Europe hasn't banned human embryonic stem cell research. They are against taking a human clone fully to term. The stem cell issue is still contentious in parts of Europe, though. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994404 http://www.geocities.com/giantfideli/art/CellNEWS_EUs_ESC_policy.html The stem cells are harvested from an embryo during the first week of growth. This is different than taking an embryo to term. Also, chemical stimulation of the egg after DNA insertion has yielded cell division (without fertilization by sperm) although this is still in an early stage.
What? That is just crazy. 75% of all pregnancies do not make it to term naturally, so someone who goes into a fertility clinic needs to have multiple embryos because the chances of just one embryo coming to term is slim at best. And they don't know which will be successful and which will not until they have created them. Soon Huck will be saying that it is wrong to get pregnant becuase of the chance it might kill the embryo...
All but Britain are also against research cloning, as noted in the last story in your second link: According to the proposals adopted by the European Commission, researchers could spend EU money to harvest new stem cells from frozen human embryos created before the 27 June 2002, which has been set as cut-off date. This will undoubtedly set the stage for a showdown with the more conservative countries in Europe that oppose the work on moral grounds — a practice that is already illegal in Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain and blocked elsewhere. While the proposal states that "the EU will not fund human embryonic stem cell research where it is forbidden," many countries like Germany don't want their tax money going to pay for such work anywhere. Along with Sweden, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and Britain allow for harvesting stem cells from 'spare' IVF embryos under certain conditions. Britain is the only EU member state that also allows the creation of human embryos for stem cell procurement. Taking stem cells from embryos is illegal in countries such as Germany, France, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal and blocked in many more countries. A German law passed last year allows research on stem cells only if they are imported and existed before January 1, 2002. I believe what you've described is the process of cloning. I'm talking about intentionally creating more embryos than can safely be implanted. It is possible to create only 1-3 at a time. I realize that it's more expensive than creating 6-12 at a time and might require more procedures, I think its more ethical. At the very least, the "extras" should be automatically eligible for adoption of the biological parents don't want them; they shouldn't be allowed to have them killed. As I said before, I think this whole enterprise is twisted. Why don't people just adopt existing children in need of families instead of going to so much extraordinary effort and expense to create even more?
What the hell is wrong with you? So now you are against people having their own children? Only the people lucky enough to get pregnant easily get to have their own children? I'm glad I don't subscribe to your ethics... For another thing, all these embryo's would be destroyed anyways. An embryo that isn't good enough for implant in the mother that the egg came from wont have any better chance in a surrogate or adopted mother. If they ovum stayed in the woman she would lose it during menstraution; if it did become fertilized it would most likely abort. These clinics don't change any of that, they just give you all those chances at once rather than over years and years time. It's all the same in the end, except you can use the embryos that would normaly be destroyed naturally, and put them to medical use to save lives. I know how terrible and unethical that is...
I'm against deliberately creating "disposable" human embryos, especially when there are countless children in need of adoptive homes. If people can only love children that carry their same genes, then I question their fitness to be parents. You're assuming that all of the "spare" embryos are somehow defective, which simply isn't true. Scientists would not be interested in harvesting stem cells from deformed embryos. Furthermore, many of these embryos are successfully placed for adoption: http://www.embryoadoption.org
The issue is still contentious in the EU. However, the philosophy for dealing with the issue in Europe is different than in the U.S. In the U.S., Bush has banned the use of federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research and there is no further discussion or recourse to change this position. It was a decision made by one person based on political pressure from conservative religious groups and Bush's personal view. The ban will be effective as long as he is in office. The rationale for the moratorium in the EU was to give time for the EU members to come to a consensus on how to deal with embryos. Sweden, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and Britain still allow harvesting of human embryos under certain conditions. They will likely go on a case by case method if an overall consensus can't be reached regarding use of embryos. This is a more pragmatic type approach compared with that in the U.S. Eventually, the EU will reach an agreement regarding this issue.
The method of using chemical or electrical stimulation is a method of cloning but not in the traditional sense of fertilization of the egg by sperm. One can still get cell division and harvest stem cells by artificial stimulation. This is even more of a gray area than the traditional methods as one couldn't be sure such an embryo would produce anything close to a viable human being. It's these issues that need to be discussed in the political and ethical forums of the world instead of an outright ban with no further discussion or recourse.
