Stem Cell Research Bill Clears Australian Senate 234
jaunty writes "A private members bill has passed the Australian senate which paves the way for the cloning of embryos to gather stem cells. While it only passed by a narrow margin it is expected to gain support in the House. From the article: 'The final shape of the bill is now subject to further debate on amendments including measures to toughen penalties for breaches of cloning regulations, and possibly a move to stop the use of animal tissue in the cloning process.'"
Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read these (Score:2)
Explanation of the science [abc.net.au] from Catalyst [abc.net.au] a science show on the ABC.
A summary of the moral issues from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference [lockhartreview.com.au]
These are authorative sources.
As much as I would like to see the possible payoffs from such research, my personal feelings are that the Australian parliament has fallen into the trap of allowing the end to justify the means. As explained by Catalyst, the plan is to insert human DNA into a rabbit's egg. That really is a significant step to be making, even
Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess if that depends upon whether you think a bunch of celibate men that think an invisible supernatural being is listening to them are "authorative".
I've looked at the bishops document and it contains nothing to do with the science of stem cell research.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet those very same men seem to be O.K. with 44,000 dead civilians in Iraq in the name of a Greater Good (namely Democracy); many of the victims are children.
Why is it OK to destroy life in Iraq but not in a Petri dish? Did the Bible say anything about loving a fetus but hating a child?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to be one of the believers, so for me, it IS human. For other "believers", some humans (e.g. civilians in Iraq) seem to be worth a lot less than other humans (the embryos), which puzzled me.
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing the god botherers into the debate (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it's a rabbit's egg is really irrelevant, all of the rabbit DNA is removed (apart from the mitochondrial) so it's basically just a shell. It isn't as if they're going to make an animal which is a cross between a humand and a rabbit, the DNA codes for a human being, that's what you'd get.
I don't see any moral issues here, it isn't a human being, it's a collection of cells without nervous system, the DNA wouldn't even come from a human egg or even something which could possibly have developed into a human.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Monty Python quote... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DNA isn't everything. If you don't grow the DNA in the intended host environment (a chicken needs to grow in a chicken egg, a human needs to grow in a human female), then all you're likely to get is a mass of nonviable cells (that is, a blob which isn't capable of sustaining its own existence). While it is not yet understood exactly which parts come from the D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, when does it become human? Two cells? 100? Birth? When it finds a job and pays its own way? When does it become human? I bet if you perform a DNA test on it, it will show up as 100% human.
How far do you bend the rules on human experimentation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You dont have to know at what point it becomes a person to have some kind of sensible cutoff point to stop experimentation / abortion. All you have to determine is some point at which everyone agrees it IS NOT yet a person. There is no rational point in saying any cell that contains human DNA is a human, because every time i get my hair cut i dont leave a tangled mess of humans on the barber's floor.
A single cell has no feelings and no con
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that.
What's wrong with experimentation on stem cells from other sources such as chord blood or adult stem cells? Why must we clone human embryonic tissue (read: humans) in order to create something we can achieve through other means that won't piss anyone off? Adult and chord blood stem cells is the point at which everyone agrees it IS NOT yet a person. Why don't we put our resources there? Why force em
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that non-embryonic stem cells are already partially differentiated, which means they have less potential abilities. There is nothing wrong with experimentation on them as far as I am concerned, and despite your implication resources are put there. But that is irrelevant, since there are properties of embryonic stem cells that are not present in the non-embryonic cells, and this is t
Re: (Score:2)
If this were passed in the US, that would be the IRS that is forcing me to pay for it.
Who says we can acheive it through other means? We dont even know what we're going to find yet so how can you assert that it can be found elsewhere? I'd rather potantially find a cure for parkinsons disease than "avoid pissing people off". Pissing people off is pretty feeble excuse for not trying to do something so incr
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you do research. Cant you understand how twisted your reasoning is? You might as well use that arguement to stop spending money on any research of anything.
No one says we can definitely achieve anything through either course. thats the purpose of experimentation and research. My god, we'd all be living in caves if everyone took that line of reasoning.
Can you tell me th
Re: (Score:2)
No one says we can definitely achieve anything through either course. thats the purpose of experimentation and research. My god, we'd all be living in caves if everyone took that line of reasoning.
and
My understanding is that non-embryonic stem cells are already partially differentiated, which means they have less potential abilities. There is
Re: (Score:2)
could you be more specific. i dont understand what you mean.
That's like me saying that under your argument, there should be no limit to research as long as it has potential.
