I don’t know if that URL will parse correctly…but just give it a read!
That was no inanimate pile of biomass those scientists created! It was a living, developing -fetus-! Does anyone know how absolutely incredible that is? It fills me with fear and wonder!
Imagine the possible outbursts this could cause! Religious people debate all the time about whether or not humans are the only animals that have souls–watch out people, these people created something that was animal -and- human!
This is no kitchen-science experiment! If they hadn’t aborted the fetus at 32 cells, it would have continued growing! And think about that for a second—does terminating the experiment count as an abortion? They say abortion is murderer, and life begins at conception–but was it wrong? That thing wasn’t human!
They say God created Man in his own image–now the labcoats can create Man in their own image! Doesn’t this just make anyone else out there giddy with excitement?!
And can you honestly tell me you didn’t know this was coming? It’s a logical extension of genetic and cloning research.
IMO, it’s much less repugnant than nuclear weapons. So they used human gene plasm. So? “Nobody knows whether the hybrid embryos could have become living beings.” It’s certainly a matter leading to a reevaluation of the state of medical and scientific ethics, but as I do not believe 32 calls can be call in any way “human,” I don’t see a problem with this. When they try to allow such and embryo to develop into a living organism, I’ll give it some more thought.
It all depends on your viewpoint of what ‘life’ is.
Many people will argue that life begins at conception–not at 6 months, or whenever an embryo goes through enough mitotic divisions to be called a fetus.
May I just add that your parenthetical note is inaccurate. The scientist did not create ‘human’ life as we know it. They created something -similar- to it. Which is all the more wicked and cool!
Yes. That’s why I specifically said “I do not believe 32 cells can be call[ed] . . . ‘human’.”
But it’s more than one’s definition of “life.” It’s about the supposed sanctity of Homo sap. The folks who are going to scream over this issue are some of the same ones opposing fetal tissue and stem cell research. I cannot agree with it.
But then, I don’t believe in a soul inhabiting every cell of the oh-so-magical human body, either.
Clones will lead to the destruction of civilization! Armies of same-thought, same-appearance freaks will march across the globe and eliminate their enemies!! Haven’t you guys heard of the Clone Wars?!?!? Aaaghh!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!
I don’t think your not on the note is accurate either. They didn’t create anything. They manipulated DNA the same way they do when they fertilize an egg in the lab or inject human DNA into a human cell. Infertility clinic do that sort of thing (minus the pig part) and no one says the resulting child was created by scientists.
But more importantly, I sincerely doubt that embryo was viable. They say it could be emplanted in “either a human or a pig”, more likey neither.
But most important, I would like to know what, if anything, actually happened from a scientific journal rather than what appears to be some sort of international tabloid.
I could swear that I saw an article on this in Skeptic News - a link to HealthCentral.com. The article quoted the researchers as saying that the experiment was designed in such a way that the embryos would never have been able to grow into anything viable.
However, I just went looking for it, and I can’t find anything at Skepticnews.com or at Healthcentral.com - David B, was I dreaming? (And BTW thanks for giving this a more coherent title.)
The nucleus from a human cell was used. One would expect it to then be 100% human, but the article says 97% human, 3% pig. Doesn’t make clear where that 3% came from. Free-floating DNA not in the nucleus removed from the pig egg?
And referring to an earlier WAG, why couldn’t it have been raised in either human or pig mother? Humans and pigs are fairly similar, and the embryo is normally shielded from immune system reactions, isn’t it?
After all, we’re already successfully using surrogate mothers from different species. http://www.sciam.com/2000/1100issue/1100lanza.html
In this case, cow and guar.
Well but, cows and guars are WAY closer then people and pigs. Just for a start pigs have a lot shorter gestation period. And embryos, sensitive little buggers, are know for spontaneously aborting if the least little thing isn’t right. I don’t think you could make it comfortable.
Plus the DNA interaction. I don’t know what they do about the mitochondrial DNA in the case of other clonings (is 100% guar or 97% guar, 3% cow?) but since the mitochondria regulates the break down of complex nutrients during respiration (or so I’ve heard) you end up with a human with the metabolism of a pig. Do we really want that?
The latter, and you’re right about mitochondrial DNA. The new guars are not, and never will be, “real” guar–there will be cow DNA in 'em until the species dies off. Not that it makes much difference. Nucleotides are nucleotides. It’s not like there are little signs on the base pairs labeled “COW–not for use in guars!”
I’m just terrified that someone might someday mix in some frog DNA and then all the dinosaurs will change sex . . .
