

Let us not also forget, that roughly 50% of all naturally fertilized embryos are ejected as a matter of routine, it's a natural part of the process of life.

This is true, and I agree with you. I'm simply saying that while it is alive (in the fashion a bone is), it's still not a person yet. It COULD be, just the same as the spermazoa or the egg, but isn't yet.
I suppose when it can survive on its own is the best marker (I would have issues with having one myself after it has brain waves, but that's neither here nor there).

[Aggie]

This is always the conundrum.  But, by the same token, every time a woman has "a visit from aunt flo" or a man has a wet dream, potential human lives/persons are eliminated.

Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten, remember?

Just taking a little of the pressure off of the Animal Shelter.  
_{(seriously, spay and neuter your pets)}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I suppose when it can survive on its own is the best marker (I would have issues with having one myself after it has brain waves, but that's neither here nor there).

That's the BEAUTY of leaving the final decision up to the woman in question-- and NO ONE ELSE.

"but, but, but-- it's MY baby, too!" complains the deadbeat dad.
"Fine.  YOU implant it into YOUR belly for 9 months, then!"
"*splutter-splutter*"

_{(seriously, spay and neuter your pets)}

RUMBLE!

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Like the worst version of Junior ever.

^{Could it have gotten any worse, though?}

[Griffin NoName]

Just that they are embryos that weren't going anywhere in the natural course of things.

And Aggie's solution would be fine if anyone thought they were 

Maybe we need an Embryo Shelter, where they can be put up for "adoption" (implantation) by devoted pro-lifers; if they don't get adopted in 3 weeks, then off to science!

[anthrobabe]

  males wanting a say in reproductive rights! all to often they want a say but not a DO- as in do the diapers, do the feeding, do the raising, do the supporting, do the crying, do_____
they just want to say

Oh but some of them really want to be daddies-- yes and they might be great daddies- so go find a woman who wants to be a mommy.

and then of course there is the conundrum of sperm doner being sued for child support--- this is simply more proof that there are idiots walking around loose in the world.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

males wanting a say in reproductive rights! all to often they want a say but not a DO- as in do the diapers, do the feeding, do the raising, do the supporting, do the crying, do_____
they just want to say

Oh but some of them really want to be daddies-- yes and they might be great daddies- so go find a woman who wants to be a mommy.

and then of course there is the conundrum of sperm doner being sued for child support--- this is simply more proof that there are idiots walking around loose in the world.

Rumble!

For the most part-- I blame people who do not think they are worthy, but just the opposite.

A tiny, tiny bit of "I'm not worthy" is a good thing, I think-- just a bit, just enough to help you remember you are NOT alone on this planet, but you must share.

But these pukes who are the opposite of "i'm not worthy" who think that they are somehow owed something?  A pox on'em. 

Mix that with a sizable bunch that have zero understanding of simple economics; these sort think that money is infinite.  They do not understand that money from the government has to come from somewhere.....

These also think that anyone with money has an infinite amount, and they want some for themselves, by hook or by crook.

Crazy?  Maybe.  Lazy, selfish and greedy?  Certainly.

[Griffin NoName]

You lot just cannot keep on topic can you?*

Just watched a political sketch program. My sort of politics. But they take care to present both "sides"

They'd invited on a roman catholic and she came out with the "tamper" word.

If I hear T A M P E R one more time I might explode.

They didn't pick up on it - shame.

But, they did ask her why she wanted to delay finding medical cures for exceedingly nasty diseases for millions of sufferers.

She went totally silent.

It was a beautiful moment.

She had no reply and didn't even try to find one.

I may go and add "tamper" to the swear words thread


* the fuss in the UK is about mixing animals and humans - I think the extent of off-topic here reflects the difference in debates bewteen the UK and US......  but the UK Toadfish are a bit silent so I can't really test this theory.... maybe the UK Toadfish are just too shy to talk about something which is loosely related to sex

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

You lot just cannot keep on topic can you?*

Just watched a political sketch program. My sort of politics. But they take care to present both "sides"

They'd invited on a roman catholic and she came out with the "tamper" word.

If I hear T A M P E R one more time I might explode.

They didn't pick up on it - shame.

But, they did ask her why she wanted to delay finding medical cures for exceedingly nasty diseases for millions of sufferers.

She went totally silent.

It was a beautiful moment.

