Stem Cells Rejuvenate Old Cows
randolfe 05 Jul 2005
I have long maintained that once embryonic stem cell research really gets going, someone will decide the easiest way to get desired cells from a cloned embryo is to simply "allow nature to take its course".
The first thing to develop are heart cells. I see no problem with harvesting those. However, where do we draw the line? Lung tissue, which develops in the last couple months of pregnancy, could also be "harvested". However, this would clearly be killing an unborn human being for the benefit of a living one.
This is what ethicists call a "slippery slope".
One might argue that taking an unborn human life to save an existing valuable human life is justified. Would sacrificing a mentally-retarded unborn fetus to save Albert Einstein be justified?
I don't worship at the altar of egalitarianism. However, there is something important to be said about the value of every human life. Equality stands as a safeguard for every one of us.
I'll post the link here in this posting and attempt to copy and paste the entire article in the next.
http://www.wired.com...w=newsletter_to
DJS 05 Jul 2005
However, this would clearly be killing an unborn human being for the benefit of a living one.
Hi Randolfe, I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but you are using stacked terminology here.
The above statement, to be fair, should read, "However, this would killing unborn human life for the benefit of a human being."
I personally do not make a distinction between "harvesting" and the traditional debate over abortion/reproductive rights. Women both donate eggs and destroy fetuses on a daily basis with the clincher to the argument being -- Its my body.
If, however, a viable fetus becomes external to womb, then the ethics change dramatically...don't have much time to type right now, but will dialog more later if this chat takes off.
To be quite honest though, I do not think that the puritanical ethic that has gained a strong hold in the US will hold any sway whatsoever in East Asia. I am confident that, regardless of the legality or morality, the type of practice you have highlighted above will begin to become common place in the developing world. As the saying goes, "To the highest bidder." I imagine that there will be millions of impoverished women in asia and the third world willing to go into the second trimester for a cool hundred grand -- and just as many affluent westeners willing to foot the bill.
John Schloendorn 06 Jul 2005
The point of this fetal liver thing is that the techniques to culture embryonic stem cells in cattle are not well established. Cattle is not used often in research, and it's not worth the investment for ACT to develop such techniques for cows specifically. When they will finally be going humans, they are of course aiming to use bona fide human embryonic stem cells, for which such techniques do exist. (They will make hematopoietic cells from embryonic stem cells in vitro, without the need of a mum to do it)
Btw, I did not like the way Wired hyped precisely one macrophage colony forming assay as bringing "renewed youthful vigor to aged cows". Nonetheless, this single result is certainly encouraging.
Posted the original paper in resource sharing.
Karomesis 06 Jul 2005
don, your argument for economic disparity providing fodder for debauched westerners is quite convincing , and I agree with the premise. although, the wayfarer for opulence and profligacy is usually the lack of religious ideals, so the asian model would have to be reconsidered.
justinb 06 Jul 2005
John Schloendorn 06 Jul 2005
Yes yes, zombies always say thatI can't prove anyone is conscious. I am only conscious of myself.
DJS 06 Jul 2005
randolfe 06 Jul 2005
Unborn twins play with each other in the womb.
John is right about Advanced Cell Technology being a master at making a publicity blitz out of nothing--as happened about three years ago where an egg that had not even divided enough to create stem cells was heralded (by a taken-in reporter) on the cover of USNews&World Report as the world's first cloned embryo.
Nell Boyce, who was then in charge of USSNWR's science reporting, distanced herself from that story--saying it "had not been run by me" and that she felt the reporter sent to cover the story had been a bit guillible to Michael West's hype.
This raises the question of using hype and propoganda to achieve your social and political ends.
Back to the question of consiousness, those opposed to abortion have pro0duced a very touching film called "The Fetal Scream". A fetus which is about to be aborted by being pulled out of the womb with a hook can be seen with ultra-sound as pulling the leg up from the hook and opening its mouth as if screaming (unheard) in pain. It is very disturbing.
Those defending abortion argue that the fetus is just having a muscular reaction to the hook (like your leg going up when tapped by a physician). They say that portraying the fetus as attempting to scream inside the womb is visually misleading.
