On Which Chromosome Does the Gene for the Human Soul Reside?

The Washington Post is reporting that privately funded researchers have now managed to use human eggs to produce lines of stem cells for the first time. To achieve this, the researchers installed the nuclei of skin cells in unfertilized human eggs. However, this means that the cells so produced contain three sets of chromosomes. The goal of a lot of embryonic stem cell research is to create tissues that are suitable for transplant by being genetlcally matched to specific patients. This technique does not do this, but may be a step in that direction. Of course, this new research is once again stirring ethical debate, and the Post reports one of the sillier comments:

"They have created human embryos. They are abnormal, but they are still human embryos," said Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago. "Anyone who is opposed to the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos, as I am, would be opposed to this research."

Since there is no way that these triploid "embryos" could develop into babies, one is left to wonder on which chromosome Sulmasy thinks the gene allowing for the installation of a human soul must reside?

Comments

[Tim]

Which chromosome does your soul reside on Ron?

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Everybody knows that the soul is on the Y chromosome.

[robc]

Came into this thread solely to make that joke.

[American Delight]

Sulmasy didn't mention souls. So the title is a bit of a straw man...

[John]

Ron what makes a human human? If it is the ability to develop into a fully functioning adult, aren't then profoundly handicapped children who will never develop into such not human?

I don't see how "human" means anything other than "coming from another human". And by that definition these mutated embryos still count.

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

Reminds me of Monty Python's "every sperm is sacred" ... I assume from your comment that you think these things should not be used by science? These are not people and could never be people.

[MJ]

It reminds you of a deliberately misconstrued argument arising from cultural bigotry? Yes, that does sound like Bailey.

[Benjamin]

Given that there is no way these artificially created cells will become babies, even if implanted in a uterus, then they are no more human than if a I plucked a hair from my head and called it "Billy." Saying that any piece of a human that contains the DNA of a human is a full human with all the rights there of is the height of ignorance and folly. Should we hold cups under the vaginas of every woman wherein there is a fertilized egg? Remember a large number of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort naturally. Are the women who go through this occurrence murderers? Should we halt nearly all medical research because it makes use of various biological material that came from human bodies?

Where does the absurd...
"But it's against my God's will...and, and it's for the children (even if said clump of cells will in fact never actually become a child and was created in a research lab by wholly artificial means)!!"...
end for you? Must everyone else suffer to appease your narrow theocratic views?

[MJ]

"Remember a large number of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort naturally."

Remember that almost all humans will die naturally, does that make a good argument for deliberately harming humans at all stages of development and age?

The idea that humans have a right to be protected from deliberate harm is a moral position ultimately based on "theocratic views".

Your complaints try to prove way too much.

[Benjamin]

No I'm not. I'm saying that there must be a reasonable line where biological items containing human DNA, even ones with the potential to become a full fletched human being, do not enjoy the same legal protections that an actual human enjoys. Giving all items containing human DNA the same rights as an actual human is carrying the very idea of human rights to such a ridiculous extreme that it negates the very concept.

Also, I would very much refute your assertion that "The idea that humans have a right to be protected from deliberate harm is a moral position ultimately based on "theocratic views". One does not need any sort of religion to be moral.

[MJ]

Deriding other people's moral views on the basis of "theocracy" is to ignore their argument. It is crass and intellectually lazy. The arguments that embryos deserve moral consideration are the same that any human being is worthy of moral consideration on the basis of being human. Crying "theocracy" is not a refutation, it is an obfuscation.

"Giving all items containing human DNA the same rights as an actual human is carrying the very idea of human rights to such a ridiculous extreme that it negates the very concept."

Except that is a straw man argument. Nobody is saying that everything that carries human DNA is worthy of moral consideration, they are arguing that entities that have undergone the equivalent of conception do, and that is a much narrower class of entities.

[Benjamin]

"Deriding other people's moral views on the basis of "theocracy" is to ignore their argument. It is crass and intellectually lazy."