She had no reply and didn't even try to find one.

I may go and add "tamper" to the swear words thread


* the fuss in the UK is about mixing animals and humans - I think the extent of off-topic here reflects the difference in debates bewteen the UK and US......  but the UK Toadfish are a bit silent so I can't really test this theory.... maybe the UK Toadfish are just too shy to talk about something which is loosely related to sex

That silence is at least honest-- it's an admission that she cannot answer the conundrum her beliefs have created.

I think I prefer that, to the lame twisting of the Bible that some fundies come up with instead...

[beagle]

* the fuss in the UK is about mixing animals and humans - I think the extent of off-topic here reflects the difference in debates bewteen the UK and US......  but the UK Toadfish are a bit silent so I can't really test this theory.... maybe the UK Toadfish are just too shy to talk about something which is loosely related to sex

I have a premium rate phone number for those sort of talks.

Actually it's because I don't see it as clear-cut. I'm 95% in favour of stem cell/embryo experiments but don't think Dr Mengele* was the last of the mad medical scientists. There are ones out there who would happily grow a human/non-human-animal cross to term just to see how it reacted to penicillin, so this particular case is very near the limits of my enthusiasm.

My attiitude is allow this, but with very strict (low number of ) licences, term limits and rigorous monitoring, in cases where there is good justification that it's necessary (thinking that a human/giraffe cross might be good at basketball doesn't qualify).


*  Catholic apparently

[Griffin NoName]

Not seeing it as clear cut is debating material.

I agree. Where ther be human science; there be monsters.

In that respect the bill is vital !!

How to police the 14 day rule should be the real debate..... since we already know that regulatory bodies leave a lot to be desired.

Someone needs to invent a regulatory body with real teeth.

[The Meromorph]

They were called the Dominicans. 

And their organization still exists, though it's been renamed and lost its teeth.


The results weren't pretty.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

My attiitude is allow this, but with very strict (low number of ) licences, term limits and rigorous monitoring, in cases where there is good justification that it's necessary (thinking that a human/giraffe cross might be good at basketball doesn't qualify).

Agreed. And then we might have an evil giraffe who not only eats all the leaves off the trees (or picks all the good stuff out of the trail mix) and can shoot hoops with the best of them.

I might add that I think there should be an in-house ethicist hovering over the operation at all times.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My, I'm late...

As said before modern medicine is a form of tampering and the most blatant exponent are antibiotics; you can make the case that antibiotics are tampering with evolution by allowing the 'weak' to survive. 

Let the ones claiming such tampering choose their stance the next time they go to a doctor.
---
The moral issues are certainly complicated and the boundaries are hard to determine. Is having a human body without a functioning brain immoral by itself? Is it immoral to create one? At what point and what human genes should and shouldn't be used in animals? I'm all for harvesting organs from scratch but how far -and how difficult to deal with the temptation- from the cloning concept of a movie like The Island?

Is just a problem of pain? Or perhaps consciousness?

[pieces o nine]

I like to think of self-awareness and/or sentience as the demarcation.

Then I consider people with severe mental handicaps or those in coma. There is no easy marker, no pat solution.

[Griffin NoName]

I have moved posts from here to Right For Life topic.

Posts moved:  Scribbles and Aggie and Bob.

This is another attempt to stay focused on the actual Bill which is NOT about right to life issues.



Fot those having difficulty staying on topic:

Think of EMBRYOS not human beings that exist as any kind of living entity. Remember we are talking of an EMBRYO undergoing TWO WEEKS of experimentals and not being developed beyond that.

It is interesting how hard it is being to stay ON topic.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I have moved posts from here to Right For Life topic.

Posts moved:  Scribbles and Aggie and Bob.

This is another attempt to stay focused on the actual Bill which is NOT about right to life issues.



Fot those having difficulty staying on topic:

Think of EMBRYOS not human beings that exist as any kind of living entity. Remember we are talking of an EMBRYO undergoing TWO WEEKS of experimentals and not being developed beyond that.

It is interesting how hard it is being to stay ON topic.

That's fine-- but the basis FOR the debate on the bill IS a right-to-life issue.

And as such, argument for or against the bill are de facto right to life issues.

[Griffin NoName]

No, it isn't. It's about research with embryos and the mixing with animals.

