Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Discovery could silence debate over stem cells
The Age ^ | April 25 2003 | Michael Bradley

Posted on 04/24/2003 8:59:56 AM PDT by RJCogburn

Scientists claim to have discovered a way of producing embryonic stem cells that could side-step the entire ethical debate surrounding such research.

Researchers from the US bio-tech company Stemron have produced embryos capable of providing stem cells, but which can never become human beings.

It is the first time scientists have used a technique called parthenogenesis on human cells.

Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which the egg develops without fertilisation. The phenomenon occurs naturally in many insects, while artificial parthenogenesis has been achieved in almost all groups of animals, although it usually results in abnormal development.

No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have previously been reported. But researchers from Stemron report in the journal Stem Cells that they have successfully used artificial parthenogenesis in humans and that the cells taken from one of the embryos survived for a number of days.

advertisement

advertisement

Associate Professor Martin Pera, from the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development, described the findings as an "interesting advancement" in the study of stem cells. But he said the advancement was not totally unexpected as parthenogenesis had already been used in non-human primates.

He said the most intriguing aspect of the work would be in determining whether the cells were "normal".


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: stemcells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: Dead Corpse
Did you completely ignore Post # 7 to you?
21 posted on 04/24/2003 11:16:53 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
If a parthenogenic "embryo" is left alone for nine months, what does it turn into?
22 posted on 04/24/2003 11:20:20 AM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Seems to me that this also avoids moral questions by using unfertilized eggs to produce stem cells.

If life begins at conception, then no conception = no life

Bump
23 posted on 04/24/2003 11:22:49 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
No. In fact I was in the middle of reading the UofM article when you decided that insults were a good idea to lead off a dicussion.
24 posted on 04/24/2003 11:35:37 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Thanks for the heads up!
25 posted on 04/24/2003 11:36:35 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
middle of reading the UofM article

There are quite a few more that I've just been too lazy to integrate in the database on my web site. If you're interested I can spend some time and do that.

It's clear that once people started looking at adult and cord/ placental stem cells their capabilities are at least as good as fetal stem cells without the moral baggage.

26 posted on 04/24/2003 11:45:24 AM PDT by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
Aren't the parthenogenic ones equally, if not better than, those though? The article alludes to a limited viability. Enough to harvest embryonic stems cells, which even the UofM article mentions have more applications than adult stem cells, at least.

This isn't a fertilized ovum. It would never grow into a human baby. From the sound of the above article, they aren't even sure these cells they got from the parthenogenisis are usable, normal, embryonic stem cells.

If this is just a tricky way of manipulating an ovum, then it isn't a human baby. What's the big deal?

27 posted on 04/24/2003 11:52:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
Except for the moral question of using women as farm animals, by hyperstimulating their ovaries to produce enough eggs.

You don't have to "hyperstimulate" anyone's ovaries to produce more eggs - you were born with all the eggs you'll ever have, and you don't produce any more during your lifetime. Assuming you're a woman, that is, which seems a safe assumption from your handle ;)

All fertility drugs do is increase the rate at which they are released from the ovary. If you want an egg just to play with, you don't need to administer any drugs that I know of - all you have to do is go extract them directly from the ovary.

28 posted on 04/24/2003 12:06:19 PM PDT by general_re (You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
A key question there is, "If you were to implant one of these embryos into a woman, would it be possible to get a baby?" A related question is, "How similar are these embyos to a normal fertilized embryo?"

Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Parthenogenesis doesn't occur naturally in humans, but among animals where it is known to occur, or can be induced to occur, it usually results in either outright failure to develop into an adult - either it's stillborn, or simply reabsorbed into the mother at a very early stage - or it "develops", and becomes "viable", but not in a normal manner, and winds up with a host of abnormal defects when compared to non-parthenogenetic animals. Very rarely, a parthenogenetic organism will appear to develop into a normal adult organism.

But the difference is, as I said, that fertilization + implantation is the normal mode of development, whereas parthenogenesis is 100% artificial, and does not occur in humans without human intervention. Add to that the fact that it is overwhelmingly likely that parthenogenetic embryos simply cannot develop into normal humans, and I think you're in the clear, morally speaking. So, in a less circuitous manner, the answer to your first question is "almost certainly not - you will not get a baby if you implant one of these embryos in a womb." As for the second, how similar they are to normally created embryos remains to be seen.

