Backing for baby cloning to beat disease

UK Daily Telegraph ^ | 6/5/06 | Daily Telegraph

[wagglebee]

A proposal to create babies that are both cloned and genetically altered to prevent serious hereditary disease is outlined today by the leader of the team that created Dolly the sheep.

Ever since news that Dolly had been cloned from an adult cell made headlines around the world, Prof Ian Wilmut has repeatedly said he is "implacably opposed" to cloning a human being.

‘The use of genetic and reproductive technologies is not a step backwards into darkness’

But in his forthcoming book After Dolly, serialised today in The Daily Telegraph, he argues that, when the techniques are shown to be safe, society should consider cloning with genetic modification to prevent the birth of babies with serious diseases.

The Edinburgh University professor argues in the book, written with the Telegraph's science editor, Roger Highfield, that cloning an IVF embryo consisting of 100 or so cells is not the same as cloning a person.

The process of cloning - nuclear transfer - that Prof Wilmut's large team honed when he was at the Roslin Institute, culminated in the birth of Dolly in 1996. Cloning also makes it possible to carry out precise genetic corrections, as demonstrated in 1997 when his team unveiled Polly, a sheep altered to secrete a human blood clotting protein in her milk.

The same method potentially offers a much more efficient way to achieve healthy births than current methods of screening embryos for harmful genes.

Prof Wilmut writes: "Doctors should be able to offer at-risk couples the opportunity to conceive with IVF methods, break down the resulting embryos into cells, correct any serious genetic defects in these cells then clone demonstrably healthy cells to create a new embryo that can be implanted to start a pregnancy."

The resulting child would be the identical twin of the original embryo but would have the diseased gene corrected in every one of its cells. The original embryo would be discarded.

"I am extremely concerned about the effects on a child of being a clone of another person and I oppose it. However, an early embryo is not a person and I see the use of nuclear transfer to prevent a child's having a dreadful disease as far less controversial."

Prof Wilmut aired an early version of this proposal two years ago and was criticised for being naive and irresponsible, given the universal opposition to cloning babies.

Few noted that his suggestion was even more radical than the prospect of human cloning alone, since it amounts to so-called germ line modification, which has stirred deep unease among scientists because genetic changes are passed on in eggs and sperm to future generations to change the human gene pool.

In After Dolly, Prof Wilmut examines the ethical and technical arguments in detail and concludes that, when the technology has been perfected and shown to be safe, the promise is so great that it would be immoral not to attempt the procedure to correct serious genetic disorders.

He says that spurning new technologies can be as harmful as failing to regulate them properly and emphasises that the choice of whether to use this method should be left to the individual.

"Even when the technologies of nuclear transfer, genetic manipulation and stem cells have matured, I am sure that some people will still prefer to put up with the random insults of nature than be subject to human intervention, even if it is based on careful consideration of medical issues rather than whims. But at least they will have a choice and, for me, just having the chance to decide is paramount.

"I want people to have new options when it comes to that most fundamental urge: to bring healthy children into this world. The use of genetic and reproductive technologies is not a step backwards into darkness but a step forwards into the light."

Working with colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry, in London, Prof Wilmut is hoping to clone embryos from people with the motor neurone disease ALS to improve understanding of the devastating disorder.

[wagglebee]

The Edinburgh University professor argues in the book, written with the Telegraph's science editor, Roger Highfield, that cloning an IVF embryo consisting of 100 or so cells is not the same as cloning a person.

No, it's infanticide.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping.

[wagglebee]

Ping.

[wagglebee]

MORAL ABSOLUTES PING

DISCUSSION ABOUT:

Backing for baby cloning to beat disease

The Culture of Death's eugenics agenda continues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.

[MHGinTN]

I was about to cite the same sentence. The shock should be that these sceintists have decided to dehumanize the embryo aged humans at an early point in the lifetime begun at conception. And too many in the public gladly agree with this dehumanization for utilitarian purposes.

[MHGinTN]

How chilling the echo from Biblical pronouncements on the end times, when right will be wrong and wrong will be enlightenment: "I want people to have new options when it comes to that most fundamental urge: to bring healthy children into this world. The use of genetic and reproductive technologies is not a step backwards into darkness but a step forwards into the light."

[right-wingin_It]

And you know the proecreation minded lesbians are all "hot and bothered" (sarc) about the posibilities. What with the "Sperm rights" in Denmark, and cloning in the UK.

[wagglebee]

"not a step backwards into darkness but a step forwards into the light."

It's a leap into the pits of hell.

[rocksblues]

The Great Race. Hitler would be proud!

[John Lenin]

"I am extremely concerned about the effects on a child of being a clone of another person and I oppose it. However, an early embryo is not a person and I see the use of nuclear transfer to prevent a child's having a dreadful disease as far less controversial."

This passes for science. What a freaking joke, an embryo is a human being whether this pinhead realizes it or not.

[socialismisinsidious]

Prof Wilmut aired an early version of this proposal two years ago and was criticised for being naive and irresponsible, given the universal opposition to cloning babies.

Well lucky for him there isn't an universal opposition to killing babies. /s
For too many the ends justifies the means.

[metmom]

The original embryo would be discarded.

Like an old shoe? Just because you have an identical being, doesn't mean that it's OK to kill the old one. God help us. Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus.....

[metmom]

...not a step backwards into darkness but a step forwards into the light."

Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

[after dark]

So let me see . You give birth to a baby with a serious genetic disease. Genetically alter and clone the baby in order to save the sick baby.Then you kill the clone baby. Most of the people I know would want both the healthy baby and the cloned baby to live.

[MHGinTN]

From the article: Prof Wilmut writes: "Doctors should be able to offer at-risk couples the opportunity to conceive with IVF methods [Conceive what ... non-humans? As if human embryos are not humans until some later arbitrary point! Astonishing the disconnect-es some can create in order to justify their chosen path into darkness.], break down the resulting embryos into cells [If you can dissect the embryo into parts, thus take an organism and dissect him or her into body parts, you are dissecting an HUMAN organism! A human being at embryo age.], correct any serious genetic defects in these cells then clone demonstrably healthy cells to create [Uh, to conceive a new embryo-aged human being, you sleazy bastard liar!] a new embryo that can be implanted to start a pregnancy."

The resulting child would be the identical twin of the original embryo but would have the diseased gene corrected in every one of its cells. The original embryo would be discarded. [No, you lying SOB, the parts of the original human being would be discarded since you've already dissected the organism into his or her parts!]

"I am extremely concerned about the effects on a child of being a clone of another person and I oppose it. [But you'll do it if the being is young enough for you to ameliorate your dead conscience by claiming he or she -and yes, the sex is knowable at this early age in the lifetime begun at conception- isn't yet a human organism just an organism for exploitation!] However, an early embryo is not a person and I see the use of nuclear transfer to prevent a child's having a dreadful disease as far less controversial." And there you have it, the lie posed as truth, up posed as down, right posed as wrong ... and we're supposed to swallow any koolaid this man offers because he's a scientist! What a terrible, lying, dead soul example of a scientist. And there are too many who will jump to this man's defense because of the same condition, a dead soul.

So, to address your query, no, the first human being conceived and dissected at embryo age will be discarded and only the second, the genetically 'corrected' twin of the first being will be allowed to live to birth.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Thanks for the ping.