No what you were saying is we should not engage in embryonic stem cell research because it might not yield any results (possible but very unlikely) and
Re: (Score:2)
could you be more specific. i dont understand what you mean.
From the President's speech in August 2001
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Am I reading t
Re: (Score:2)
Logic doesn't work with the religious nuts (Score:2)
btw, the point at which a bunch of cells becomes a human being is the point at which it's capable of surviving outwith the mother's body. Until that point it's not a viable human being.
Re:Bringing the god botherers into the debate (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say a human is a "person" for our purposes when and if they become capable of thought. DNA is irrelevant; my toenail clippings will show up as "100% human" on a DNA test. Moreover, depending on the test, you might have a hard time telling me a chimp isn't also "human", since the DNA is much the same.
The human form (shape and body) is irrelevant, as a human in some other form would still qualify as a person (for example, somebody seriously deformed or crippled). Plus, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that what defines us as human is the shape of our flesh, which is all that the human form and human genome amount to.
What about life you say? Get back to me when we no longer eat other mammals. There is no "sanctity of life" in any society (with a few notable exceptions); there is only sanctity of human life, which gets you right back to the question of what we define as "human". And no, I am not a vegan or vegetarian, but if I personally believed that life itself was sacred in some way, then it would be hypocritical of me to eat meat.
What does that leave? The mind, and little else. There is no trait that is more distinctly human on earth.
So, when does a human mind develop to the point where we consider the human a legal or ethical person? I have no idea. Since newborns clearly have some degree of consciousness, it must be before birth. Presumably he development of a mind would coincide with the development of the higher centers of the brain.
But it would be utterly, utterly moronic to suggest that a few replicating cells have attained consciousness. A fetus in it's third trimester might or might not qualify; a newly fertilized embryo certainly does not.
Of course, this definition is not espoused by any law I know of, but I can think of no other definition of "human life" that is both logical and consistent with our current practices of agriculture, medical care and the like. And I suppose that this definition would be broad enough that we should apply some protection to other species that display intellect, such as dolphins, whales and primates.
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion that she is not capable of concious thought is entirely subjective. if an organism only consisted of 36 cells, you couldnt really argue that it might be able to think. Its lack of thinking ability would be an objective scientific fact. You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course no one could advocate that its ok to experiment on a child
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess, based on what I know of human brain functions, that she is capable of thought. What she isn't capable of is communication, which is the only proven way we have in this day and age to determine thought. A one month old simply hasn't learned that yet. But babies start to learn from a very early age, and I can only assume that the groundwork is
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, "mentally retarded" is not by any possible s
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never solve the abortion problem by seeking a "bright line" of when a thing suddenly becomes human.
The same difficulty occurs when we try to define 'adult'. The difficulty is in drawing a line somewhere upon what is actually a continuum.
A continuum runs from zygote to newborn. A newborn is obviously human,
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant 'zygote'. It's a cell. It has no desires or feelings, has need of thought or freedom or property, feels no pleasure or pain, possesses no information or ideas or principles or goals. It operates on the level of any other cellular-level parasite.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's human but it is not intelligent life - has no more rights than a fingernail clipping (which will also DNA test human). Human life gets rights and should be protected when there is verifiable brain activity, somewhere near the end of the first trimester.
Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th (Score:2)
I think you misspelled authoritarian there
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian [webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know what, I'm an atheist in a close to 100% catholic country, yet nothing has ever been forced onto me by the church. MUCH more has been forced by the government. How so, I wonder?
Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I insert two chicken eggs into my DNA for breakfast. As an Aussie I can however support the notion that Catalyst is a reputable and interesting science show.
Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they allowed their decision to be based on science rather than what the church says. You'd be crying foul if it was Islamists trying to influence the law, so stop pushing for Christian law.
There's a lot of people who could be saved by this research, and if a few frog biological cells (that don't even have brains) have to die in the process, then so be it.
Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh noes! We is playing Spaghetti Monster! (Score:2)
Sorry, but I don't consider any organized religion to be an authoritative source on anything but their own dogma.
Seriously, at this point I wish every single religious person would jump into an active volcano. With the Christians trying to run the US and the Muslims trying to blow it up, it's all getting really fucking old.
If I were in charge, there's be frigging embryo cloning ranches and abortions would be avalable at sidewalk kiosks.
Re: (Score:2)
>the result is a human, not a rabbit.
No, the result is a hybrid, either a ruman or a habbit. My money is on the latter - they are trying to grow more nuns and the Catholics aren't happy about the approach, hence their opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
And in the UK, they want to make human/cow hybrids (Score:4, Informative)
Quite a good way of getting round the shortage in eggs.
