I find it odd that the only moral issue people seem to find with procedures like this is whether it is okay to kill an egg cell, or an early stage embryo.
These egg cells don't grow on trees. They must be harvested from human beings. Egg cell harvesting is a complex process, requiring the donors (young women) to take experimental drugs with possibly harmful long term sideeffects.
If we are using human egg cells for experiments, or at some point in the future, for curing old people, aren't we exploiting the young woman we take those egg cells from?
AFAIK, they use the embryos left after a successful IVF (if the parents agree).
The sucess rate of an IVF is relatively low, and the procedure to extract the ova is complex, inconvenient and not risk-free.
Ovaries are overstimulated to produce more than one egg. They are all collected and fertilized, but, usually, only two or three are implanted at a time, to balance the low success rate and the non-null chance of multiple pregnancy (that's how octuplets are made :\).
If a successfull pregnancy occurs before running out of embryos, the mother/couple may donate the remaining embryos for research (that's how it works in Belgium, at least).
Well, all of the egg donors are adults with (presumably) the ability to make rational decisions. They should of course give proper informed consent and potentially be given due compensation, but in that case I don't think it's fair to call it exploitation.
e: I hate to complain about downvotes, but did totally miss your point here or something? I think this is a good conversation to have, and I was replying in good faith.
Not completely related since "the embryos created in these recent experiments may have certain limitations that would prevent them from giving rise to a human clone", I was thinking how would a clone embryo differ from a twin? We know that environmental factors physically change twins, and that also applies to clones. So if we consider twins to be different people, we should also consider a clone to be a different person.Then why all the pushback and "laws explicitly banning human reproductive cloning"?
I've seen a clone described as a "twin born at a different time." I don't see it as inherently raising any ethical dilemmas.
But since by definition we would need to perform experiments on non-consenting humans to perfect the technique, there isn't any ethical way to get to there.
I believe these laws target human cloning experimentation, rather than cloning as "twin manufacturing". The fact is, we don't know how to make fully viable clones yet (see the fate of our most advanced animal experiments for reference).
As such, it would be unethical to attempt to create a possibly failed human clone.
You'll likely produce many deformed babies before you get it right. Horrific.
Note that they haven't managed it yet on monkeys (surprised me).
Prediction: when it's been working perfectly on all primates for quite a while, these laws may start to change... perhaps at first for special cases, such as infertile couples (or a clone of an infant who died of non-congential causes - I don't know what to make of that, it's simultanesouly creepy and tugs at my heart-strings). IVF programs have similar restrictions.
How does it relate to this discovery: https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-smashes-barrier-growin...
("By manipulating the appropriate signaling, the U.Va. researchers have turned embryonic stem cells into a fish embryo, essentially controlling embryonic development.")
This is wonderful news for the many women who are currently forced to carry someone else's child via in-vitro fertilization if they want a child. Hopefully they'll be able to have a child that is biologically theirs in a reasonable timeframe as further developments occur.
By "theirs" do you mean a clone of themself? That's a pretty weird prospect to me. I don't see how cloning could be used to create an embryo that shares only one set of chromosomes. If the woman's eggs are still viable, it seems like regular IVF could be used. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Why the down-votes? It is actually pretty easy to get some tissue from pretty much everyone. And knowing there are perverted, rich individuals out there it's quite conceivable this will happen.
> Impressive from a perspective of science, but also deeply unsettling to me. It's clearly only a matter of time before a human clone is created.
Identical twins are "natural" clones. They are genetically identical. (Barring mutation.)
People take issue with "artificial" or reproductive cloning.
If you reproductively cloned an identical twin, you would end up with three genetically identical people. One is just born later, with a more certain outcome.
[Edit: I am not advocating anything. This is a descriptive observation of genetics, not a normative one.]
> somatic cell nuclear transfer isn't really cloning because it doesn't include the mitochondria.
That really depends on how you define "cloning". It absolutely can be considered therapeutic cloning, and it would serve as an initial step in reproductive cloning.
Genetics major here - I think I'm going to be sick. I have no problem using genetics as a source code from which to print replacement parts if you will, but the idea of creating life from an existing person terrifies me for some reason. Is our future some version of an awful Bruckheimer movie (The Island)?
[+] [-] jakobe|12 years ago|reply
These egg cells don't grow on trees. They must be harvested from human beings. Egg cell harvesting is a complex process, requiring the donors (young women) to take experimental drugs with possibly harmful long term sideeffects.
If we are using human egg cells for experiments, or at some point in the future, for curing old people, aren't we exploiting the young woman we take those egg cells from?
[+] [-] pygy_|12 years ago|reply
The sucess rate of an IVF is relatively low, and the procedure to extract the ova is complex, inconvenient and not risk-free.
Ovaries are overstimulated to produce more than one egg. They are all collected and fertilized, but, usually, only two or three are implanted at a time, to balance the low success rate and the non-null chance of multiple pregnancy (that's how octuplets are made :\).
If a successfull pregnancy occurs before running out of embryos, the mother/couple may donate the remaining embryos for research (that's how it works in Belgium, at least).
[+] [-] aganders3|12 years ago|reply
e: I hate to complain about downvotes, but did totally miss your point here or something? I think this is a good conversation to have, and I was replying in good faith.
[+] [-] cliveowen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankus|12 years ago|reply
But since by definition we would need to perform experiments on non-consenting humans to perfect the technique, there isn't any ethical way to get to there.
[+] [-] spcoll|12 years ago|reply
As such, it would be unethical to attempt to create a possibly failed human clone.
[+] [-] hyp0|12 years ago|reply
Note that they haven't managed it yet on monkeys (surprised me).
Prediction: when it's been working perfectly on all primates for quite a while, these laws may start to change... perhaps at first for special cases, such as infertile couples (or a clone of an infant who died of non-congential causes - I don't know what to make of that, it's simultanesouly creepy and tugs at my heart-strings). IVF programs have similar restrictions.
[+] [-] caustic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyp0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbcooper|12 years ago|reply
Original source publication:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590914...
[+] [-] Lanz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acjohnson55|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3rd3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3rd3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acjohnson55|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Snail_Commando|12 years ago|reply
Identical twins are "natural" clones. They are genetically identical. (Barring mutation.)
People take issue with "artificial" or reproductive cloning.
If you reproductively cloned an identical twin, you would end up with three genetically identical people. One is just born later, with a more certain outcome.
[Edit: I am not advocating anything. This is a descriptive observation of genetics, not a normative one.]
[+] [-] dekhn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Snail_Commando|12 years ago|reply
That really depends on how you define "cloning". It absolutely can be considered therapeutic cloning, and it would serve as an initial step in reproductive cloning.
[+] [-] msie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smrtinsert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mitochondrion|12 years ago|reply