How is this any different from your incorrect assertion that..."The idea that humans have a right to be protected from deliberate harm is a moral position ultimately based on "theocratic views"."? Again...one does not need religion to be moral.

" they are arguing that entities that have undergone the equivalent of conception do"

In order for there to be human hair there must first have been conception. In order for there to be human finger nails there must first have been conception. This line of reasoning can go on and on, and each example is equally damning to your argument.

If there is no chance of a human arising from said chunk of human tissue than it does not deserve the same, or any, legal protection as an actual human. A severed finger does not have the same rights as the person who lost that finger.

[MJ]

You are missing the point about "theocracy". That argument that embryos deserve moral consideration is just as "theocratic" as the argument that any human being is deserving of moral consideration. The extent to that its based on religion is the extent that any individual moral sense is based on religion ( and some people's are not). You are just using "theocracy" as a trump card to avoid adressing the actual arguments being made. You are the one expressing the hang ups over religion.

"A severed finger does not have the same rights as the person who lost that finger."

Who are these people making the argument that it does? An embryo is a complete creature in itself, it is not a part of greater whole. That's why you are arguing against a straw man.

[MJ]

The argument that using these types of entities in research is not that they are severed parts of of another creature but that they have such inherent massive chromosomal defects that they will not survive to develop fully.

[Zeb]

This may not be popular, btu I woudl say that the severely disabled person who will never develop a functioning mind is not fully human. We are obliged to keep them alive because there is no ethical way to draw the line and because they look human and we are a sentimental bunch.

[marlok]

Good luck taking that show on the road.

How do you define "fully human"?
How do you define "fully functioning mind"?

[Zeb]

That's why I don't think it is OK to abandon or kill such creatures. I don't want myself or anyone else to make that judgment. But it is a pretty damn easy judgment to make about a triploid embryo with no chance of developing at all.

And I didn't say "fully functioning mind" but rather "functioning mind". There are many (some who comment on this blog) with non-fully functional minds who I do consider human nonetheless.

[Tacos mmm...]

By the definition, sperm count, since they are alive and contain human chromosomes, simply a haploid compliment incapable of developing into a fully functioning adult.

[PIRS]

In the Middle Ages theologians argued over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". In other words, do they have physical size or are they powerful enough to do this? Are they, in effect, demigods? Or are they more like us. I think this is a similar question. If a soul does indeed exist is it something measurable? Is it a collection of experiences and physical brain structure? We know from separated twin studies that there is at least some impact that DNA plays in our personality.

[Bee Tagger]

Are you saying these triploid embryos will develop into vampires?

And if it never had a soul to begin with, what would happen if it comes in contact with a Mohra demon's blood?

[sukmyfukencok]

I don't know about having a soul, all I care about is having sooooul, brotha!

[Toiletus]

WORD son

[Abdul]

I don't think ensoulment is the basis for his objection.

If I understand the article (and if the journalist understood the science--a bigger "if"), it appears that the researchers deliberately created deformed embryos that would not be viable.

Another scientist in the article questioned whether such abnormal cells had any scintific or clinical value. Several other scientists raised objections on everything from the morality of paying women for eggs to whether triple genomes go to far (rest of objection blocked by paywall).

Mr. Bailey was the only person to raise the issue of the soul.

[PIRS]

"it appears that the researchers deliberately created deformed embryos that would not be viable."

People who would object this this part of it would probably also object to RU486.

[Ron Bailey]

Folks: "Soul" is a metaphor about whatever it is that certain ethicists think is important about being human. Since these entities can never become a person, Sulmasy seems to me to be making some claim that human DNA is somehow especially important.

[PIRS]

Human DNA is part of the picture though certainly not all of it. Separated twin studies demonstrate how important a part this is. This is not to say I agree with Sulmasy - I don't. But I do not deny that DNA plays a very important role in "who we are". My objection with Sulmasy is that these are not true embryos in the normal use of that term. If they are not viable they are not viable. They never have the ability to obtain consciousness even at a rudimentary level.

