D.C. Hacks Blast Blastocysts: Koreans Outflank Yanks to Bring Home Gold

Reason writers around town: At Tech Central Station, Ron Bailey asks why the U.S. wasn't first with the human clone.

Comments

[Steve in CO]

Cloning is bad because Dubya says so.

🙂

[Reason]

I wish I could write quality articles as fast as Ronald Bailey can.

There's an ongoing discussion over at Fight Aging and similar blogs on the backdrop to all this, and Wired has run a number of good articles (all referenced from the following URLs):

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000014.php

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000015.php

Regarding prohibitions, it's not only stupid not to be forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research, it's immoral and unethical. 55 million people die every year worldwide. Every year of delay in developing full-blown regenerative medicine is that many deaths at some point in the future...so far there have been five years of delay.

One has to wonder if people who argue for holding back medical research are really saying that 55 million deaths a year is a cost they are personally willing to advocate, support and *enforce* in order to prevent little pieces of tissue (without thought, nervous systems, ability to feel pain, talk, or suffer) from being used to save lives?

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme

[dj of raleigh]

Isn't it good that procedures and drugs
are developed outside the USA by foreigners
so the evil US corporations can't profit
by over-charging US citizens?
Why are all the people complaining?
Or is complaining all people do?

[SM]

I take it you are against therapeutic cloning, dj ?

[Mo]

Maybe dj is saying that now the US can strongarm SK companies to get lower prices so we can get high quality medical treatment on someone else's dime. 🙂

[dj of raleigh]

Oh yeah, Korea ain't tryiing to make money outta this

[s.m. koppelman]

Back when the Bush Administration first came out against human cloning research and stem cell production, it was like being in Upside-Down World. It's hard to imagine this kind of medieval attitude toward scientific research coming from the White House during the Cold War, or really any time in U.S. history. Can you imagine what any other president of the last century would have said about this? Whether it's Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Carter or Reagan, it would have been a point of national pride (not to mention national stature and probably national security) to be the leader in any key area of research. The US would have been in a race to clone those embryos and produce a gajillion stem cell lines before the Soviets did.

It's a shame the piece was written as an advertorial for a DCI Group client, making it about as credible as a press release. Does Reason have a policy regarding whether its regular contributors can hold down a second job doing PR on the issues they cover for the magazine? At the very least, I'd think ethical standards dictate that Mr. Bailey's Reason bio mention that he currently does work for a major corporate PR firm.

[Rick Barton]

From Ron's article:

the National Academy of Sciences' report, "Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine", concluded stem-cell-based therapies could alleviate much of the suffering of the 58 million Americans who will be struck in their lifetimes with cardiovascular diseases, the 30 million who will come down with autoimmune diseases, the 16 million who endure diabetes, the 5.5 million who will lose their minds to Alzheimer's, and on

This is a great prospect! It's happened before in free societies, scientific progress yeilding significant and wide spread human betterment. But...

The House of Representatives has twice voted for a ban on all human cloning research, including cloning to produce transplantable cells and tissues....what private company would invest in this research if tomorrow their researchers could be declared criminals and sent to jail?

Of course, this isn't just repression of science. It's repression of the progress of humankind. This is the kind of stuff that dark ages are made of. If this is allowed to stand people will suffer because congress uses their power to stifle the fight against their afflictions.

We should contact out congress person and senators and tell them please, in the name of decency, to get the Hell out of the way!

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[Rick Barton]

make that: "contact our congress person..." Sorry about that.

[dj of raleigh]

> I take it you are against therapeutic cloning, dj ?

[Robert Hutchinson]

But, we're not talking children of unwilling parents here. We're talking about independent adults suffering because the damn congress uses its power to stifle dramatic progress in curing their afflictions!

1) One side of the debate does not think that the independent adults are the only human beings personally affected by such progress. My point was about how close Mr. Bailey came to a similarly (and, unlike those used, at least slightly analogous) controversial issue without actually hitting upon it.

2) In the portion I was quoting, I'm fairly certain Mr. Bailey was talking only about embryonic stem cell research, and not the whole of therapeuting cloning research. I, too, feel is it idiotic and wrong for Congress to make such a blanket ban.

[Robert Hutchinson]

If one believes that a blastocyst has all the rights of a human being on religious grounds, then there is no argument that will persuade one to permit human therapeutic research. Perhaps the best we can do in a pluralistic society is to permit those who want to take full advantage of medical advances to do so, while allowing others to refuse medical treatments that they find morally objectionable.

This argument will continue to make no sense no matter how often it is presented. Can anyone here name a single crime that they find categorically wrong for a person to commit (murder, theft, arson, etc.), but which they would be okay with as long as they themselves were "allowed" not to engage in said crime?

Also found herein is the familiar implication that the only form of human therapeutic research is that which involves human embryonic stem cells. Argue that other methods aren't as effective, sure. But don't pretend that ethical issues can be sidestepped simply by how much easier things would be if we did.