The right to life stuff has been debated to the end of the road here in the UK.... we've had the votes and arguments on all that in previous bills.

The only outstanding issue is euthenasia.

The problem with this topic is the difference between the US and the UK. As I said before, if you want to talk about whether to give Jim a new brain or whatever, fine, but do it in the right to life thread.

The reason I am trying to keep this focused is precisely because I want a debate on the particluar issue - and no one else seems to.

I am happy for you all to go off and debate what you want to debate, but please leave this space for the debate I would like someone, anyone, to really engage in.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

No, it isn't. It's about research with embryos and the mixing with animals.

Exactly that?  Or specifically embryos and/or animal genes?

As I said, I'm confused.... (easily enough)

[Griffin NoName]

quote BBC blurb:

The bill is designed to bring the 1990 regulatory framework for fertility treatment and embryo research in line with scientific advances.

So, it's quite "limited".

Sort of discussions here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7310709.stm

[Griffin NoName]

unsplitting Bob's post

I like to think of self-awareness and/or sentience as the demarcation.

Then I consider people with severe mental handicaps or those in coma. There is no easy marker, no pat solution.

Your first marker is quite valid.

We, because we are compassionate and social, make a special dispensation for people who's brains do not work like the rest of us-- and therefore these are people, too.

But, a deliberate creation of a brainless human body?  That one is an interesting case.  It is not "people" by the first qualification, and since it NEVER had brain activity, you can't argue that it might "some day".

On the other hand, it DOES fall under the "special dispensation" rule, even though the missing brain was deliberate.

No-- brainless husks deliberately created are still "people", and should remain so.  Else we might be tempted to start treating those poor unfortunates who's brains work Differently Than Us  as Not People.

So, no total-body cloning, sans-brains, then.

What about cloning individual body-parts?  Like kidneys, livers and so forth?   I'd say that parts are not people, and are okay.

Then, how about THIS conundrum:  suppose cloning of human tissue becomes routine-- need a newer, younger heart?  No problem, trot down to the cloning facility, and have your heart cloned and implanted.

Here's the dilemma:  if it becomes routine, suppose Joe Smedlap has a brain injury.   He is effectively brain-dead.  His family has his brain tissue cloned, and implanted into his effectively-brainless body.   Is it ethical to clone a New Brain?  Would it be Joe, afterwards?

Suppose the brain injury is only partial, and a partial-brain tissue replacement is grown-- will it be Joe afterwards?

Food for thought....

[Griffin NoName]

The question about giving Joe a new brain would depend on what part animal it was.

Since some animals have superior brains for doing certain things, merging those at the embryo stage to produce stem cells for a new brain might be rather a good thing.

I'm no longer sure which part of my brain is original in any case. It's been corrupted

[Aggie]

Hold up, I don't think many of us were clear on what this thread was about, hence the topic wander.
I think we need a refresher on what the debate is;  here's what I got from the article.

The government says the medical benefits of allowing the creation of hybrid embryos for research purposes could ease the suffering of millions of people.

The embryos are made by combining animal eggs with human nuclei, which can then be grown into stem cells and used by scientists. The bill comes in response to a shortage of available human eggs for research.

So, this bill is to allow the use of animal eggs to create faux-stem cells*, and the main reason this is necessary is because there is a lack of available human eggs? 

What's preventing them from finding a source of human ova - is it illegal to buy/sell gametes over there, or is it necessary to use fertilized ova?  If it's the latter, I see the political necessity of using animal ova, but it seems like a hassle if the main motivator is non-availability of human ova.


_{*I'm reading between the lines here and guessing that we are talking about ripping the nucleus from an animal ovum, then inserting the nucleus of a non-fetal human cell to create something that 'thinks' it's a stem cell.}

[Griffin NoName]

It's difficult to find information as to why there is a shortage, though easy to find lots about the fact that there is.

As far as I can gather, it's to do with embryos having to be donated and few people donate them.

[Darlica]

I can see the moral problem for someone with a Jewish or Islamic heritage when it comes to accept having swine cells inserted in to their bodied because of religious beliefs.

I can also see a moral dilemma for people with a strong belief that Human is the crown of the Creation and thus perfect and shouldn't be soiled by animal cells or tissue.

However I don't think any of these arguments are a valid cause to not do embryo research on the compatibility of human and animal stem cells.