Don's idea that money controls everything is a bit cynical. Yes, money is power and can often be abused. However, we do not have a worldwide market in the trafficing of human organs. Yes, there is a small market but not on the scale that would be possible if there were no moral or legal controls.
The real issue raised by this story is this: If we can get matching heart cells for an ailing adult by gestating a cloned embryo for a few weeks in a womb, what would be wrong with that? I personally would have no objection to that.
However, as I pointed out in my original comment, what about taking lung tissue from a seven or eight month old unborn fetus to save an adult life? That would be a very morally troubling issue from my point of view. At that stage the unborn child would have the possibility of life outside the womb and would have the consciousness of an about-to-be baby.
DJS 06 Jul 2005
Randolfe
Who is to say when consciousness and personhood commences?
Don
A 120 day old fetus is no more "conscious" than a lab rat (probably less so), thus its ethical status should be no greater either. To say other wise, would be to resort to arguments based on continuity and potentiality; all of which play right into the hands of the bioconservative position.
DJS 06 Jul 2005
Upon separation, the ethical dynamics related to potential beings change dramatically because the mother's autonomy is no longer the over riding factor.
eternaltraveler 06 Jul 2005
A true "selfhood" does not form until well after birth
Is that a fact? )
This is a bold assumption to make.
Mind 06 Jul 2005
I don't buy Don's argument that a fetus is part of the woman's body, like a leg or an arm. That line is at least 50 years old. Scientifically speaking, the fetus is no more an appendage of a womans body that a toaster is an appendage of a house. The developing human does not share the same DNA or blood. All it gets through the placenta is energy and oxygen. It is "plugging-in" to an energy source.
10 Jul 2005
A baby doesn't appear to qualify for personhood "until well after birth".
However, upon achieving separation (externalization) from the symbiotic relationship a fetus has with its mother, its well being then becomes in the interests (and falls under the jurisdiction) of the state. IOW, a potential human being well on its way to fulfilling its potential has a latent value to society, but this value should not and can not take precedent over the autonomy of actual human beings (ie, a woman and her body).
At this time, I accept birth as that artificial seperation point.
Mark Hamalainen 10 Jul 2005
A 120 day old fetus is no more "conscious" than a lab rat (probably less so), thus its ethical status should be no greater either. To say other wise, would be to resort to arguments based on continuity and potentiality; all of which play right into the hands of the bioconservative position.
As a vegetarian, the ethical status of a rat warrents its freedom from being killed by me. Bioconservatives are not alone on this front.
10 Jul 2005
As a vegetarian, the ethical status of a rat warrents its freedom from being killed by me. Bioconservatives are not alone on this front.
This would entail an ethical argument for increased animal rights. Any animal capable of consciously experiencing pain, one could argue perhaps, should not be subject to inordinate pain even if we choose to kill it. So if we choose to kill such animals, let their deaths be as painless as reasonably possible.
Ideally, we wouldn't need to kill them and that may be the case in the future. Though I don't mistake their value as being equal to that of human people (qualifying for personhood), so while unfortunate, I think we can justify their continued use in ethical medical research and as food for much of the world's population. The beginning of a shift toward simulations in medical research may address the large need for animals subjects, something brought to my attention by Reason of Fight Aging! not long ago.
Edited by cosmos, 10 July 2005 - 10:03 AM.
John Schloendorn 10 Jul 2005
(A) Do not cause suffering to anything that looks like it can suffer. But killing such creatures painlessly is OK, when it is for a good reason.
(B) Do not kill anything (not even painlessly) that shows person-like cognitive features, such as interocular learning or success in mirror experiments.
That begins to make some sense to me. But I would still be curious just how well human infants fare at these cognitive tasks. References anyone?
DJS 10 Jul 2005
The Intentional Stance: Developmental and Neurocognitive Perspective
olaf.larsson 26 Aug 2005
John Schloendorn 26 Aug 2005
Edited by John Schloendorn, 26 August 2005 - 01:52 PM.