[Tim]

WHy didn't you just say so in the first place?

[marlok]

Triploidy won't lead to a viable fetus, but I would bet that scientists eventually figure out how to create diploid cells.

The infinitely more interesting question will be what to do when scientists can create viable fetal tissue. No more hiding behind the incompatible-with-life argument.

[Abdul]

Since these entities can never become a person

How did you get to define personhood instead of Dr. Sulmasy? Beat him in parchesi?

I think a similar ethical quandary would be if a couple knew somehow that any offspring they produced would always miscarry and never reach full term. Would it be morally objectionable for them to continue creating embryos that would never go to term?

While you may not have a problem with such a scenario, other people could.

[rather]

This question requires pondering but I do know when you see the dead body of a friend, a person you loved, there is no doubt in one's mind, that that what we call the soul, has left their shell.

[PIRS]

Jean-Paul Sarte once wrote that in order for destruction to exist, there must be first a relation of man to being - i.e. trancendence; and within the limits of this relation, it is necessary that man apprehend one being as destructable. This supposes a limiting cutting into being, which, as we saw in connection with truth, is already a process of nihilation.

[Citizen Nothing]

Don't be deliberately obtuse, people.
Jesus.
Anyhoo, the news coverage on this (in other places) is always frustrating. I was listening to NPR and it seemed to be taken as a given that no decent person would ever endorse human cloning under any circumstance.
Why the fuck not? That stand is certainly not self-evident to me.
I'm the adoring father of four beautiful children, each a blessing: but, as I've said before, it doesn't seem that truly human life begin until after they've been out of the womb about three months. Many assume I'm joking. But I'm not.
Yeah. I'm a monster worse than Jimmy Carter. But watta ya gonna do?

[some guy]

You're not a monster. You're just being practical.

I tend to draw the "person-line" at whenever the earliest premature baby has been born and survived to adulthood (About 23-25 weeks, I think). If the embryo has no shot of surviving ex-utero, then it still just a part of its mother. If the embryo hasn't even been implanted in a uterus, then its just a complicated bundle of chemicals.

[Tacos mmm...]

That's sure to drive the absolutists crazy.

[Colin]

A very glib and moronic remark by Bailey.

But he can make all the glib and moronic remarks he'd like it doesn't change the fact that human life is being destroyed.

As opposed to adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell has been a complete failure in terms of actual solutions. The only reason it continues is as a stalking horse for abortion rights.

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

Now Colin's argument is simply a stalking horse for the anti-abortion position.

[Brad P.]

You completely miss the point.

The glib remark is there to openly question what motivation there could be to protect this human life.

What is it about these cells that conveys a moral obligation to us to not destroy them? What could the negative consequences possibly be?

The "glib and moronic remark" was intended to show just how absurd and baseless the objections based on "Its a human life" really are.

[Ron Bailey]

BP: Correct. Thanks.

[robc]

Which chromosone controls the creation of the pineal gland?

Because, you know, that is where the soul resides, duh.

Ask a stupid question, get an appropriate answer.

[marlok]

No way dude. That's where the 6th sense lives. The one that makes you eat brains.
Haven't you seen From Beyond?

[R C Dean]

Isn't an embryo a fertilized egg?

Have these eggs been fertilized, or just genetically re-engineered?

[PIRS]

This I suppose depends upon how one defines the word "embryo". I must admit I am not a biologist - this is outside my field of expertise. There may be a more technical definition of the word that scientists use but non-scientists do not usually use. By the definition of lay people it is NOT.

[PIRS]

To clarify, by the definition of non-scientists these "embryos" are not true embryos but they might fit some technical definition of the term used by biologists.

[rather]

Three sets of chromosomes? Do we know enough about the karyotype to understand whether we have completely eliminated the other 43?
Could there be some vestigial coding hidden in the present three?

If life evolved as we think, are we inadvertently playing simulacrum with our biological recipe?