We got you beat (Score:2)
Re:And in the UK, they want to make human/cow hybr (Score:2)
Pffft. We already have those here in America. We call them "midwesterners."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, production of shark-men with friggin' laser beams is expected to start shortly.
Re: (Score:2)
Embryonic stem cells are a dead end for the next 20 years. I doubt very much that they'll be useful for anyone.
There's far easier ways of extracting stem cells of other varieties - and those treatments are actually hopeful and/or working.
Re: (Score:2)
Outrageous (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And The U.S. Loses Again (Score:2, Informative)
By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes [washingtonpost.com], etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.
However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds [forbes.com]. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.
"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With prop
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The federal government funds stems cell research, last year in the $600 Million range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on! (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia beheads people for minor crimes and stones people to death for things that aren't crimes in most places. It can't be that they sit around and have long arguments about life being somehow valuable.
Every day in Sudan more Christers are killed by the Mohammedians - you would
Re: (Score:2)
Despite being a liberal, i find this horrible (Score:2)
Re:Notice that they choose MELBOURNE CUP DAY to vo (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I'm happy as hell that the law has been passed; ignorance has lost out for once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Embryonic stem cells does not equal stem cells in discussion they are different both politics and in science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, there was this Darwin fellow... And his theory is that nature and environment shape the improvement of species. No cloning was necessary, and no genetic experimentation in laboratories was ever needed.
I used to worry that because we formed societies, and protect the weak, that evolution was being crippled and Humanity was harmed by it. But I finally got to REALLY looking around, and humans even LOOK different than we did 50 y
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, evolution does not occur over the span of 50 years (for humans, anyway). We do not "look different" than we did 50 years ago. Styles and fashion have changed, and people in the spotlight are a whole lot thinner, but that's about it.
We simply do not have the longevity or the records currently to determine whether we still evolving and a "normal" rate. My guess is that we as a people are going to get "dumber", since "dumber" people tend t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, not to be nit picky, but average IQ can't increase. The IQ score is always relative to a bell curve, with 'average' alwaysbeing smack-dab at the 50th percentile (the mean). 200==100th percentile, and 0==0th percentile (both more or less immeasurable).
Now, you could say that the bell-curve's getting humpy at the high end (which it is), and you could say that an IQ of 100 is smarter than it used to be (also true, though most people with higher intelligence but less education never notice), but the 'average IQ' is always 100.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
er, not to be, - well yes I am being pernickaty, but this isn't perfectly true either. Only a perfect, unsquewed test with no cieling or flor errors will have a mean of exactly 100. And haveing made some psychometric tests, I can tell you they don't ex
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Meanwhile, now I know why the IQ tests I took as a child had spelling errors. Seriously, you kiss your mom with that spell check?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm dyslexic.
Hense my interest in the field
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Humans are not a people who promote this concept. We put our sick in hospitals, we extend the lives of the terminally ill, we allow people with disease to live, we pay taxes to aid the disabled.
I am not against any of these things. They are the morally right thing to do.
However, they inhibit evolution. By allowing people with genetic disorders or family histories of genetic disorders to procreate and pass on their traits we are destroying Natural Selection.
People who are blind recieve disability pay. Animals who are blind (and normally aren't) get killed and eaten.
People who can't walk get special privileges to help make their daily lives more manageable. Animals who can't travel under there own power get killed and eaten.
People who have genetic disabilites such as Parkinsons, Epilepsy, and Cerberal Palsy, or family histories of disease e.g. Diabetes, High Cholestorol, Heart Problems get taken care of in medical treatment facilities largely funded by tax money.
Animals with genetic disabilities or disease get... you guessed it... killed and eaten.
Animals follow the path of Survival of the Fittest evolution, humans do everything we can to hinder that process. We do not evolve the way Darwin explained it. We evolve emotionally, culturally, and technologically, but not physically. This may be the ultimate downfall of mankind as diseases like the Avian Flu and Cancer are simply too much for our weak bodies to handle. Diseases and Viruses continue to evolve physically leaving us in the dust.
Stem Cell research needs to make up for our lack of physical evolution by finding cures to diseases that will otherwise cause the extinction of our race.
Re: (Score:2)
Ants (and lots of other hive insects) work just like this, individuals cannot survive without the group, but as a
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, "survival of the fittest" is a very crude model and fails to explain many things. Modern biology actually uses the "selfish gene" model, as popularized by Richard Dawkins (also author of "The God Delusion").
