Stem Cells from In Vitro Fertilization

[Delta]

I've already did a forum search and it seems like the older threads were based on stem cell extraction from aborted fetuses.
I was just wondering what everyone's opinion was on performing research with cells left over in vitro fertilization. Remember, those left-over cells have no chance at life. They're left on the petri dish and probably autoclaved. These cells have not yet developed a nervous system.

I know that this forum has a high proportion of users who are very well-educated, but for those who aren't aware of this, the Bush administration put a restriction where only certain stem cells which were procured before a certain date were allowed to be used for research. Unfortunately, many of these lines (weren't too many to begin with) either have mutations and many limiting factors in its development which are not conducive to the types of research efforts that scientists wish to learn from.

Also, I know most of the public is usually scared by the idea of cloning. However, I don't think most people in their right minds (scientists included) would want to clone humans. With that being said, most of the scientists doing work with cloning are trying to do nuclear transfer (take egg from fertile female, take out its DNA, replace it with the DNA from a different patient's skin cell, for example). This redesigned stem cell would then develop as a "normal" blastula and then be studied to find out exactly where the first problem of a skin cell gone wrong to eventually become skin cancer (i.e. find the root of the problem).

With all of this taken into consideration, the final decision comes down to people choosing between a blastula that has no real potential to become a human being(remember, left over from fertilization attempts), and someone who may be suffering from juvenile diabetes, breast cancer, lung cancer, Parkinson's disease, etc. What's your take?

[keith]

You are mixing a few things up;

1) Most embryos resulting from human IVF are frozen - as an aside there are probably several hundreds of thousand of frozen embryos in the US.

2) In cases where a couple does not want to pay to freeze the embryos they may chose to discard or donate the embryos for research. Note that the current prohibition is on using federal funds (NIH, NSF etc) for generating or studying 'new' human stem cell lines. It is not a blanket ban on any such study.

3) You confuse somatic cell nuclear transfer (skin cell nucleus to unfertilized egg) with the major byproduct of IVF - fertilized eggs. Under US law there is no legal requirement for all fertilized eggs to be transferred back to the donor (as there is in Italy) so very few unfertilized human eggs are available.

4) Excess IVF embryos, are of course, a potential source for the derivation of new stem cell lines*.


* note that the designation of 'embryonic stem' cells - the ES cell - is a functional attribute. ES cells transferred into a blastula will contribute in whole (or part) to all cell lineages of the resulting organism, including the germ line.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

2) In cases where a couple does not want to pay to freeze the embryos they may chose to discard or donate the embryos for research. Note that the current prohibition is on using federal funds (NIH, NSF etc) for generating or studying 'new' human stem cell lines. It is not a blanket ban on any such study.

However, it should be noted that since a large percentage of money for such studies would usually come from federal sources (or sources that have some federal money) that this prohibition has certainly drastically slowed research in this field in the US.

[keith]

However, it should be noted that since a large percentage of money for such studies would usually come from federal sources (or sources that have some federal money) that this prohibition has certainly drastically slowed research in this field in the US.

One could equally argue that the proliferation of productive research efforts to identify non-embryonic stem cell populations is a function of the limitation on NIH funding for work on embryo derived cells.

Of course while their is alot of non-governmental money around for this sort of research there would be a major benefit of a shift in the status. Although much of that is around some of the silly bureaucratic nonsense; for example in a lab that receives NIH funds for work with non-human models but also does work via non-NIH money on human cell lines you cannot use equipment funded by the NIH for the human cell line work - which results in waste of funds duplicating basic laboratory resources.

[Philistine]

{Snip}However, I don't think most people in their right minds (scientists included) would want to clone humans.
{snip}

Why do you say that?

There are clearly a huge number of people (including scientists) who are at least conceptually in favor of some level of human cloning--ranging from theraputic cloning of organs, etc. to full scale reproductive cloning.

FWIU, much of the squeamishness in the community with regards to full-scale cloning is due to the imperfect techniques currently available, which lead to a number of nonviable or disabled clones.

If cloning technology was routine, I suspect that while there'd still be vehement opposition from a significant segment, there would also be a large percentage of people in favor of human cloning.

--Philistine

[Delta]

keith, I never said there was a blanket ban. My point was that research is severely restricted. The lines being studied from the past under the oridinance of the government logically must abide by their laws, regardless of their potential, or lack thereof.
I'm not confusing the two types of manipulation. I was trying to clarify that part of the scare from the masses was their lack of differentiating between the two. Both technically fit under the term "cloning" and I know that prior to the turn of the century, the only image I had in my mind about that word was from Star Wars' Storm Troopers.

philistine, humans as in human beings. not their organs. The scientists who are egomaniacal enough to think that cloning a organism ought to rethink what makes human life so valuable as it already is.
As for the result of many of the imperfect techniques, most progress in science is the work of many trials and many errors along the way. While some of these cells will die, these cells originally had no chance at what we would consider a human life. I know this is a very personal call at what we want to call life, but between someone with a spinal cord injury who has the hope of scientific discovery, and a batch of unused eggs which will be discarded, I would choose the former.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

philistine, humans as in human beings. not their organs. The scientists who are egomaniacal enough to think that cloning a organism ought to rethink what makes human life so valuable as it already is.

