Genetic Engineering

[alexa]

I don't drop in here lately, juantoo3.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The genie is out of the bottle. The argument can no longer be whether or not to proceed, the science will proceed. Which means the argument should now be how best to maintain an ethical posture while proceeding with the science.

My point exactly. The Pandora box is open. All we can do, is to express ourselves in order to limit or give a certain direction to the evolution of genetic engineering.

I support 100 % all research for hereditary diseases. I don't think God is against helping those unfortunate people. I lost two collegues in primary school for cancer, both having less of 14 years old. How many sins could they have at that age ? I lost another collegue at the University, at 23 years. He didn't smoke or drink or do stupid things. He left behind a young wife and a child. I had another collegue when I was a teacher, unhappy with her daughter of 18 years old, having the mind of a 10 years old. Another one at work, having his 18 years old daughter condamned to live on a bed for the rest of her life, because of a stupid accident. I lost 2 other very young collegues (23-24 years old) who had choosed to suicide.

If genetic engineering can help other families from that cruelty pain, I swore to support all necessary researches for that aim. And I don't care where I have to go after my death.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

I am very sorry to hear of your losses.

Yes, there is a great impact, or at least the offer of hope, to people and families. I believe that is what spurs the research. Even so, I still have a tremendous quandary, in that I do not see the logic or rational reason behind destroying many to help one. I suppose, although I do not agree, that since these embryos are not wanted or loved, that they become fair game to preserve those already living. I see a danger in this line of reasoning, as I have said before, of human flesh becoming a commodity.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly, about doing the research to find ways to help those that can be helped, using sources that do not destroy others, even potential others, in the process. I think in the end it will greatly devalue human life in our collective minds if we choose this road. Which is why I much prefer the use of non-embryonic sources.

If genetic engineering can help other families from that cruelty pain, I swore to support all necessary researches for that aim. And I don't care where I have to go after my death.

I wish I could say I understand the grief that would lead to such a rash vow, you have my sympathies.

I guess what I am trying in a very sympathetic way to say would go something like this: I have a genetic disease. I really wish sometimes that I didn't. I wish I could still do the things I used to do. I cannot convey how much I miss playing frisbee! Yet, if a cure were offered, derived from embryonic sources, I could not in good conscience receive it. I would rush to a doctor (which is not my usual way, typical male!) if that cure were from another source.

[kittycat]

I think that all this is horrible.I also think that a woman not able to concieve,gets a child from in-vetro,a dish!It may be her egg and the husbands sperm however this should not be done.I am Catholic and am not for any doctors playing God.This interferes with God,because it is he ,that decides the fate of a child at conception,or not.I say leave everything in the hands of God,and we shall be fine,for he is most merciful and knows what is best for us...............

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I see a danger in this line of reasoning, as I have said before, of human flesh becoming a commodity.

I understood your view perfectely. I don't support any kind of experiences like those performed by nazi or japs. I know this research is important, but not at any price.

Which is why I much prefer the use of non-embryonic sources.

I have no problems with non embrionic sources. They can identifie the DNA of a person having a sample of saliva, after all.

I wish I could say I understand the grief that would lead to such a rash vow, you have my sympathies.

Not rash in it. I did it years ago. One of the reasons I'm back at the University in clinical research. Not genetic, only drugs study.

I guess what I am trying in a very sympathetic way to say would go something like this: I have a genetic disease. I really wish sometimes that I didn't. I wish I could still do the things I used to do. I cannot convey how much I miss playing frisbee! Yet, if a cure were offered, derived from embryonic sources, I could not in good conscience receive it. I would rush to a doctor (which is not my usual way, typical male!) if that cure were from another source.

I'm kinda curious. Do you agree with transplants ? If the answer is yes, in what conditions ?

You know, juantoo3, I cannot stop thinking about the beginning of medicine hundred of years ago. And how difficult it was getting a proper diagnostic and treatment without knowing the structure of the body. May I dare say the dilemma for genetic engineering is like that lived by doctors in 1400-1500 in their desire to find out what happens inside of a body ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

I'm kinda curious. Do you agree with transplants ? If the answer is yes, in what conditions ?

I think I am generally more comfortable with transplants, in that the donors have already lived, and it is their choice to donate. I am not a donor, and I can't really say why except it just doesn't feel right to me. I do not oppose organ donation by others. Would I receive a donation? I don't know, I will cross that bridge if ever I reach it. Should that day come, I would also likely make my organs available when the time comes.

I will say that I oppose forced donation, such as harvesting from condemned criminals. Again, that to me starts down the road of turning human flesh into a commodity.