First, I believe he actually liberalised a policy that was already in place. Second, Congress could overrule him, but they don't have anything resembling a public mandate to do so. Given the intense public divisons on the matter, it's probably best for the government not to charge ahead. The US allows this, too; it just doesn't subsidize it. Traditional fertilization never produces a clone. Embryonic clones would undoubtedly develop if implanted in a womb, but they would likely have severe defects. The whole enterprise is ghoulish. I don't think we have to open the genie's bottle of human cloning. Fortunately, some European countries have already enacted their own comprehensive human cloning bans. I can only hope that the US will follow suit. Speaking of open discourse, here's an interesting perspective on the subject: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kelly200410210859.asp
Not national review again. We've been through all this before. OK? Find a more objective source. I'm against bringing human clones to term. Right now it would be a disaster. It can't be properly done in animals without genetic defects and deleterious results. A majority of people in the U.S. support human embryonic stem cell research. The problem is that Bush made a personal decision based on instinct and pressure from the religious right to ban federal funding, as opposed to groups having an open discussion about it. It's a persistent pattern with him. He did the same thing when he announced he would pull troops out of Germany at a campaign stop in Cincinnati instead of meeting with leaders of other countries to discuss it. His dad did the same thing with the gag order on discussing abortion counseling at clinics with federal funding. People always have the option of voting him out of office or appealing to their Congressmen.
I was making a distinction between creating stem cells by using an egg implanted with DNA and stimulated with chemical and electrical methods as opposed to harvesting a stem cells from an embryo (egg fertilized by sperm). The time is coming where people will be able to produce and harvest human stem cells from an egg implanted with DNA and stimulated by artificial means. This is another area open to debate that doesn't seem to be discussed much. The public focus in the U.S. seems to be on stem cells derived from eggs fertilized with sperm.
And yes, the U.S. hasn't banned human cloning for therapeudic reserch yet either. Europe as a whole hasn't banned it either as far as I know. Europe has a more open discussion on the issue, compared with the U.S. where a personal decision of a single leader has banned federal funds without any open discussion. Bush, for example, spent the whole month of August 2001 at his ranch right before the 911 attack to ponder his personal decision on whether or not to ban federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. That's not a very good way to grapple with an issue. Not to digress too much, but it also wasn't good at that time for Bush to be out of DC a whole month when there were indications in the summer that hijackers were planning to use planes to attack the U.S. (Zachariah was arrested in August by the FBI because of his suspicious use of flight schools) Not to belittle the stem cell issue, but it is a minor issue compared with national security and what happened on 911. I would have much preferred Bush in DC that whole month of August discussing national security with other leaders in DC as opposed to being on his ranch.
Try actually reading the article; you might find it interesting. If you find flaws or errors, you can always point them out. That's how dialogue is supposed to work. One reason that research cloning isn't discussed much is because its proponents (like you) won't call it by name.
It doesn't matter what it is called. It's the same thing by any other name. The religious right tends to focus on stem cells harvested from eggs fertilized by sperm (embyros, once they've been fertilized), most likely because it relates more closely to the abortion issue. Cloning is a different method. Even within cloning there are different ways to artificially stimulate stem cells to divide. It's a gray area that people don't like to talk about because they are not sure how to deal with it.
I have read through national reviews thoughts about it. They raise ethical points which is good, but they give only one facet of the issue. I'm not saying it is bad, but one shouldn't rely on a single source. It would be best if the religious, science , and political community had an open discussion on this issue, as opposed to a single political leader determining the fate of funding based on his personal preference alone.
Both cloning and fertilization result in the creation of human embryos. Advocates of research cloning try to pretend that it's not really cloning if the embryos are killed instead of implanted. I don't rely on a single source. I've tried to read and respond to the references you've provided. The article I cited most recently focuses primarily on the science involved and the manner in which commonly distorted. The president has commissioned such a panel: http://www.bioethics.gov Open discussion hasn't exactly been helped by the media, celebrities, and campaign sound bytes that dominate the headlines and airwaves. (Refer back to the article you've avoided reading.)
There are better science sites than National Review. Politicians running for office say all sorts of things. One can't take them too seriously. I would like to see Bush become more open minded to what various groups are saying. I will check out his bioethics panel. It matters if politicians listen to the views of panel members and others in the science and religious communities. We've had a 911 panel, for example, but we have yet to see what if anything will be implemented because of it.
I'm not sure what type of life form would result if someone tried to take an embryo implanted with DNA that was artificially stimulated to produce stem cells. This is one avenue that is being pursued in an attempt to produce and harvest stem cells while not using a egg fertilized with sperm. Some groups claim it is equivalent to abortion, but they haven't really put forth a good argument. This is one of the issues I am trying to address. There are processes that could result in the generation of stem cells that would not produce a viable person if any attempt was made to try to bring this entity to term. How do we deal with these issues? Simply labeling it abortion and banning federal funds doesn't seem like a very good approach.
Looking at the site, Bush created the commission Nov 2001, which was after his banning the use of federal funds for embryonic research, which occurred around August 2001, if I remember correctly.
