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

Don't forget the tacit addition that almost always accompanies different
opinions: Because you disagree with me, you are [pick the most
appropriate term or terms to fit the grounds of disagreement] depraved,
perverse, vicious, stupid, ignorant, etc. Indeed, one has to be either
brave of foolish to express certain opinions is some quarters, so strong
are the expressions of this principle.
Dave

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:02:35 -0500 "Don Perrett"
<donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> writes:
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"
<rich.blinne@gmail.com>
To: "ASA list" <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 15:22:36 2006