Scientists use 'virgin birth' technique(Cloning Alert!!)

BBC News ^ | 11-26-2001 | Dr David Whitehouse

[cpforlife.org]

Credit goes to Freeper MHGinTN for finding this article and pointing it out. Great find M!

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[tet68]

I'm holding out for asexual budding, do away with all this
sexual nonsense.

[cpforlife.org]

MHGinTN,

The floor is yours, sir.

[The Duke]

I recall reading about parthengenesis to produce albino turkeys some 35-or-so years ago. Nuttin' new under the sun, it seems...

[syriacus]

the researchers had also got a human egg cell to start dividing on its own just like an embryo.

Not quite. It didn't start dividing on its own. It started dividing when it was activated.

From the same article:

In ACT's parthenogenesis experiments, 22 eggs were exposed to chemical activation.

---

If eggs started dividing into embryos on their own, quite a few women would be very surprised.

A well-known science writer purposely muddied the waters about this when he wrote an op-ed article for the NYTimes some years back.

1. First he said that experimentation in parthenogenesis showed that an egg could start dividing and become an embryo.
2. Then he argued that, if pro-lifers say embryos are human beings, then they have to say human eggs are human beings (since the eggs can be changed into embryos).
3. He "reasoned" that a loss of an egg during menstruation would have to considered abortion by the pro-lifers.
4. In his rush to poke fun at the image of pro-lifers defending eggs from menstruation, he neglected to remember he himself had mentioned the necessary "activation" of the egg earlier in his own article.

An egg and an embryo are NOT the same thing.

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling

[MHGinTN]

But if an egg cell is somehow activated before that stage, it still has a full set of genes - and could develop into a functioning embryo clone. I challenge general_re and RJ Cogburn to find an article or piece of research that makes use of 'parthenogenesis' to stimulate a haploid ovum into forming a useful embryo, or any tissue that would be utilitarian in treating any human disease. If there is one, I have yet to find it, so I'd like to read it. I've speculated (due to the invitation at addressing the possibilities) that if a haploid could be stimulated to grow soemthing akin to useful tissues for research purposes only, that would be problematic, to me--since I count it improper tampering-- but it wouldn't be experimentation on an individual alive embryo. Would anyone like to take this further, offer articles or peer reviewed papers on parthenogenesis using haploid ova?

[general_re]

I challenge general_re and RJ Cogburn to find an article or piece of research that makes use of 'parthenogenesis' to stimulate a haploid ovum into forming a useful embryo, or any tissue that would be utilitarian in treating any human disease.

I should have guessed ;)

Okay, fair enough - I accept, but I'll need at least a few days to really do a proper search.

[MHGinTN]

No animus intended; we'll both likely learn from the experience. BTW, I'll look also, 'cause I need to know as badly as you may want to know.

[general_re]

Well said. Let me ask you a question about diploid parthenogenesis, though - is your opposition to it absolute, or would you moderate your position if diploid parthenotes turned out to be universally non-viable?

[MHGinTN]

First, the tissue that 'might' be derived from such exploitation would be severely compromised for any application in medical terms, at least from the perspectives I've studied ... the half-complement of chromosomes would be like timebombs, possibly even tumor causing if implanted or injected into a patient for some disease state treatment. Second, if somehow the haploid began to differentiate in a staggered or mutagenic fashion, what would be in evidence is a purposely conceived severely handicapped human lifeform ... not a thing I could endorse, even though it would have zero viability for full gestational development.

Between you and me and the dog named blue, what I'm very worried about are the cross species cloning efforts being done in Japan and South America. It will not be long 'til someone tries a human-swine, or bovine-human. If cordblood stem cells could be coaxed into tissue differentiation yielding useful tissues or organs, I'm not at all opposed to implanting such in a swine or other animal (great ape perhaps) to support it until growth to usable development was evidenced. I am wary of the scientists jumping directly to human models, without the exhaustive other mammalian models being explored first. It has to be motivated by things like greed and lust for acclaim. Hurrying such delicate procedures is disasterous and usually sacrifices lives, human lives. [Experience with the pharmaceutical industry showed me that years ago.] I will have to think more on a reply if and when we find more on the possibilities.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[syriacus]

I think the discussion on this thread is on a little different topic, but I wondered if you saw this small segue provided by Scientific American: Monkey Cloning Failures Cast Doubt on Feasibility of Human Reproductive Cloning(FR thread)

As you already know, primate reproductive cloning is encountering problems at this time.

[MHGinTN]

Something which is key is understanding the vast difference in stimulating a typical organ cell to replicate itself and perhaps an organ, and the quantum level higher event of stimulating a sex cell to begin dividing and differentiating into organs and organ tissues.

The capability of a sex cell with 46 chromosomes (ovum that hasn't matured fully, to reduce its chromosome complement to 23) to be stimulated into dividing is more than just that cell reproducing itself, it is that cell reproducing the individual human from whom the cell was removed!

At the moment when cell division in a conceptus begins, the conceived individual human loses, with each cell division and subsequent division, some capability to build the broadest number of tissue and organ categories. That is an important distinction to note, as the difference between average somatic cells and sex cells. It is the reason why theoretically, two sperm could be fused (each has 23 chromosomes) to form a conceptus and thus an alive embryo. It is also the reason the technician could not use two kidney cells or two liver cells or two glial cells, or even coax one of those cells to begin the differentiation journey that builds the organs and organ systems of an individual human life.

[MHGinTN]

.

[MHGinTN]

.

[syriacus]

Thanks for the explanation, MHGinTN.

[MHGinTN]

.