Let's get a no spin zone going. Parthenogenesis 'reproduces' a like organism of the species in question. The same obfuscation tried with the specious differentiation of reproductive cloning and 'therapeutic cloning' is being tried with this form of REPRODUCTION. I purposely addressed the potential of stimulating a single haploid cell to reproduce itself, the single cell, because such a methodology will not stimulate a 46 chromosome ovum to begin mitosis, cell division of reproduction, reproducing a duplicate DNA organism. Parthenogenesis, as these 'scientists' wish to define it will not reproduce a born individual human being because the scientitst will not afford this newly conceived EMBRYO a human body in which to follow gestational development. Also, the EMBRYO so conceived from just the 46 chromosome ovum will likely be severely deformed, if past experiences with other parthenotes of higher mammals is any indication. BUT, the embryo so conceived will be an individual, alive human being, likely kept in vitro and never implanted in a uterine environ.
Somehow I get a bit of a feeling that scientists know they are currently "failing" at using parthenogenesis to create humans who are viable, so they have decided to find other "good" reasons to keep using the same equipment and similar methods.
Some of the scientists might even have relabeled their "failures" at creating viable humans as "successes" at creating non-viable humans and non-humans..
It's like some of them went to a lot of trouble engineering a motorcycle that turned out to have an engine that sputtered and died after travelling 2 miles. So they decided to declare they had a success by calling their motorcycle a "bicycle."
It seems to me that biologists could have started with "creating" non-humans and saved all of us a lot of trouble.