Embryology bill defeated

[friendly hardline atheist]

The anti-science brigade was in action at the UKs House of Commons today, trying to ban research involving hybrid embryos. This is viable research, UK scientists have already created and studied a few hybrid embryos. The efforts to kill that research were led by Catholic MPs, acting on the Vatican party line that the soul enters the body at conception and that using such early embryos for research (especially mixing it with animal embryo matter) is unethical. Despite their best efforts, they were routed.

A first bill had been introduced to ban all research on hybrid embryos. It was easily defeated (336-176). A second vote on the same subject, merely limiting the types of hybrids that could be created, was defeated by a smaller margin.

Researchers say hybrid embryos are a very promising avenue for learning about, and finding cures for, various diseases.

Any hybrid embryo is only allowed to develop a few days, it never grows bigger than a pin head. Letting it grow further or inserting it into a womans womb is not allowed.

I'm happy to see scientific research not being further restricted. Well done UK Parliament.

greets,
Peter

[Commodore Angryy]

Why cure disease? God made them, and he's perfectly loving. So they must be good.

[Gray]

Originally Posted by friendly hardline atheist

...acting on the Vatican party line that the soul enters the body at conception...

So do monozygotic twins (resulting from a split egg) both have the same soul, or half a soul each?

[Someday]

I don't see a real difference between using cybrids that have 100% human DNA vs using any other human embryo for this type of research. If there is a difference, say the stem cells produced are somehow not quite human, this would alter my thought on this considerably, and I would especially be horrified at such cybrid research in particular. I wonder what PETA's take is on all of this?

I personally would have no involvement in such endeavors. Adult stem cells, present in most if not all specialized organs, have evolved as cells for repair. That is their purpose, and they successfully achieve this in many ways. That is a line of research I can endorse. It seems to me that while embryonic stem cell research has been ongoing for some time, inducible pluripotent stem cell research is only beginning to be explored. Why not embrace this newer technology?

Blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

I don't see a real difference between using cybrids that have 100% human DNA vs using any other human embryo for this type of research. If there is a difference, say the stem cells produced are somehow not quite human, this would alter my thought on this considerably, and I would especially be horrified at such cybrid research in particular. I wonder what PETA's take is on all of this?

BBC news had a page with some info on what types of hybrids can be created now:

BBC NEWS | Health | Embryology Bill: The key points

If I read your post correctly, it does include the mixed DNA hybrids you find horrific. What is it you find so particularly horrific about e. g. the example on the BBC page, of DNA from a human skin cell being implanted into an animal embryo, creating a slightly mixed hybrid? Or what if it resulted in a 50-50% DNA hybrid? A person can do without a skin cell. What would be so wrong to use a small group of animal cells, that don't have the nervous system yet to feel anything going on? We grow animals to slaughter for our food (which you may find somewhat objectionable too, as I sanctimoniously do, but it's very broadly accepted). Why can't we use them in a far less hurtful way to grow our knowledge of how nature works?

Originally Posted by Someday

I personally would have no involvement in such endeavors. Adult stem cells, present in most if not all specialized organs, have evolved as cells for repair. That is their purpose, and they successfully achieve this in many ways. That is a line of research I can endorse. It seems to me that while embryonic stem cell research has been ongoing for some time, inducible pluripotent stem cell research is only beginning to be explored. Why not embrace this newer technology?

I don't know too much detail about the various kinds of stem cell research. I do know that hybrid embryonic stem cell research is very new. UK researchers recently were the first to have created some hybrids. It's a line of research that scientists say is very promising and is as yet almost completely unexplored. Why not explore both the method you mention as well as hybrid embryos, each method for the areas in which it seems most promising? Same for other methods.

greets,
Peter

[Someday]

What I would find horrific is discovering the stem cells produced are not fully human. This would make the research somewhat meaningless. We can already study animal stem cells, no need to study human/animal stem cells for very long when we can reproduce fully human stem cells. The objective is to create stem cell lines.
I am possibly mistaken, but I am under the impression that the cybrids produced from the cow eggs would only have human DNA once the egg divides, the residual ( 1% ) Cow DNA not being carried over into the resulting divisions. In other words, the human DNA takes over completely in the development of the embryo. If this isn't the case, than they are not human embryos at all, and I think it may be impossible to produce human stem cell lines from such a cybrid.

Blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Take this post with a pinch of salt, as I don't know the stuff that well either.

Originally Posted by Someday

The objective is to create stem cell lines.

I think there are other goals as well. One thing I read researchers are aiming for with mixed DNA hybrids (substantial portions of DNA mixed in with each other, not like the 99.9% example where the tiny bit of cow DNA is discarded) is to study DNA duplication errors. These are rare, the chances of observing one are minute. By copy-pasting together mixed DNA, the DNA strands can be artificially made to produce certain types of copying errors more often, helping the study copying process errors. So it's sort of deliberately mucking things up to get a better chance to study the damage formation process.

I didn't read anywhere how this would soon benefit any treatments of diseases. It may may be long-term research or research without any specified practical aim at all, other than to learn how things work.

Peter

[Gray]

I don't know enough to enter the technical discussion here, but I'll make some general observations...

If this research is so objectionable to God (and that seems to be the case the Catholic Church is making), he could quite rightly either put a stop to it, or at least render it unsuccessful. Strangely, it's only become a sin (a highly specific one, if various opinions are to be believed) very recently - perhaps God didn't see where it was heading.

If this research leads to a cure for a disease that may one day threaten your child's life, would you accept that treatment, knowing its origin?

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hi Gray,

Originally Posted by Gray

If this research leads to a cure for a disease that may one day threaten your child's life, would you accept that treatment, knowing its origin?

Sure they will. Not too long ago a I started a thread about the Vaticans 7 new deadly sins, which include genetic manipulation. There's millions of Catholics using insulin for their diabetes. Insulin is produced from genetically modified e-coli bacteria. And there's a long history of that, ranging from condemning attempts to find a cure for the Black Death through medicine to opposition to vaccination:

Vaccination and religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the centuries-long pattern is

- object to scientific break-through as unethical, playing God, etc
- try to get it banned (claiming morality on your side of course) for everyone, not just those of your flock
- fail to get it banned, 'Darn, why won't people listen when we tell them to get back to those wonderful Dark Ages with us?'
- stand first in line to use the fruits of what you've worked your hardest to destroy
- be annoyed or even deeply insulted when you are reminded of your unconstructive past and present hypocrisy

Peter

[Someday]

Sure they will. Not too long ago a I started a thread about the Vaticans 7 new deadly sins, which include genetic manipulation. There's millions of Catholics using insulin for their diabetes. Insulin is produced from genetically modified e-coli bacteria.

Have you followed the debate about creating cybrids closely enough to see that the Catholic Church supports adult stem cell research? Isn't that evidence that they are certainly not against all genetic manipulation, as you claim, but against specific kinds that result in dead human embryos? And they do not care if you kill rat embryos, or dogs, or chimps. They are quite specific. They are against killing what they consider a human in order to learn from it, and they are against mixing human genes with animal genes.

Hopefully this clears the point I made earlier up a little?

Blessings