Embryo Research

[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.