[Juice]

By triploid, I assume they mean one up from diploid, which is one up from haploid. It means 3 copies of 46 chromosomes instead of 2.

[marlok]

It means 3 x 23 for 69 total chromosomes.

Triploidy is not compatible with life, with the possible rare exception of chimerism where the vast majority of the fetal cells have normal genetics but a portion may be triploid.

[PM770]

Did one of the trolls somehow figure out how to get a post through on the main Hit and Run site under Ron Bailey's name?

[AlmightyJB]

I sold my soul for rock n roll.

[MJ]

"...sidestepping concerns that the approach could be used for human cloning, but also making the cells useless for treating anyone."

They made embryos with a massive chromosomal defect, but are useless in any practical application. Even if the research is successful, any practical therapies are still likely to have the ethical issues surrounding them because cells useful for treatment will have to come from a viable embryo.

At most, what is being argued is that cripples, bastards, and broken things deserve less moral consideration and therefore are OK to experiment with to destruction.

[MJ]

Down's Syndrome and related genetic issues are caused by similar (but less massive)chromosomal defects as what has been deliberatly inflicted on these entities. The qualifier for Bailey is that these will die of their defects before much development goes on, therfore they are morally unimportant.

[Geneticist]

Triploidy occurs in about 2% of all recognized conceptions. Most embryos don't make it to term. Most newborns die within the first few days of life, but some survive into early infancy. Most commonly they arise from an egg being fertilized by two sperm resulting in a 69,XXX or 69,XXY karyotype. Rarely you'll see a 69,XYY.

[Ben David]

Point of reference:

According to Jewish law, non-implanted embryos are not considered human because they cannot develop on their own. Only embryos implanted in the womb have human status (and even then the 1st trimester is different...)

This rabbinic opinion has allowed genetic research to continue in Israel without most of the debates in the US.

Please don't paint all "religious people" or "Judeo-Christians" the same on this issue.

[Apatheist]

As an atheist prolifer this position matches my own. Objecting to situations like the above, the morning after pill and especially birth control only serves to push away the people in the middle on abortion (which polls say is most people).

[marlok]

"not considered human because they cannot develop on their own."

I think this definition would extend non-living status to one's teenage years.

[Dekedin]

Because of their genetic abnormalities, those embryos could not have survived.

I think this is the key phrase. Also, with the concern of women being paid, I don't see how that's an issue. It's the doctor's money and the women's eggs. The third issue: tax dollars. A lot of people in the comments are complaining about funding, but the article says that the study was privately funded, so it's not an issue.

[jtuf]

"They have created human embryos. They are abnormal, but they are still human embryos," said Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago. "Anyone who is opposed to the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos, as I am, would be opposed to this research."

Since academics fully support abortions, it must the deliberate creation of embryos that freaks them out.

[R C Dean]

Note: he is a bioethicist, and therefor opposed to any voluntary activity that is not under the supervision and control of a bioethicist.

[wayne]

RB, you seem to be rather down on bioethicists.

Just because they gaze at their navels and take every opportunity to obstruct any possible progress, and ceaselessly wring their hands over the most abstruse projections of their own internal inadequacies, is that any reason to doubt the value of their contributions to "sceince"?

[Zeb]

I bet there are one or two pro-life academics out there.

[jtuf]

In NJ, cloning for research is popular but reproductive cloning is illegal. Folks here think it's fine to chop up a clone embryo for spare parts, but they shutter at the thought of bringing that embryo to full term and adding another child their their school district.

[Toiletus]

souls.... lol

[Dookie Brown]

Why is it that whenever I read a quote from someone who has the word ethics in thier job title they say something stupid?

[Dookie Brown]

I would like someone to explain to me why it's not unethical for someone to stand in the way of this research. Stem cell and cloning technologies have the potential to do amazing things.

They could help people that are alive and suffering now yet these people are concered about cells. Not the cancer patient but the cells. That seems horrible to me.