You know, juantoo3, I cannot stop thinking about the beginning of medicine hundred of years ago. And how difficult it was getting a proper diagnostic and treatment without knowing the structure of the body. May I dare say the dilemma for genetic engineering is like that lived by doctors in 1400-1500 in their desire to find out what happens inside of a body ?

I think I see your point and it is valid, but for one thing. Exploring cadavers is again learning from those who have already had the opportunity to live. I am not intimately familiar with the period of history you are speaking of, but I doubt that as a rule human beings were killed outright for the sake of study material. The studies as I understand were conducted on those already dead by other means (disease, accident, execution). By contrast, even though a great deal that advanced the science of medicine was learned, especially about the mechanics of the brain, the experiments conducted by the Nazi's (particularly Mengele), were not ethical by any stretch of my imagination. You are correct, that is a very good example of turning human flesh into a commodity. Lampshades of human skin and blankets of human hair are not ethical and respectful treatment of human beings. I see Ayn Rand heading in this direction, and in this regard I vehemently disagree with her.

[alexa]

Who is Ayn Rand ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Ayn Rand is a lady philosopher of the mid-1900's who developed a philosophy (I believe it is called "objectivism") that raises the worth of the individual, what some might see as "selfishness." She wrote two books that have a "cult" following, "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." I appreciate her philosophy to a point, but as I mentioned, she (perhaps due to being atheist) ignores the worth of a human life beyond that of the ability to create. I noticed she was deliberately silent on the subject of religion and spirit. Other than that, I think her philosophy does hold some merit.

[alexa]

I did a quick research on her on the net. She was born in ST. Petersburg, in Russia and she witnessed the Russian revolution in 1917. This might explain her reticence about religion. No one, who lived in a communist country will speak freely about religion. She was also a novelist. Thanks, Juan, for mentioning her. There are not many recognised philosopher women, so I'm happy to learn about her.

I completly agree with you on transplants, so I won't insist.

Back to the history of medicine.

(...) but I doubt that as a rule human beings were killed outright for the sake of study material. The studies as I understand were conducted on those already dead by other means (disease, accident, execution).

Indeed, the studies were performed on dead persons. Those were humans who had never agreed to serve the science. What makes different an embryon rejected by his mother ? I don't say, his mother will give it to the science. Some embryons don't survive for different reasons (his genetic heritage or the health of the mother). Don't we have the same issue in here like in the past when doctors didn't know how to administrate a good treatment without knowing the structure of a body ? If we really want to heal genetic diseases, don't doctors need to find out how the DNA works for them ?

[juantoo3]

Just heard on the news tonight of a medical group using adult stem cells from the patient to build new blood vessels. They showed a man who was at risk of amputation of his leg from blocked arteries building new vessels and saving his leg. They also pointed to research on the heart, and how the patient's own stem cells are being used to repair damaged vessels. Of course, the requisite caveat of "but embryonic stem cells hold out the most hope" was the parting line...*sigh*

[alexa]

I can only say BRAVO for that medical group. If they can use the patient's own stem cells to reconstruct blood vessels, this means they can use them to help the reconstruction of a burned or injured body in car accidents or fire.

Are they at the beginning of their research ? Can you tell me more about that medical group, Juan ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

I'm afraid I cannot, I was only half-listening at first, I was responding to a thread on CR!

Since it was broadcast on ABC news, I would think there may be a snippet on ABCnews.com. I will take a look and see what I can find.

Found this:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/sto...1002059&page=1

Doctors Use Patients' Own Stem Cells to Build New Blood Vessels
Therapy Could Help Millions of Heart Patients Each Year

Aug. 2, 2005 - Adult stem cells are found throughout the body -- in the brain, bones, muscle, skin and blood -- which help heal the body after injury. But now, researchers are using high concentrations of these cells to actually build new arteries in adult patients.

"What we do is actually take them out and find the right amount of cells and specifically put them into targeted areas," said Dr. Amit Patel, director of the Cardiac Stem Cell Therapies at The McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Results in more than 100 patients show that, within just three months after the stem cell injections, patients see a significant improvement in blood flow to the heart. The heart muscle itself actually doubles its ability to squeeze or contract.

Researchers say these adult stem cells might help tens of millions of heart patients each year.

"It could be patients who are receiving stents, who are recovering from coronary bypass surgery, patients with heart failure," said Patel. "All of these patients have the potential to benefit from this therapy."

Therapy Makes Amputation Unnecessary

Doctors at Chicago's Northwestern Memorial Hospital have started injecting adult stem cells into the leg to grow new arteries there. Jeremy Kotner, 27, had so little blood flow in his right leg he was at risk of having it amputated.

