RE: [asa] Ethical Considerations in Recent Nature Stem Cell Paper

Thanks for the reply Jim, and Happy T-Day to all. Unfortunately I have to
work and that is about the only reason I'm working the list today.
 
As for your comment: "The bottom line is probably that we will always have
two communities in tension over these matters."
 
And so it is for most things. Human nature seems in constant conflict, with
one's self and with others.
 
Bless All
 
P.S. The original message was meant for the list, but I forgot to include
them. I will not re-post however since Jim included my full message below
his reply.
 
 
Don

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:35
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Ethical Considerations in Recent Nature Stem Cell Paper

What if I am a clone?

In parthogenesis, in principal there is no distinctive dna. Nor would there
be (in principal) to a sperm cell "persuaded" to begin the division process.
These clones are not on the surface distinguishable by distinctive dna.

On the other hand, I have read that the cells resulting from the first few
divisions of a fertilized ovum are not in fact quite identical in the
cellular composition (I don't recall whether that extends to the dna
itself). So, one could argue that even though cells might be teased out of
this early structure, and each might be capable of producing a distinct
individual, they would not in fact develop as exactly identical. I'm not an
expert in this area, so perhaps someone else can chip in on whether this
distinctiveness extends to the dna itself. In any case, there is also the
potential for slight spontaneous or induced variations in the dna as well.
So, in all fairness, the "in principal" indistinguishable dna may in reality
not happen.

On the third hand, we don't think of a particular edition of a book as being
distinctly different if one page in a hundred has some editorial or
editional difference. We often can make out familial similarities in humans,
though subtle and often subjective, but our dna is only the least little bit
(percentage wise) distinctive from one another. Mostly, we are alike, nearly
identical from a dna standpoint. I think we have had to look pretty hard
along the way to identify the markers we use to define our differences
(distinctiveness).

What a knotty problem to sort. The bottom line is probably that we will
always have two communities in tension over these matters.

Don Perrett wrote:

Thinking out loud as well, does it not seem logical that any lifeform (plant

or animal, etc) should be consider a self-distinctive lifeform when it has

it's own dna code? Is that not how we distinguish ourselves within the

scientific community now? So, if "I" am I and not someone else, because "I"

have a unique dna of my own, then why should an unborn child not receive the

same distinctive treatment?

A non-rhetorical question: At what point in embryonic development is there

a distinctive dna code?

Don Perrett

-----Original Message-----

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On

Behalf Of Jim Armstrong

Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 21:48

To: ASA list

Subject: Re: [asa] Ethical Considerations in Recent Nature Stem Cell Paper

Just to expand the context for your questions a bit further (but not

changing the issue), fertilization of the ovum is not a necessary

precondition for cellular fission. Moreover, if the conditions are just

right, a sperm cell can be induced to begin the division process as well.

That brings into question any certainty that is based upon conception in the

conventional sense.

The flip side of this line of questioning might be to take a serious look at

the rather large natural attrition that accompanies the reproductive process

and the ovum and sperm generation/quality. There is a great deal of loss of

life potential prior to conception (especially the sperm!), as well as

after. In some ways, one might (?) even conclude that the care provided in

and through these human-involved processes is good stewardship of an

otherwise lossy natural process.

The life question itself gets a little muddy as well with the prion

propensity to reproduce itself, though not alive even in comparison to a

virus. Of course, the prion hypothesis is a tad muddy in itself at this

stage of its investigation.

Just thinking out loud........

JimA

jack syme wrote:

So the question remains where do you draw the line? Where does life

begin? When does one become a person? When does a collection of cells

become something more than just that?

A blastomere comes into existence after fertilization so why would it

have made a difference?

How is harvisting cells from a blastomere morally any different than a

morula? How is it morally any different than a blastocyst?

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Blinne"

 <mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>

To: "ASA list" <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> <asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:51 PM

Subject: [asa] Ethical Considerations in Recent Nature Stem Cell Paper

A recent paper in Nature

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/abs/nature05142.html

) caused quite a stir by claiming that embryonic stem cell lines

could be created from a single blastomere obviating a need for an

embryo being destroyed. It was later discovered that during the

experiment embryos were indeed destroyed because they extracted

multiple blastomeres from the embryo rather than one at a time.

Nature just published a revised paper and an addendum to the report

in their current print edition. Here's the result from addendum table

number 1.

Number of embryos used: 16

Number of blastomeres retrieved: 91

Number of blastomeres divided: 53

Number of outgrowths:28

Number of ES cell-like outgrowths: 19 Number of ES stem cell lines: 2

According to the addendum, the blastomeres were cultured in the same

medium as the parent embryo. Diffusable factors from the other

blastomeres may have increased the possibility of survival of the

resultant ES lines. It appears the breathless press announcements of

an ethical way of extracting embryonic stem cells may have been

overstated.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe

asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 23 12:02:57 2006