Frankenstein, stem cells, and all the rest
So, as you can see here the first human-animal hybrid embryos have been created.
This is a month before anybody votes on it, by the way.
The Catholic church is up in arms, as it says they’re “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.
The thing is…well, I have some queries here.
The RCC has a problem that the embryos are hybrids. Thing is, does it not also have a problem that they’re, well, embryos?
(One of the problems with stuff like the abortion debate is that, well, either you believe life begins at conception, in which case abortion is killing somebody (who would be able to survive independently eventually, it’s just they can’t yet), or you don’t, and so it’s removing bunch of cells which can’t live outside the womb yet anyway. Or, in this case, the test tube. I’m not trying to start a debate on this, I’m just pointing it out. Back to stem cells.)
Anyway, my more interesting questions:
“They were created by injecting DNA derived from human skin cells into eggs taken from cows ovaries which have had virtually all their genetic material removed.”
How much is virtually all? And would there be mass objections if IVF babies were made like this?
Here’s my other question:
The reason for all this research is for the harvesting of stem cells.
Isn’t there another way of getting them? Ok, so to get embryonic stem cells (EMCs) you need, you know, an embryo, but what about the EMCs in the placenta, the amniotic fluid, the umbilical cord blood? Seeing as you have lots of babies born in hospitals every day, and lots of placentas which would otherwise be binned/burned/whatever you do with medical waste, why not use those instead? Wouldn’t it be, you know, easier and less ethically questionable? Probably best to ask the mummy whether she minds, but “Would you mind us using some discarded tissue to try and find a cure for Alzheimer’s?” probably wouldn’t present that big of a problem. You’d have to screen them for nasties, I suspect, but don’t you have to do that for pregnant women anyway?
Certainly less of a problem than hybrid embryos which cost you lots (I conjecture here, but it’s new and cutting-edge and therefore probably really expensive) and then you have to chuck out after a couple of days.
Maybe the cells die quickly, but the New Scientist people said that EMCs in a lab setting are virtually immortal…I don’t get it, can anyone explain?
Anyways, there’s another (less useful) kind: adult stem cells, still good for fixing their own specific kinds of tissue, and mean there’s no risk of your immune system rejecting them (they’re your own cells, after all).
In case you’re wondering, I got all the stem cell information from New Scientist
Thoughts? Comments? Explanations as to why my brilliant plan with the umbilical cords is a really stupid idea?
02 Apr 2008 14:53
| 
Tags: Science Embryos Hybrids
| 
Comments (9)
| 
Report a problem
Loading…
9 comments by 2 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]Chris May
They already do ask you if you’re happy for your cord blood to be taken away and used for research, if you give birth in a hospital (at least, they did with us). I guess that either not enough people say yes, or the cells obtained like this are in some way not as good as the alternatives.
I can’t imagine that this alternative hasn’t been pretty thoroughly explored by now, so whatever the reasons are for needing a more controversial approach, they’re fairly good ones.
02 Apr 2008, 15:07
Eli
When they say virtually all the genetic material is removed from the animal egg, I think what they mean is that only the egg’s mitochondrial DNA remains. This type of DNA is only ever inherited from the mother, due to it’s presence in the egg.
02 Apr 2008, 15:15
@Chris: I’m sure they’re good reasons, but…I’d like to know what they are, regardless of this fact. Does anyone know?
@Eli: so…only mitochondrial (try saying that with your teeth out) DNA is left. Ok. But I’m afraid I didn’t understand your second sentence. Are you saying that the cow mitochondrial DNA is then inherited by the embryo? Or that it isn’t? Or that they can’t take it out of the empty egg thing?
Ah, science.
02 Apr 2008, 16:51
Chris May
If 5 minutes’ trawling on wikipedia is to believed; then the problem with cord blood is that it contains adult stem cells, which are only capable of making new copies of themselves. Embryonic stem cell can make new versions of any kind of cell – and hence are pretty much essential if you want to use them to grow specific types of cell. There has been some research to try and get cord blood stem cells to behave like embryonic ones, but only with very limited success.
If you want more detail, starting here and working through the references and external links would probably suffice. Or you could find a biologist and ask them :-)
02 Apr 2008, 20:30
Ahhhh…this makes sense. Great, I’m happy now. Well, my curiosity is appeased, anyway, which is much the same thing.
I may go find a biologist as well, though, just for fun. :)
03 Apr 2008, 08:28
I hate to say this, but I’m with the Church on this one. My own opinion is that a hard and fast line has to be drawn in order to prevent humans becoming just another cash cow that can be farmed for money. Harvesting stem cells I’m okay with, it’s the manufacturing and otherwise playing games with the genetics that gives me the problem.
07 Apr 2008, 11:57
You don’t have to apologise for being on the Church’s side.
Honestly, it’s not yet a hanging offense. :)
My dad always said (about genetic modification of crops) that the plants we existing currently have had however long to get themselves right. So we don’t know what effect muddling their genetics will have on us or the environment until years down the line, by which point we might have done damage we can’t reverse. And that’s before you get into the ethics of making little hybrid people.
07 Apr 2008, 14:17
Chris May
What your dad said was quite right, but of course exactly the same is true of many other things. Introducing cane toads to Australia, or pigs to Hawaii or rhododendrons to Scotland, say. If you cast the net a bit wider than biology/ecology, you can probably make the same argument, with varying levels of consequence, about splitting the atom, funding the Mujahideen against the soviets, and equipping mobiles with polyphonic ringtones.
They all seemed like great ideas at the time, and it wasn’t until years later that it became apparent that it was a problem. Sometimes a very big problem. The trouble with new inventions is they’re hard to un-invent.
IMO, the argument that we shouldn’t do GM because we don’t know enough about the possible future consequences is only valid if you’re prepared to take the same stance with regard to any kind of progress, there’s nothing inherent in GM that makes it more long-term risky than all sorts of other development.
The ethical side of it is unique, and worthy of debate, though.
07 Apr 2008, 15:20
equipping mobiles with polyphonic ringtones…
Snerk.
Heh.
Yes, the argument ‘we’ve always got along just fine without it’ is not a great one. Thankfully, like you said, there are better arguments.
07 Apr 2008, 19:41
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.