After all, we don't force adult Christian Scientists to take medications

But do we force adult Christian Scientists to get the hell out of the way while we administer medications to their 2-year-olds? The quoted sentence may very well have set a new record for coming closest to a relevant topic without actually hitting upon it.

[John A. Kalb]

DJ,

From what I understand, the human brain's got a life of about 200 years, so until they figure out how to extend that, you've got a limiting factor here.

I also have an open question- if it has not been established that embryonic stem cells actually get you anything more than the adult ones, how is the ban on embryonic stem cell research pushing us back to the dark ages, as some claim?

The fact is, what makes someone human is inherently a question that cannot be answered by reason alone, so claims that anyone opposed to destroying embryos is somehow in favor of closing society and is opposed to "science" are ridiculous. Such questions are inherently philosophical, and one's core beliefs, be they religiously inspired or not, inform those views.

If one holds that life begins at conception, or some point very near to that, government's stepping in to prevent the destruction of those innocent lives does nothing to make a society less "open."

[Rick Barton]

John A. Kalb:

"If one holds that life begins at conception, or some point very near to that, government's stepping in to prevent the destruction of those innocent lives does nothing to make a society less "open.""

Yes, it's certainly human life, but this life should not be, and in practice is not, valued like we value the life we call; "human beings". A large fraction of pregnancies end in natural, "spontaneous abortion". Is there a movement to fund research to "cure" spontaneous abortions for the sake of saving these "lives"? Of course not.

But, stem-cell-based therapies will save human being's lives and the value of these lives is not ambiguous.

[Rick Barton]

s.m. koppelman:

"It's a shame the piece was written as an advertorial for a DCI Group client, making it about as credible as a press release."

Any piece's credibility should be judged by its content, so this criticism of the piece is what lacks credibility here.

[SM]

"I figure that someday there will be cloned beings,
not called humans, cloned from a person & kept alive
to harvest organs, skin, tissue for such folk
who want to live forever, or want to try."

Why do I get the feeling that you are taking a position ? Why ? Strange ...

[Robert Hutchinson]

Yes, it's certainly human life, but this life should not be, and in practice is not, valued like we value the life we call; "human beings".

Is not valued by whom? The thousands upon thousands who take a very hardline anti-abortion stance? The thousands upon thousands of women who were inconsolable after they had miscarriages? If one is going to decide these issues by taking an average, well, hell, let's call up the pollsters and get this mess put behind us once and for all.

[crimethink]

Stem cell research has been going on for years now, and how many lives have been saved? I'm pretty sure it's about 0. And, however promising it appears, there's no proof that it will ever save a single life.

So get off your high horse -- the 55 million people who would have died this year without stem cell research are almost certainly going to die this year no matter what. And it may be decades before even a significant percentage of those who suffer from degenerative conditions are helped by stem cell research.

[Rick Barton]

"But do we force adult Christian Scientists to get the hell out of the way while we administer medications to their 2-year-olds?"

But, we're not talking children of unwilling parents here. We're talking about independent adults suffering because the damn congress uses its power to stifle dramatic progress in curing their afflictions!

Now that we have this key blastocyst stage breakthrough, the cruelty of this tragic use of government force is manifest.

Please, tell congress to stop this barbaric obstruction! This one is literally a matter of life and death.

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[Rick Barton]

"Is not valued by whom? The thousands upon thousands who take a very hardline anti-abortion stance?"

Yes, even them. Spontaneous abortion in the first month ends a huge number of pregnancies. As I said, you don't see the hard line anti-abortion folks trying to fund research to "cure" spontaneous abortions for the sake of saving these "lives"? But, we certainly shouldn't allow congress to get in the way of cures for the kind of life we call "human beings".

[Rick Barton]

crimethink:

"And, however promising it appears, there's no proof that it will ever save a single life."

And, just what "proof" would you accept? That it looks good and the research is yielding results is more than enough reason not to have an agency of force, like the government, stop it. We are talking life and death here. This is way to important a matter to be held up by government veto.

"And it may be decades before even a significant percentage of those who suffer from degenerative conditions are helped by stem cell research."

What?? Or it may not be that long either. What does it matter if it did turn out to be decades before the suffering are helped? But what ever, it will sure as Hell be longer if the idiot government gets in the way. What in the world do you mean by, "even a significant percentage.."? Also, if it's you or someone you care for that is helped by stem cell research, then it's "significant" for sure.

What in the Hell are we arguing about? The government does lots of stupid things, but when it gets in the way of alleviating pain and death, it's just tragic.

[craigl]

Darn, this is just going to make it even more difficult to tell them apart.

[John A. Kalb]

Larry,

That is a projection. Obviously no human has lives that long. And I'm clear enough that I am not supposing that people may well live past 200 years (remember I say, "until they figure out").