To me the only valid reason to avoid inter spices transplants of stem cells of is the following questions: How will the DNA and RNA of animal stem cells react in the human body, since stem cells are a very potent type of cell (much more so than for example dedicated liver cells)?
And, what happens when animal DNA is reproduced in the human body, can all unwanted functions and features of the DNA really be turned of in the long run, say when a person with a pig stem cell thyroid gland have a child of their own? 

The only way to find out is by research.
Also, IMHO a lump of cells growing on a petri dish is a lump of cells is a lump of cells is a lump of cells.

[Aggie]

Is it embryos or unfertilized ova they need?  I can see the issue if it's embryos (zygotes?  what stage are we talking here?).  Much easier to rip the genetics out of an animal zygote, because otherwise you are effectively killing a so-called potential human being to get the final result, in which case one might as well just use fetal stem cells.

[Griffin NoName]

It's complicated.

The Bill that went to the LORDS http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/006/08006.1-7.html#j250


Discussion of the Bill in the Lords may also help - see "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill" a way down the page.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80115-0002.htm


Interesting discussion also here but ignore what John Polkinhorne says as I have crossed swords with him LOL.

(but that's another story; the wanton destruction of a 19th century rose garden; would you trust a man who could do that without consulting anyone? I gave him a piece of my mind).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Okay, I get it.

I agree with Darlicia, in that we don't have a complete understanding of everything that goes on in a cell.

There's more than just the nucleus.   Far, far more.

On the other hand, we've used animals for many surrogates-- baboon hearts, pig livers, pig heart valves, pig skin grafts, and so on.

But complete organs are not stem cells.

As for the shortage, has anyone addressed umbilical cord stem cells?  Apparently it's a growing trend in the US to freeze uc's for future need.

....

On the gripping hand, if basic research can be done with animal-human hybrids, and the shortage of human cells is thereby extended, then it's a good idea.

For there's MUCH to be done, before the dream of stem cells used to grow complete human organs.  We can barely get artificial bladders to work-- and those, ONLY if the sphincter muscles from the original can be preserved.

We are a long, long way from human trials. 

So.

I think they ought to be permitted to proceed-- so long as the hybrids are never to be implanted in humans.

[Darlica]

I hope the option: Would you like to donate your umbilical cord to science after your baby is delivered -turns up at the forms one has to sign when checking in at the hospital when it's time for labour.

I would answer yes to that if I ever came in that situation.

[Griffin NoName]

My son wanted to cut his own baby's cord but things were a bit complicated at the time so they didn't let him.  It would be another nice question on the form. There could be a little ceremony to go with it : I hereby declare this cord open for the benefit of the public.  <-- snip  -->

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

There's even a very selfish motivator, too (not to belittle the altruism, I aint)

If the researchers cultivate the stem cells it contains, and keep doing that.... if a time comes for the child of the cord, when she/he needs some stem cells for something or other, they'll be available....

Just a little added incentive. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I guess it the idea behind the bill kinda makes sense: it should be illegal to implant a genetically modified embryo in a woman. The questions regarding using modified animal ova is more related to the differences any new cells may have compared to regular human cells. It seems that mitochondrial DNA from the animal remains in the ova hence the question: any new cells would have such mitochondria? Does that change the potential of the cells? Would a human body accept or reject such tissue? Looking forward, can stem cells created in such way be used to repair ovaries/testicles and would the ova/sperm generated by such tissue have the animal's mitocondrial DNA? What would be the consequences of such thing?

That sounds like a fair scientific debate.

[Griffin NoName]

Looking forward, can stem cells created in such way be used to repair ovaries/testicles and would the ova/sperm generated by such tissue have the animal's mitocondrial DNA? What would be the consequences of such thing?

That sounds like a fair scientific debate.

Yes it would be.

Mind, I'm having fantasies of tinned stem cells one could buy at the supermarket, labelled "do not use on ovaries/testicles". 

[pieces o nine]

Mind, I'm having fantasies of tinned stem cells one could buy at the supermarket, labelled "do not use on ovaries/testicles". 

Somewhere, an entire cadre of litigation lawyers is convening in secret to begin preparing their arguments -- and their billing structures -- for just this eventuality...

[Griffin NoName]

 

The Bill goes forward with hybrid embryo research and sibling saviours permitted.

More debates and votes today, but so far so good.