29 posted on 04/24/2003 12:20:24 PM PDT by general_re (You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
It has always been about killing the embryo once it exists.

Right, fine. But as I said in my previous post, we're also talking about embryos here where it's extremely likely that it cannot develop into a viable human baby. If you actually implanted one into a womb, the likelihood is that it would just spontaneously abort or be reabsorbed or be stillborn anyway. We're talking about embryos that really aren't long-term viable anyway, so where does that leave us?

30 posted on 04/24/2003 12:24:11 PM PDT by general_re (You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Thanks for the info Coleus.
31 posted on 04/24/2003 12:39:43 PM PDT by fatima (Go Troops our prayers are with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Eggs just sitting in ovaries aren't ready yet - the ovaries have to be stimulated with hormones to "ripen" the eggs so they can be retrieved, for IVF or any similar procedure.

I'm Catholic, so IVF isn't an option for me, but many of the other women on my infertility mailing lists have gone through the stimulation & retrieval process - they tell me it is painful & debilitating. They take hormones daily to "ripen" as many eggs as possible, then have repeated ultrasounds to determine if the follicles are large enough to use, then give themselves a shot to force ovulation.

It's not going to be Northern American college girls doing that to themselves to pay for Spring Break - it's going to be Central American women willing to do anything to keep their children from starving.
32 posted on 04/24/2003 12:53:05 PM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: general_re
It doesn't even sound like an "embryo" though either. Triggering a genetic legacy parthenogenisis for mitosys to the level of being able to harvest embyonic stem cells is a long way from the type of viability assumed under the label "embryo". "Tricked out undifferentiated cellular cluster" is more cumbersome, but closer in accuracy.
33 posted on 04/24/2003 12:54:14 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
opposition to embryonic stem cells has never been about how the embryo came into being.

Seems to be true. Sexual versus asexual reproduction has not been part of this developing story until now. It's a new factor. So we shall refine our definitions.

34 posted on 04/24/2003 12:57:37 PM PDT by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
It's not going to be Northern American college girls doing that to themselves to pay for Spring Break - it's going to be Central American women willing to do anything to keep their children from starving.

Even if I accept that to be true, which I don't...so what? Do you object when people donate parts of themselves upon their death in order to further medical science? Do you obect when people donate organs in order to save the lives of others? Why should you object if they part with bits they neither need or want while they are still living? We're not talking about viable human embryos, so this is not like abortion where we should consider the interests of some other human being - and since that argument is now right out the window, what business is it of yours what someone else chooses to do with their own body?

35 posted on 04/24/2003 1:14:19 PM PDT by general_re (You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Tricked out undifferentiated cellular cluster" is more cumbersome, but closer in accuracy.

I think you're right on the money. If we define embryo as "actually or potentially able to develop into a viable adult", then I don't think this really fits that definition. But using the word "embryo" does seem to trigger a set of reflexive responses ;)

36 posted on 04/24/2003 1:16:33 PM PDT by general_re (You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
Thanks, great site and I will forward it to some people who need to read it...What kind of problem did your friend have with the stearic acid?
37 posted on 04/24/2003 1:18:00 PM PDT by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Like we need an excuse to jerk knees around here? Difusing potnetial dust ups before they get started might actually allow a decent debate this one.
38 posted on 04/24/2003 1:23:30 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Difusing potnetial dust ups before they get started might actually allow a decent debate this one.

I hope you're right. I think once people get past that word "embryo", then it will turn out to be a little cleaner of an issue, morally speaking, than using actual fetal stem cells. This "embryo" really is no such thing, since there's virtually no potential for an independent life to develop from it. Now, if that's the case, there's really nothing special about this particular bundle of cells, any more than any other bundle of cells, and so I don't see how they require special treatment, any more than a swab of cells from your cheek requires special treatment.

We'll see where folks come down on this, though - people can be stubborn sometimes ;)

39 posted on 04/24/2003 1:43:46 PM PDT by general_re (You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: general_re
As evidenced by the one poster referring to Third World women(what relevance is that? People sell themselves for food, shall we ban that?) I think a lot of people simply use the pro-life cause as a rubric to advance a religious or anti-technology viewpoint.

I'd have more respect for people who said they fear certain future developments, rather than try to convince me that a fertilized egg=baby=skywalk when discussing human rights and the value of life.
40 posted on 04/24/2003 7:34:34 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson