New York Times article on cloned humans

The New York Times (free one time registration required) has a news piece on the Stemagen cloned human embryos, with reference to "making copies of people" and implantation of cloned embryos for reproduction.

One of the men who donated the fibroblast skin cells is also the owner of Stemagen.

The NYT has more on the story behind the cloned human embryos:

The Stemagen scientists, led by Andrew French, an animal cloner recruited from Australia, used skin cells from Dr. Wood and another Stemagen employee as the DNA source. They used 29 eggs donated by young women at the fertility clinic that Dr. Wood manages.

Five blastocysts were developed. One was shown to be a clone by genetic testing, the scientists reported, and two others also showed good evidence of being clones.

Dr. Wood said the key to success might have been choosing egg donors who were known to be fertile and healthy because they had previously been successful donors at his fertility clinic.

The women were also donating at the same time to couples wanting babies. Some eggs went to the couples and the others to the research, with the consent of both the donors and the couples. The donors were paid for the eggs that went to the in vitro fertilization but not to the research, Dr. Wood said.

Therapeutic cloning has been hampered by lack of access to healthy eggs, in part because it is often considered unethical to pay women for such donations. Dr. Daley of Harvard said Stemagen’s “egg sharing” approach appeared to be a reasonable way to obtain eggs.

The media will have fun with this story.

Human embryos cloned in California

Scientists at Stemgen, a La Jolla, California laboratory have published a report on the successful cloning of human embryos in the journal, Stem Cells. (The article is available free, due to the open access policy of the journal.)

The authors are very clear: these are human embryos produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning. The embryos were clones of the men who donated the fibroblast skin cells.

This study demonstrates, for the first time, that SCNT can be utilized to generate cloned human blastocysts using differentiated adult donor
nuclei remodeled and reprogrammed by human oocytes. Evidence of successful SCNT was shown with DNA fingerprinting analyses of three SCNT cloned blastocysts where embryo genomic DNA was that of the donor fibroblast cell line and were not fragmented oocytes or of parthenogenetic origin.

. . .DNA fingerprints from three SCNT blastocysts were consistent with those of the somatic cell donor employed with no evidence of contamination from the egg donors, indicating that embryonic development was being controlled by the donor cell genome.

The cloned human embryos were produced using donated oocytes less than 2 hours old and the DNA from the skin cells of men. (The eggs were donated by women for the use of other couples, see below.) The use of male donor DNA allows for easier distinction from any possible parthenogenetically produced embryos, which would be female. Any embryos that are male serve to prove the success of the experiment.

In this case, the cloned embryos were actually compared to parthenogenetically produced embryos created by stimulating oocytes to become embryos. These embryos only contain the DNA of the women who donated the eggs. Parthenotes are not clones, because of the rearrangement of genes that happens when the eggs are produced with half of the normal chromosomes which would be matched by the haploid sperm if fertilization took place.

It appears that the group had a very high success rate, with approximately 2/3 or 16 of 25 of the enucleated oocytes producing very early embryonic organisms, which (who) demonstrated cell development and division similar to embryos produced by in vitro fertilization. 10 of the embryos developed to day 3 and 5 of those went to day 5, with the formation of blastocysts. Blastocysts are embryos that have developed enough cells to form a layer of cells around a hollow center, and eventually the inner cell mass, the differentiated grouping of embryonic stem cells at one spot within the sphere. All 5 of the blastocysts formed inner cell masses. The authors do not report any stem cell lines from these embryonic stem cells, but note that they are trying to do so - either from these embryos or from additional cloning.

The Discussion includes speculation that the success rate was so high because the oocyte donors were young women who were able to produce so many eggs through stimulation of their ovaries that there were more than enough for the use by the parents (couples?) to whom they were donating for the production of embryos for implantation and pregnancy. Although the article states that all 3 of the parents were able to get pregnant from the eggs that went to them, that could not have been known at the time the eggs were taken to the experimental lab. Some went to the in vitro lab and some went to the experimenters within less than 2 hours. It takes at least a few hours after in vitro fertilization to determine whether any embryos were formed.

If embryonic stem cell lines are developed from this technique, perhaps some group will compare them to embryonic-like stem cells developed by reprogramming.

Myths on Myths about stem cells

There's a new Public Broadcasting System (your tax dollars at work) television show on "stem cells," "Mapping Stem Cell Research: Terra Incognita."

You don't have to go any farther than the top of the home page, with its picture of a girl in a wheelchair and this quote,

"Some people consider stem cell biology to be the Holy Grail of Regenerative Medicine, while others view embryonic stem cell use as morally wrong."

to see that it's propaganda for embryonic stem cell research and cloning for embryonic stem cells. The authors immediately begin the pattern of using the term "stem cells" for both of the two basic kinds of stem cells: those that require the destruction of a human life and those that don't.

Here are the first three points from the "Myths and Realities" page, with my comments in Bold after each.

MYTH
Stem cell research uses aborted fetuses.
REALITY
Stem cells can be totipotent (a fertilized egg with the “total potential” to give rise to all different types of cells in the body), multipotent (stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types), or pluripotent (stem cells that can give rise to any type of cells in the body except those that are needed to develop a fetus). While pluripotent stem cells could be developed from fetal tissue or even adults, they are best derived from early-stage embryos, a mass of cells that is only a few days old—not aborted fetuses.

The authors skip over the significance of the fact that embryronic stem cells come from destroyed human embryos in the lab, it is true that most stem cell research does not use tissues obtained from abortions. Nowadays, however, the term "fetus" is too often used by the media (and even researchers who ought to know better) for all pre-born human beings. The proper definition of human embryo is the organism from fertilization or the beginning of the first cell division to 7-8 weeks of age. The term "fetus" in humans is properly used from 8 weeks until birth.

More on the claims about what is the "best" source of stem cells and about "embryonic-like stem cells," below.

MYTH
Somatic cell nuclear transfer using human cells involves the use of fertilized eggs.
REALITY
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process in which the nucleus from an adult cell is removed and then transferred to an egg whose nucleus has been removed, is the first step in cloning and can be used to create an embryonic stem cell line. However, an egg cell does not need to be fertilized to be used in this procedure—an unfertilized egg cell can be used.

Here, the authors avoid using "embryo" and throw around the terms "unfertilized egg" and "fertilized egg." An embryo is not a "fertilized egg" - once an egg is fertilized, it becomes an embryo. In Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (cloning), the embryo is produced artificially by inserting the DNA of a donor cell and stimulating division and organized development that occurs with natural reproduction. When human DNA is used to produce human embryonic cells in an organized embryo, there can be no doubt that what we are talking about is a human embryo. No matter how he or she is created - or produced - or how severely handicapped by the intentions and actions of the producers, a human embryo is a very young human being.

MYTH
Researchers can use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Other treatments using adult stem cells are available to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries.
REALITY
Adult stem cells lack the versatility and flexibility of embryonic stem cells, making them less likely to lead to medical breakthroughs. Embryonic stem cells have a far greater developmental potential and are more likely to be pluripotent, while adult stem cells are thought to be merely multipotent, or restricted to only certain cell types.

In November 2007, Japanese and American research teams reported new ways to obtain stem cells that behaved like embryonic stem cells from human skin cells—without having to use human embryos. This breakthrough holds great promise in solving the ethical dilemmas of stem cell research, but scientists currently still face technical hurdles and the challenge of finding ways to use these stem cells successfully in medical treatments and therapies.

The biggest lie of all is that embryonic stem cells are more useful in treatments for human beings. Just ask the 20,000 plus in the US alone who have been treated with adult and umbilical cord stem cells or go looking for even one human who has been treated with embryonic stem cells.

While it is true that most ethical, adult stem cells are not "pluripotent," there are many kinds of "multipotent" stem cells and precursor cells in the body. In fact, these are the cells that we probably will use in the future, because they are the cells the body uses to repair itself and because they are less likely to grow out of control or cause tumors.

We are also learning that the desired development of stem cells and precursor cells is influenced by the environment and all sorts of "factors," or chemical and physical signals present in the part of the body where they grow into cells, tissues and organs. The key to future treatment for most disease will probably come from learning to stimulate these conditions and factors.

Besides the ethical dilemma of destroying early human life, embryonic stem cell research has every problem or hurdle that could be cited for adult stem cells: they are difficult to grow, found in small numbers, the cultures may be contaminated with different, undesirable cell lines, and are difficult to control to produce for the exact stem cell line that is needed.

Moreover, no one wants to transplant embryonic stem cells into people. What we want is to produce adult stem cells for treatments.

The last paragraph mentions embryonic-like stem cells. There are several ways to produce stem cells that behave in every way that the unethical stem cells do.

These cells are being used in research to replace the unethical cells produced by destruction of embryos.

The goal of all stem cell research is to have a source of "patient-specific" stem cells from the patient or to find ways to stimulate stem cell production in the body of the patient, when and where they are needed.

The producers of this program are advocating for outdated research methods.While researchers have learned a lot from human embryo research in the past, most of what we use has been developed from research in animal models. The production of new embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos and from cloning is no longer necessary to carry out this research.


(Thanks to Janet, of the Bedford County Citizens Concerned for Human Life, for sending me the link to the website on the show.)

Surfing the web, leaving a trail

It might surprise many Internet surfers and commenters how much a slightly curious website owner knows about them.

I've always believed that I shouldn't post any thing I didn't want published in my hometown newspaper. However, I forget how much information about me is available on the Internet - whether or not I actually post.