Rick,

The problem with your point is that spontaneous abortions in the first month typically happen before the woman knows she is pregnant (from what I understand, the zygote or early embryo is often just flushed out, for the lack of a better term, in the woman's next period). And there are a lot of zygotes that don't implant in the uterus. Now I don't personally believe that human life starts at conception, since I find it hard to argue that a zygote, which might well split into two perfectly vital human beings, can be called a discrete indivudual, and my understanding of souls and rights is that you get those as an individual, not as some poorly-defined thing that might split into two or more fully independent individuals. So I am not personally bothered that much by spontaneous abortions, and I think most pro-lifers who do believe that life starts at conception hold that it's a tragic but inevitable occurance.

[Larry]

John:

"From what I understand, the human brain's got a life of about 200 years, so until they figure out how to extend that, you've got a limiting factor here."

1. Do we have any proof of this, or is it a projection? How many people have lived to 200 and died because their brain wore out?

2. Every problem in history has been a "limiting factor," right up until the time "they" figured it out. We couldn't live where it was too cold before we tamed fire.

Are you supposing this particular problem won't be solved? That's never been the smart way to bet.

[Rick Barton]

John,

Even if most women aren't aware of first month spontaneous abortion until after the fact; it is well known that it occurs at a rate vastly greater than intervention abortions. If the anti-abortion folks valued these "lives" as if they were human beings they would working on funding a "cure".

BTW, I have sympathies for the cause of the anti-abortion folks, but no sympathy for a government, or other coercive, means to achieve less human intervention abortions.

Your consideration about the zygote not being a discrete individual is very interesting. While exactly where "person-hood" starts is important in the ethics of abortion, any reasonable demarcation would be far removed from when cloned embryos develop to the blastocyst stage.

[Robert Hutchinson]

It is well known that many people every year die by decapitation. And yet, no serious research is being done regarding keeping severed heads alive.

It is well known that many people every year die. And yet, no serious research is being done regarding making human beings invulnerable.

I love a good game of "Find the Fallacy".

[Rick Barton]

Robert,

If I didn't know better, from reading your previous posts, I would think that your last post was making fun of your side of this debate.

[Rick Barton]

Robert,
Ok, I'll try to treat what you just posted seriously. Surely, you don't really think that reducing the rate of first month spontaneous abortions is as remote as "keeping severed heads alive", do you?

[Rick Barton]

Robert,
Ok, I'll try to treat what you just posted seriously?.Sorry, can?t do it. Surely, You don't really think that reducing the rate of first month spontaneous abortions is as remote as "keeping severed heads alive", do you?

[Rick Barton]

Sorry about the echo effect. Damn Bunnymen!

[SM]

"If one holds that life begins at conception, or some point very near to that, government's stepping in to prevent the destruction of those innocent lives does nothing to make a society less "open."

And exactly why should anyone hold to this position ? The answer had better not have the words "soul" or "slippery slope" in it. Its quite interesting how the clone warriors on this thread have been arguing mostly about abortion as if it had something to do with stem cell research.
If there's subtext to all the tech outsourcing happening today it is surely that the rest of the world is catching up. Culture warriors here in the US who impede the development of promising technologies had better get used to seeing it followed thru' elsewhere.

[Rick]

James Robland Jose Cibelli created a human clone in 1995 at UMASS Amherst. The clone was allowed to grow to the 32-cell stage, then destroyed. Skin cells from the donor were implanted in a cow ovum.

[T Bone]

Robert,

I think I can take your post seriously. You're saying Rick's solution for hard-line anti-abortionists on the issue of spontaneous abortions is equivelent to looking for a way to keep severed heads alive instead of trying to prevent severed heads. It isn't.

What are you proposing the solution to the current situation of spontaneous abortions should be?

The rates that I have found for spontaneous abortion are 15- 20% for "clinically detected" pregnancies (missed period, pregnancy test, ect), and about 50% for total pregnancy loss rate (detected plus undetected pregnancies, though this number is difficult to firmly establish).

Certainly, there is a difference between actively destroying a zygote/blastocyst/ect. and not taking every measure to prevent it's possible destruction. I'd say - for someone who believes life starts at conception - it's like the difference between murdering someone and passing by a dying person without helping them (especially if they have a personal relationship to you - the analagous case for when the fertilized egg is yours or caused by you). Most people, myself included, believe that there is some moral obligation in the second case. I haven't heard a word on this from anti-abortion groups. I can understand that they would be more concerned with murder than simply saving lives, but they should also be concerned with saving lives.

Incidentally, I believe potential human life becomes human life when our defining characteristic is manifest - that of human-like thought (defined as broadly as possible). As best as I can tell this doesn't occur until late in the pregnancy - certainly not in a zygote.

[Robert Hutchinson]

What I was saying was incredibly simple: one cannot judge what is and is not human life simply based on how fervently others are attempting to prevent it from coming to an end. If I had felt like spending more time on my last message, I could've looked up "incurable" diseases from centuries past.

I honestly have no idea how avoidable spontaneous abortions are, although I would be somewhat surprised to learn that, in fact, no one has done or is doing any research to try to make them less common.