Comments on: Cloning without the Controversy

Cloning without the Controversy

jsonic — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:47:33 -0800

'Virgin birth' method promises ethical stem cells. The technique, parthenogenesis, manipulates unfertilized eggs to produce short-lived embryos from which stem cells can be obtained. As the article states: "it produces embryos that could never become human beings. So destroying these embryos to obtain stem cells would avoid the ethical concerns that have led to restrictions or bans on embryonic stem cell research in many countries."

By: PigAlien

PigAlien — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:56:37 -0800

Wow, someone dug up the DNA of Jesus and cloned it? Now Jesus can really heal us all. All of the problems of the world will be solved with countless miracle workers at our disposal!

By: PigAlien

PigAlien — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:57:29 -0800

Or did they dig up the Virgin Mary instead? Pretty useless unless she can manage a repeat performance.

By: mikrophon

mikrophon — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:00:41 -0800

< devil's advocate> Parthenogenesis has produced viable births in other animals . . . are we sure these little lumps couldn't grow up to over-populate the earth instead of being cut up into stems? < / devil's advocate>

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:03:16 -0800

In parthenogenesis, an unfertilised egg keeps two sets of chromosomes and begins developing as if it had been fertilised. Some insects and reptiles can reproduce this way but even though an electric or chemical stimulus can induce parthenogenesis in mammals, the resulting embryos die after a few days. I'm all for this, but I bet the part I emphasized will be a deal breaker for many stem cell opponents. May not be viable, but it was "alive" at some point.

By: Turd Ferguson

Turd Ferguson — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:13:19 -0800

May not be viable, but it was "alive" at some point. Alive like an unfertilized egg. Hey, pro-lifers -- life begins at conception, right? I'm sure you're right, pinkstainlesstail, but anyone who objects to this is a simple luddite.

By: MrBaliHai

MrBaliHai — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:21:27 -0800

Big black Nemesis Parthenogenesis Everybody happy as the dead come home -Shriekback

By: Karmakaze

Karmakaze — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:25:02 -0800

Absolutely, but then, the objections to date have been based on similar arguments. There's not a whole lot of rationality in the issue.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:39:15 -0800

Science is evil. Only religious faith is good. Obey your proxies for God/Allah/Buddha. Do not question.

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:59:58 -0800

Wow, maybe all the money I've lost on stem cell stocks will come back to me now. Good luck!

By: cbrody

cbrody — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:34:01 -0800

But the big story today is that cells from bone marrow may soon replace stem cell technology entirely.

By: Cerebus

Cerebus — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:36:08 -0800

I can't get to newscientist.com from here (thank you, overly-broad black-hole routes), so my question to those of you who read the article is-- if the resulting embryo is not viable, how are the extracted stem cells kept viable?

By: shinnin

shinnin — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:45:31 -0800

Cerebus: It's no loss--New Scientist is a rag that is willing to swallow any press release from a dying biotech company and report it as real news. ACT in Mass. has been trying to impress people with its parthenogenesis-derived cells for at least a year, but no peer-reviewed journal will publish their very shaky work. These cell lines are not stable enough to be useful and no techniques for making them useful have been remotely successful enough to warrant even cocktail party conversation. Getting your science from New Scientist is like getting your current events from People Magazine.

By: yeahyeahyeahwhoo

yeahyeahyeahwhoo — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:02:26 -0800

since the truly faithful know that christ is coming next christmas, maybe they'll let these guys experiment for a little while.

By: Bluecoat93

Bluecoat93 — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:22:57 -0800

Yeah, there's no chance that using the words "virgin birth" to describe this is going to piss off the religious folks that are opposed to stem-cell research in the first place. Maybe these scientists should hire a freaking PR firm to get their ideas across better.

By: gd779

gd779 — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:29:01 -0800

shinnin: Where's the best place to get biotech news, then?

By: fishbulb

fishbulb — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:33:03 -0800

Bluecoat93: Yeah, there's no chance that using the words "virgin birth" to describe this is going to piss off the religious folks that are opposed to stem-cell research in the first place. Haha, I was thinking the same thing. "Virgin Birth" won't fly with the opposition. Something like "Embryos that could never be human ever" would be better, but, you know, more succinct.

By: shinnin

shinnin — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:41:37 -0800

gd: Credible scientific findings are always published in peer-reviewed journals. Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Assoc, British Medical Journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They all have high editorial standards, newsie sections that review research being published elsewhere, and websites that give out a fair amount without subscription. There are also hundreds of journalists who's job is to wait for the latest issue of those journals and write stories about anything interesting, so you can get by just watching google news for those tell-tale words "reported in this weeks edition of [reputable journal]. " If a story doesn't make such a reference, it's PR. You'll almost never see such a reference in New Scientist or Scientific American.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:58:38 -0800

(MrBaliHai has set my internal dj onto repeat for the rest of the day.)

By: divrsional

divrsional — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:50:33 -0800

Stavros, ME TOO!!!! The odd thing is that just yesterday I realphabetized my vinyl and thought for a while whether to keep that Shriekback album. Now of course I have to.