NewScientist

11:54 15 August 03

NewScientist.com news service

 

"Human" embryonic stem cells have been harvested from cloned embryos created by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs, claims a soon-to-be published report by Chinese scientists.

 

The goal of the experiments by Hui Zhen Sheng of Shanghai Second Medical University was to create a new source of embryonic stem cells (ESCs). These have the ability to transform into any tissue, making them potential sources of replacement cells for the treatment of many diseases.

 

However, at present, these can only be derived from fertilised human embryos, resulting in widespread controversy. The embryos must be destroyed to harvest ESCs, which some see as ending a potential human life.

 

In contrast, few experts think the rabbit-human hybrid embryos could be develop beyond the earliest stages. Also, cells from the hybrid contain only a tiny amount of rabbit DNA in mitochondria, structures that supply chemical power to the cell, suggesting the cells might be useful for human therapies.

I for one would love to see them bring one of these creatures to term.

It's funny how we live in a world where idiots can attempt to use mythology to fight against some of the smartest people in the world, who have proven inescapable truths...

 

...and it's called a debate.

 

Yeah. The day I become leader (if I wanted to) is the day the population drops to 10% of it's current state.

I have to make a freakin' comment here on this statement:

 

"The embryos must be destroyed to harvest ESCs, which some see as ending a potential human life."

 

Let me explain something that I know will flip peoples freakin lid.

 

LIFE HAS NOT BEGUN IN BILLIONS OF YEARS.

 

A sperm is a alive BEFORE it is ejaculated as it is NINE MONTHS LATER WHEN IT'S A HUMAN CHILD!

 

Ok - LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN - it hasn't in billions of years.

 

Killing a sperm is as much ending a life as a baby. Ever smashed an ant? It dies instantly.

 

Smash a human child instantly. It's the same damn experience, except in human emotions.

 

Killing embryo IS KILLING LIFE.

 

With that said - big freakin' deal. I'd kill all sorts of things if I was getting a nice pay, university health coverage, dental plan and a 401k.

And you say you've published papers?

 

No offence but in the above post you sound like a sociopathic lunatic with a particularly angsty chip on his shoulder

 

And furthermore, life is created when the compounds that form living cells and DNA are assembled from non-living amino acids.

Fafalone - Incorrect.

 

Life is not created, that's an irrational statement unless you are operating under a faith.

 

A human being is created solely from a sperm and egg, which in turn combine their genetic information.

 

However, in fact the entities of this process which would be considered part of this new life during this process NEVER include only non-living parts.

 

For instance DNA is not living, but an organism which has it of course is living.

 

The living being is never interjected during this process.

 

So you are correct that the living cells are assembled from DNA - but the process from sperm and egg to this independant entity never leaves a state of in fact being alive itself.

 

If you wish to know more about this process I could recommend a book.

 

 

BananaMan - My colleagues would all (in a friendly manner) agree with you. I carry some angst indeed. And I can sound like a very unstable at times.

 

Not in my work but in my personal life - I kind of modeled this feeling from a particular person who taught me in the past, and it fits.

 

I'm not offended by it at all, it helps with my angst.

 

Plus how can I get mad at a dancing BananaMan? It's such a pleasant site!

Originally posted by Intelligence

Fafalone - Incorrect.

 

Life is not created, that's an irrational statement unless you are operating under a faith.

 

A human being is created solely from a sperm and egg, which in turn combine their genetic information.

So, by your objection to, and subsequent same-context use of the term 'created', we can assume that you're operating under a faith when it comes to human beings, but not for any other life? Gee, you're just full of interesting li'l contradictions, aintcha?

Yeah uhm. Don't post when drinking please.

 

If you took the time to READ what I said instead of say "Oooh who can I mess with tonight" You'd realize I said LIFE CANNOT BE CREATED.

 

A HUMAN BEING CAN BE CREATED.

 

LIFE DOES NOT EQUAL A HUMAN BEING.

 

Come on man - use some common freakin' sense. How did you get to be a mod?

So basically you're saying amino acids are alive? Because it's a simple fact that new organisms are assembled from them.

 

I'm going to go ahead and express that it's my belief that you have little formal scientific education, are not a published researcher, and generally fail to grasp some fundamental foundations of science and logic.

OMG! I feel so guilty now for eating! (

all those poor helpless little Amino acids, I`ll never be able to look at another multi-vit again!

thnx a bunch guys!

He's saying that a successful human mating event is not the creation of life, it is the creation of offspring and therefore the continuation of life.

 

It's a perfectly valid semantic argument on its own, just not delivered terribly well

 

What he is ultimately trying to demonstrate is that the people objecting to this experiment are getting worked up over very little.

A new living organism is created from non-living components. It's an invalid semantic argument.

It rather depends how far you want to go into the biology.

 

Hence the inclusion of the "semantic" clause ;-)

Interesting!

where does the dividing line occur between that which is "alive" and that which is a collection of molecules?

I can`t answer it, it`s on a par with how many arranged bricks constitutes a house.

Beats me!

Fafalone - You have shown you understand NOTHING about the process of mating.

 

And you make up for it by idiotic statements that make you look like an all around troll.

 

The process of the formation of a human being consists solely of amino acids AT ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN THE PROCESS EVER.

 

This absolutely does not occur.

 

You should be outlawed from speaking because everything you said spreads anti-scientific garbage.

Unintelligence,

 

he knows nothing about "mating" and yet many of your posts are in the thread about "Righthandedness", what do you use yours for?

As soon as you explain to me how cell division occurs without assembling amino acids into proteins, be sure to let me know and I'll remove your suspension.

lol, what a delightful exchange.

seems I missed quite a scene

pity

 

got a little worked up about something that he should've known from common knowledge;)