There are several for-fee and free sites that allow me to track which pages are viewed and when, how many visitors I get, the viewer's location and the links that referred them to my website. The reports also tell me the type of browser, the length of time and divides the reports by unique visits and pages viewed. There are all sorts of reports that I don't use - or understand why I would want them.

It is cool to see that what I write has been seen - possibly read - by someone from Czechoslavakia this morning.

The images above are pictures of one report that I check most often. It shows the numbers of "hits" or visits to my blog during the last week. The top image is from this morning, the bottom is from January 8th. This website that produces the reports, Sitemeter, filters out most of the newsreader "hits." Another program shows those, inflating the numbers two or three times.

By studying the numbers and who, when and how, I keep trying to figure out how to get more readers.

I haven't found many patterns, by the way, except the "hits" seem to go up about the time midterm and end of the semester school papers might be due.

I am surprised to discover that one of the most read pages on this blog are those which deal with the subject of evolution and public policy. I post on these stories as a way of discussing the intersection of public policy and what I perceive as a bias in the science community. Few people seem to care about "Ethicists for hire," but there is a lot of interest in evolution and public policy.

One of the most frequent searches that links to LifeEthics are those on the movie, "Expelled." LifeEthics has been viewed about 12 times over the last day because someone used Google or another web search engine with the search words, "Expelled, the movie." This morning, my post from last October, "LifeEthics.org: Expelled, the movie (It's about censorship)" is the third link in a search on the US Google. One of those visits was by someone from somewhere in the United Kingdom who used the AOL and Google.uk search engines to view my page for a little over a minute, each time. They clicked on a link on my post to view the Guardian.uk article on Richard Dawkin's reaction to the movie.

There were comments yesterday on "Expelled: movie to explore politics of science" from a reader who objects to my critique of the case of one of the scientists mentioned in the press releases about the movie. This post was from August 23, 2007. That commenter and I are still having a conversation on a story about a Texas Education Agency employee who sent out an email alerting people she knew about a talk on "Creationism's Trojan Horse." Those posts were written in early December,2007 and titled, "Politics Bites," and "Texas Employees, Politics, Science."

Happy New Year! (a little late)

Okay, it's January 9th, and I'm just getting back to the blog after a couple of weeks obsessed with politics, house design, and moving. (We are about to remodel our 60 year old house.)

I do my best to keep raw partisan politics out of this blog. However, this is a Presidential election year here in the US, and so much of our Bioethics is really just Politics.

So, I'm activating a sister blog, "Bioethics and Politics." Don't be surprised if that one gets as much or more attention as LifeEthics.

Women do not want pro-abortion President

The New York Times has weighed in on the secret to Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire: women voters.

I am convinced that Senator Clinton’s campaign is very aware of the importance of the women's vote. (I believe that the "crying" incident of January 6th was aimed at reminding women that Hillary is a woman, and that this is their chance to have a woman President. But that's just my opinion.)

Pro-life voters who do not want a pro-abortion President must begin to emphasize and educate one another about the voting record of the candidates. Our belief that every human life has value (not the personalities of the candidates, inevitabilities, and religious identification) is something that we have in common with members of both the major parties.

There is no question that Hillary and Obama fought the Partial Birth Abortion ban (Hillary as First Lady and then as NY Senator and Obama while still in the Illinois legislature). Polls like this one (comments here and the poll in .pdf, here) from the Susan B. Anthony List, from last August, show that even among women who want to vote for a woman to get a woman President, a large number will not vote for the advocates of Partial Birth Abortion. These are the voters we need to alert/inform.

The reality is that politics will play a part in our goal of protecting human rights in medicine and science policy in the US. The next President will, like this one, be in a position to name several Supreme Court Justices.

Women do not want a pro-abortion President

The New York Times has weighed in on the secret to Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire: women voters.

I am convinced that Senator Clinton’s campaign is very aware of the importance of the women's vote. (I believe that the "crying" incident of January 6th was aimed at reminding women that Hillary is a woman, and that this is their chance to have a woman President. But that's just my opinion.)

Pro-life voters who do not want a pro-abortion President must begin to emphasize and educate one another about the voting record of the candidates. Our belief that every human life has value (not the personalities of the candidates, inevitabilities, and religious identification) is something that we have in common with members of both the major parties.

There is no question that Hillary and Obama fought the Partial Birth Abortion ban (Hillary as First Lady and then as NY Senator and Obama while still in the Illinois legislature). Polls like this one (comments here and the poll in .pdf, here) from the Susan B. Anthony List, from last August, show that even among women who want to vote for a woman to get a woman President, a large number will not vote for the advocates of Partial Birth Abortion. These are the voters we need to alert/inform.

The reality is that politics will play a part in our goal of protecting human rights in medicine and science policy in the US. The next President will, like this one, be in a position to name several Supreme Court Justices.