"You can see where the vessel is blocked," said Dr. Richard Burt while examining Kotner's X-ray. "You can see the blood flowing and then it just stops. Now, three months later after injection of stem cells in that area, you can see that there's a new vessel bringing the blood."

Burt, a specialist in autoimmune diseases, performed the world's first adult stem cell transplant at Northwestern.

"The pain is gone," said Kotner. "I can walk farther and because of that, I feel a lot better."

Many researchers emphasize that early success with these adult stem cells does not replace the need for greater research on embryonic stem cells, which appear more versatile and could potentially treat more diseases.

But when it comes to building blood vessels, using one's own cells could become a common treatment with just a couple of more years of testing.

ABC News' John McKenzie filed this report for "World News Tonight."

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

[alexa]

Thanks, Juan for the article. Very interesting.

[juantoo3]

Boy oh boy, things seem to be speeding up in the field. On the news tonight:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1005862

*Some of the highlights:

South Korean Scientists Clone First Dog

By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA AP Science Writer
The Associated Press

Aug. 3, 2005 - South Korea's pioneering stem cell scientist has cloned a dog, smashing another biological barrier and reigniting a fierce ethical debate while producing a perky, lovable puppy.

The researchers, led by Hwang Woo-suk, insist they cloned an Afghan hound, a resplendent supermodel in a world of mutts, only to help investigate human disease, including the possibility of cloning stem cells for treatment purposes.

But others immediately renewed calls for a global ban on human reproductive cloning before the technology moves any farther.

"Successful cloning of an increasing number of species confirms the general impression that it would be possible to clone any mammalian species, including humans," said Ian Wilmut, a reproductive biologist at the University of Edinburgh who produced the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, from an adult cell nearly a decade ago.

Researchers have since cloned cats, goats, cows, mice, pigs, rabbits, horses, deer, mules and gaur, a large wild ox of Southeast Asia. So far, efforts to clone a monkey or another primate with the same techniques have failed.

Uncertainties about the health and life span of cloned animals persist; Dolly died prematurely in 2003 after developing cancer and arthritis.

--------------
In a news conference in Seoul, the cloning team also condemned the reproductive cloning of humans as "unsafe and inefficient." Human reproductive cloning already is banned in South Korea. Other nations, including the United States, are split over whether to ban just human cloning or cloning of all kinds, including the production of stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are the source of all tissue. Researchers believe they can be coaxed to grow into heart, brain or nerve cells that could be used to renew ailing organs.

Last year, Hwang's team at Seoul National University created the world's first cloned human embryos. In May, they created the first embryonic stem cells that genetically match injured or sick patients.

--------
Monkeys are the closest model to humans and they are crucial to medical research, but Hwang told reporters that cloning a monkey "is technically impossible at the moment."

The researchers nicknamed their canine creation Snuppy, for "Seoul National University puppy," a reference to Hwang's lab. One of the dog's co-creators, Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, described Snuppy, now 14 weeks old, as "a frisky, healthy, normal, rambunctious puppy."

On scientific terms, the experiment's success was mixed. Like Dolly, Snuppy was created using a method called somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Scientists took a skin cell from the ear of a 3-year-old male Afghan hound and extracted genetic material from the nucleus. They transferred it to an unfertilized egg whose nucleus was removed. The reconstructed egg holding the DNA from the donor cell was zapped with an electric current to stimulate cell division.

They implanted 1,095 cloned embryos into 123 dogs and just three pregnancies resulted. That's a cloning efficiency rate lower than experiments with cats and horses. One fetus miscarried and one puppy died of pneumonia 22 days after birth.

That left Snuppy. He was delivered by Caesarean section from his surrogate mother, a yellow Labrador retriever.

----------
Associated Press writer Ji-Soo Kim contributed to this story from Seoul, South Korea.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Quahom1]

I guess that + or - 3% difference in DNA structure is an awful big canyon to cross...


v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I guess that + or - 3% difference in DNA structure is an awful big canyon to cross...

Yep, been saying that all along. If base pairs were dollars, I'd take 3% anytime, it would be like winning a huge lotto. 3% of 3 billion, hmmm, what is that, like, 90 million I think. Eh, my trusty dusty old calculator doesn't go that high, but it tells me 3% of 3000 is 90, so I think my guess is right.

Something else I found telling, is that it took almost 1100 tries for one success. Now, I haven't looked into the normal attrition rate, but it seems to me cats and dogs are pretty fertile when the time is right. And when the time is not right, they aren't really interested. So, I'm not sure what to make of it...