8 replies to this topic

[manofsan]

It looks like Koreans have again made a major stem cell breakthrough:

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4555023.stm

This nuclear transfer technique stuff seems to be improving. If this keeps up, maybe they'll solve the imprinting problem too.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.imminst.o...275 [lol]

[DJS]

This nuclear transfer technique stuff seems to be improving. If this keeps up, maybe they'll solve the imprinting problem too.

Highly doubtful. Fortunately the imprinting and demethylation problems are not really an issue in terms of therapeutic applications as far as I am aware.

MITWORLD

[John Schloendorn]

That's cool for relatively small therapeutic applications, but it has yet to be evaluated in the massive cell replacement context that we will want for rejuvenation purposes. If reproductive cloning of whole animals is a model for massive cell replacement, then we should be worried. Defective demethylation shortly after cloning is thought to be the major reason for the high intrinsic mortality of these animals. But then again it may not be a good model, because our ways of morphogenesis would be very different (using the existing tissues as scaffolds, rather than from scratch) and many problems do seem morphogenesis-related. In the end, there's no way to know today.
I agree that the methylation problem would be very difficult to solve. I think it's close to a miracle that cloning works at all, and there's much to learn before we can meaningfully intervene at the molecular level. Since we will likely need to control the immune system at any rate (potentially obviating the need to acquire patient MHCs in our replacement cells), cloning might just be replaced by bona fide fertilization in a fully fledged rejuvenation therapy.

[Mark Hamalainen]

I think it's close to a miracle that cloning works at all

I agree, I've always found this as a source for optimism. That despite our clumsy techniques nature does most of the work for us, we just have to give it a few nudges here and there.

[Lazarus Long]

Check out the official response.

http://www.nytimes.c...artner=homepage
Bush Vows to Veto Measure Easing Stem Cell Restriction
By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: May 20, 2005

President Bush said today he would veto a measure that would ease restrictions on federal financing of the embryonic stem cell research if it is approved by Congress.

Mr. Bush, speaking with reporters in the Oval Office along with Anders Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark, was asked what he thought about legislation that may come up for a vote next week that would loosen restrictions the president himself imposed in August 2001 on federal financing of such research.

"I've made my position very clear on embryonic stem cells," he said. "I'm a strong supporter of adult stem cell research, of course. But I have made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is - I'm against that."

"And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it," he said.

He also said he was concerned by a report today from South Korean scientists that they are developing a cloning process that would produce human embryos that could then serve as the source of stem cells for medical and scientific uses.

"I'm very concerned about cloning," the president said. "I worry about a world in which cloning becomes acceptable."
{excerpt}

http://story.news.ya...emcells_bush_dc

[jaydfox]

I worry about a world in which cloning becomes acceptable.

Why? It used to creep me out too, but the more I look at it, the more I realize that there's no rational reason to prevent cloning. All the weird factor about it, as far as I can tell, traces back to paganistic and religious beliefs, and the more I scrutinize those beliefs (even the subconscious ones), the more I see how ridiculous they are.

Why should we believe that a cloned person has no soul, or a defiled soul? Why should we think that someone's soul is affected in any way when a clone is made? And what's so unnatural about it? What's the difference between a plain old test tube baby (IVF) and cloning? Both are "artificially" produced, yet most of society has no problem with IVF. On the other hand, I've seen quotes from stem cell researchers saying that we should ban reproductive cloning. If the researchers themselves are weirded out by it, how will society ever accept it?

I just don't get it...

I suspect this is going to be like the IVF battles of the 70's (or was it 80's?). Until some cloned babies are carried to term (illegally most likely, given how rapidly countries are banning this), grow up healthy, compete in team sports, have friends, etc.... Until that happens, society will have this odd aversion. And then once these kids start growing up, it'll suddenly seem normal.

[manofsan]

Well, it sounds like the President is immersed in sci-fi horror movies for perceptions on cloning. Just like how the phrase "test-tube baby" sounds a little harder on the ears than "IVF", perhaps scientists need to move away from the phrase "human cloning" to "BR" (blastocyst replication).

As for nature doing most of the work -- it's certainly marvelous and part of nature's robustness, but perhaps that's what Bush & Co fear -- that some blastocysts will make into 3rd trimester, and cross an unfortunate threshold.

[Lazarus Long]

Well, it sounds like the President is immersed in sci-fi horror movies for perceptions on cloning.

Actually if you credit his personal faith as legitimate then he is being consistent and if you see this as serving a constituency that is evangelical and *fundamentalist* then he is still being consistent.

It is another of the reasons I say that doomsayers are *deterministic* in a self fulling manner.

Revelations is a self fulfilling apocalyptic prophecy from a memetic perspective.