Think of it this way: Survival of the fittest is like Newton's physics (only works for some common cases, and with limited accuracy), while selfish gene theory is like Einstein's model
This is fucked up (Score:2)
Humans do continue to evolve, contrary to your belief. All that is required is that some people produce more offspring than others. At the moment that would be the poorest portion of society. They are significantly outbreeding the rich and well educated. In addition, when choosing a mate, humans try to choose someone who is physically attractive and physically and mentally healthy. Those who are phy
Does not compute. (Score:2)
No they don't. It might be argued that they inhibit natural selection, but they don't inhibit evolution.
By allowing people with genetic disorders or family histories of genetic disorders to procreate and pass on their traits we are destroying Natural Selection.
Not at all. It might be argued that doing so replaces natural selectio
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, evolution only occurs over inordinately long timescales. People nowadays achieve more of their genetic potential than in ages past. For example, the average western person's height increased several inches over the twentieth century, not by evolution but just by
Re: (Score:2)
Besides which, small changes take small amounts of time, and large changes take large amount of time. The shape of the face is NOT a large change. It's relatively minor. Evolution-wise, it has a larger impact, though. Humans breed according to odd criteria, like prettiness instead of mother-ability or fitness.
I'm fully aware that a stable
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I don't believe that and I'd like to ask you to back it up. If you have in mind something like Genghis Khan's conquest of (large parts of) Asia and the demographic changes associated, I would suggest that racial mixing, demographics etc is not quite what we would ordinarily call the evolution of species by natural selection. Though maybe our unique ability to make war on poli
Re: (Score:2)
For centuries, the only way for people on different continents to mingle reproductively was to take a journey that was fairly likely to kill them. And then in a single century, we make it safe, easy and affordable. People 'mingle' now like it's nothing. You c
Re: (Score:2)
1). Don't get too caught up on differences among human races. We can all interbreed so we're not that different
2). I think the thing with demographics is maybe that we're unlikely to breed characteristics
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at changes over a span of 2 generations and invoking evolution? That's ridiculous. These changes are purely environmental. If you take two groups of people with similar genes, feed one group well from birth and give them education, while starving the other group and keeping them stupid and oppressed - guess what? You end up with two groups that don't look very similar (example: North Koreans vs. South Koreans).
This has zero to do with evolution.
Environmental changes != Evolutionary changes (Score:2)
Sorry, but this is not evolution. The changes you're seeing are simply the result of better nutrition and a less hostile environment overall, allowing people to grow taller and live longer than they might have previously. There aren't any (significant) genetic changes going on in the timescales you're talking about.
If you took a zygote from so
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like something that's nearly impossible until you realize that some countries feel the need to take all experiments to every level in order to win the arms race. They'll use crazy logic like 'If they make the same virus, we'll already have the vaccine."
No thanks. Slow and steady wins the race.
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting documentary "The Root of all evil" by the prominent scientist Richard Dawkins touches on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil% 3F [wikipedia.org].
link to torrent: http://isohunt.com/download/12430614/Root+of+all+e vil [isohunt.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not religion, it's ethics. Look at the medical "experiments" the Nazi's performed without regard to either.
Today we are cloning embryos for scientific research. Why not clone zygotes? How about cloning babies? Why not use the retarded for research? How about the unemployed and homeless? Where do you draw the line? Why should I let your lack of ethics d
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try comparing the Nazis with folks who want to use nothing more than a cell. And even nicer try debunking the whole thing by denying the influence of religion.
Guess what? The embryo is nothing more than a cell. If you can kill a plant, eat an animal, you can use a cell.
It is not even a baby, it is nothing more than a cell - it is almost like a protozoan, nothing more. The equating of a cell w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play devil's advocate a bit: The relevant question is where does the Constitution give the federal government power to fund medical research?
Maybe there is a good answer for that, maybe not. However don't get stuck in the mindset that the government has a right to do anything that the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit, it doesn't work that way.
Re:even if only 2 cells, if dna is human it's huma (Score:3, Insightful)
The first sentence is debatable. I'm not sure when a biologist would begin to define something as
Re:even if only 2 cells, if dna is human it's huma (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And for those that are against this, obviously you are:
a) Very religious, or
b) Have never had a family member or close friend die (or their life has become so awful they want to die) from conditions that this research will most certainly benefit.
I'll take the unlisted option: c) Ethics
What's wrong with experimentation on stem cells from other sources such as chord blood or adult stem cells? Why must we clone human tissue (read: humans) in order
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You, as a Christian, by definition are claiming that what you preach *has* to be followed and that excessive punishment results from not following the crux of what you preac