What's a human and what's not? If they found a way to have a storage system that had a full complement of organs that were genetically similar to yours, but in a storage system without a brain or central nervous system, it wouldn't be very human. But what if it did have a central nervous system? Parts of a brain?


And exactly why is human life "so valuable as it already is"?

[Delta]

does this recipe for a human with human parts lead a human life? in a storage system?

I don't understand your question. Why isn't human life valuable?

[Gav]

does this recipe for a human with human parts lead a human life? in a storage system?

I don't understand your question. Why isn't human life valuable?

Without a brain it's not human. It's meat.

Granted it's "living" meat that can be used for replacement parts, but it's just meat.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The scientists who are egomaniacal enough to think that cloning a organism ought to rethink what makes human life so valuable as it already is.

Why?

What is intrinsically different between cloning and in-vitro fertilization, from a standpoint of the value of human life--or other standpoint, for that matter?

--Philistine

[MyrddinsPrecint]

does this recipe for a human with human parts lead a human life? in a storage system?

I don't understand your question. Why isn't human life valuable?

There is some line between human and not. I'm not sure where it is. If something does not have a brain, never has and never will, I'm pretty sure it's pretty close to human. My point was that we quickly get into confusing territory, not that I wanted an answer on that one.

I'm pretty attached to my life, and my life is made better by a mutual agreement with most other humans to not hurt each other too much. But I'm not necessarily sold on the whole theory of humans existing being fundamentally better for the universe than humans not existing (although anything that caused the death of all of the humans probably wouldn't be that great for this planet either.)

You, however, seem to be very convinced that human life is valuable. See: "The scientists who are egomaniacal enough to think that cloning a organism ought to rethink what makes human life so valuable as it already is." I don't have any particular argument against this, I'm just curious as to why you are fundamentally convinced that human life is valuable.

[keith]

oh and in related news the first test of a stem cell derived treatment is about to get underway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...trial-go-ahead

[Sean Butler]

You, however, seem to be very convinced that human life is valuable. See: "The scientists who are egomaniacal enough to think that cloning a organism ought to rethink what makes human life so valuable as it already is." I don't have any particular argument against this, I'm just curious as to why you are fundamentally convinced that human life is valuable.

You are right to doubt the value of life in a completely non-theistic frame of reference. If things have no more real value than other things, and human beings are simply things, then human beings have no more value than anything else. In fact, there is no value system at all. God's existence is the only argument which successfully creates value.

[Philistine]

{snip}God's existence is the only argument which successfully creates value.

So your position is that atheists or agnostics (or Buddhists, for that matter) not only do not value human life, but cannot value it.

This seems a bit... facile.

--Philistine

[Gav]

oh and in related news the first test of a stem cell derived treatment is about to get underway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...trial-go-ahead

This is actually not true. There have been attempts at other stem cell treatments. The problem is that the success of these treatments has been ... variable.

[keith]

This is actually not true. There have been attempts at other stem cell treatments. The problem is that the success of these treatments has been ... variable.

Do you mean fetal derived tissue or tissue derived from stem cells of human embryo origin. Different things (as Delta mentions in the OP). As far as I was aware this is the first test of human ES cell derived, in vitro differentiated, material.

If I'm wrong I'd like to know.

[Hauptman]

Also, I know most of the public is usually scared by the idea of cloning. However, I don't think most people in their right minds (scientists included) would want to clone humans.

You may be right regarding people "in their right minds", but the more important point is that cloning of people will occur. If it is possible then someone will do it, so with regards to cloning I believe it's not "if" but "when" it will occur. When it does occur what will be the impact?

[Sean Butler]

So your position is that atheists or agnostics (or Buddhists, for that matter) not only do not value human life, but cannot value it.

This seems a bit... facile.

--Philistine

What I said specifically was non-theists. An agnostic hasn't completely rejected theism. As well, Buddhism has elements of theism in the concept of the "Eternal Buddha". The goal of Buddhism is to be the Buddha which is quite a God-like state.

What principle might one claim an atheist has for valuing a human life other than his own? Even his own life is suspiciously devoid of value if he reasons it well enough. Without an external value system, how do we invent value where there is none?

Theism provides the external evaluation which gives everything value.

[keith]

Well given this is off topic anyway...

What principle might one claim an atheist has for valuing a human life other than his own? Even his own life is suspiciously devoid of value if he reasons it well enough. Without an external value system, how do we invent value where there is none?

You know it hadn't occurred to me before but I don't think anyone has ever considered this before.

But riddle me this, given the absolute ethical purity of the theists regard for life, why is there such an issue about Plan B yet total indifference to the bleaching and flushing of unwanted IVF embryos?

Perhaps the valuing of life is not something that is intrinsic to a theist declaration?

[Sean Butler]

Indifference from whom? Anyone who would support either and call themselves pro-life obviously doesn't have a good handle on the reasons behind the pro-life movement.