Special Feature: Participate in our stem cell cloning discussion

I believe the term 'embryo' is incorrectly applied to this discussion. The correct terms are
'Zygote stem cell' or 'Blastula stem cell'.
The term 'embryo' describes the cell mass from implantation in the womb to the 8th week,
after the 8th week it is called a fetus. The opposition uses the term 'embryo' for increased
emotional appeal for their position. From my superficial observation, the scientific community
has allowed the opposition to frame the discussion in this unfavorable light.

There is no scientific evidence that there is anything for which no adequate adult stem cell exists.

There is plenty of evidence that NT "cloning" causes all sorts of problems when maturing into tissues.

Ignoring the problems in obtaining the necessary starting material, i.e. eggs, there are many hurdles in understanding as well as technique and many more potential ethical hurdles on top of those in using NT transfer/cloning.

Why bother?

Sir can i do a project on stem cells which can be curable to heart or may be act as heart in place of it

Most definitely.
The majority considers stem cell cloning to be unethical, because the cells need to be gathered from a "person" somewhere.
This leads us to the discussion about what is and what isn't to be considered human, and the "value" of human life. The problems lies not with whether or not we have the technology to gather stem cells without having to kill a fetus, but with human nature and its double standards. We need to realize that we're all the same, and that stem cell research is the gateway to prevent many unneccessary illnesses and ailments.
"Modern science will save the world, or kill us all" is a common quote amongst doubters.

The way I see it, I'd prefer furthering research to improve the life of future generations, instead of greedily reproducing for no reason at all.
A harvested fetus is a small price to pay for the cure to many "uncurable" illnesses.
After all, the world is overpopulated and because of this the life quality for each person degrades over time (I don't want to go economical anmd political here, so I'll leave that to the numbercrunchers)

I'm apologize in advance for any misspellings, English isn't my first language.

I suspect that by the time significant therapeutic benefits are realized from the research in question, such as "cloning" an array of spare parts and transplanting them back into an individual, the ethical question that is essentially the same ethical question driving the debate about abortion will have become moot in relation to this discussion. Harvesting stem cells from a human embryo hardly strikes me as the most practical way to create the necessary state of pluripotency to realize such practical goals, so it seems very likely that we will be able, say, to extract some blood from the patient and create whatever spare parts he or she may need by the time we solve the other techinical issues confronting us in realizing such a goal.

However, perhaps in the getting to that point, we may need to navigate the ethical waters of embryonic stem cell research. If I were asked for my counsel on the matter, it would be twofold: first, I would suggest that we avoid letting the emotional nature of the debate on "when life begins" cause us to overfocus on types of research that involve this debate, and second, I would add a topic to the debate itself.

As far as I have seen, the debate about when life begins starts at the time of conception and ends at the time of birth. All (or perhaps nearly all) participants in the debate agree that life exists when a child is born, and that life did not exist prior to conception. The debate all focuses at points along this timeline.

I would of course accept the former for empirical reasons, but I call the latter into question. Suppose each one of us has made a conscious decision to enter our lives, and a conscious decision also to "lose consciousness", redefining our consciousness as the consciousness that we all have. Perhaps this would be a decision much analogous to the conscious decision to fall asleep at night with which we are all familiar. So, for the purpose of debate, let us postulate that there exists within each of us a deeper consciousness that considers birth a falling asleep and death an awakening, and that each life is the result of a conscious decision of our (presently) unconscious mind to set aside full consciousness and participate in physical life.

My points are first that this is as possible as any other idea about when life begins, and also that if this were true, our debate about "when life begins" is much altered. I do not say that it IS true, I do however say that I am not convinced that it is not. I invite debate that includes the idea that "human" life could exist prior to and independently of the existence of "its" embryo, and am interested in alternative conclusions that may be drawn therefrom.

In other words, what if life began BEFORE conception, and was independent of it? How would that affect the debate?

Thank you.

I do hardly understand where scientists take their arrogance from to completely oversee that the public obviously understands quite well what the issues are of stem cell science involving embryos and therapeutic cloning etc. (Not to mention that not only the debate here is prrof again of how split and uncertain the field it self is about many questions, which scientists themselves do not seem to be able to offer answers for really.

What, if the public already understands all what needs to be understand so far?

It comes to the fore that a resistance against all too easily accepting embryo destruction and all the new means of genetic enginnering and therapy is imperative. So what matters is the question WHY they are there and if they may not be a line of science endeavours...

Talking to friends from non science backgrounds several voiced their doubts as to work on human cells as they believe that once fertilised that a new being has been created. More open discussion as to what is entailed and to possible outcomes in non scientific language could be beneficial.

The impact of whatever conclusion is reached regarding SC-research is likely to be geographically limited... on a country-by-country, society-by-society (or, as in the US, on a state-by-state) basis.

We should face it: whether here or elsewhere, this line of research is here to stay, and will evolve and circumvent current ethycal concerns, just because ethycal values do change with time...

What will you do with the Roots and leaves?
G.W. Bush

(AKA. The Burning Bush)

how can i ask a person good questions that support positive points about cloning and oppose the negative aspects about cloning

A preliminary ethical concern about nuclear transfer is that some researchers and advocates seem to be blurring the distinctions between this still unproven procedure and existing techniques for deriving stem cells from embryos created but not needed for reproductive purposes. Since nuclear transfer raises numerous social and ethical concerns not encountered in other embryonic stem cell research ￂﾖ some familiar and some novel ￂﾖ it is important to keep the differences clear.

A general concern is the atmosphere of exaggeration and hyperbole that surrounds research cloning. What bioethicists call ￂﾓtherapeutic misconceptionￂﾔ now exists on a a social scale, due to the overblown promises and endlessly repeated claims about the imminence of lifesaving cures and the inflated hopes that all this hype has produced. More and more researchers are now acknowledging that the ￂﾓpersonal repair kit standing by at the hospitalￂﾔ infamously proffered by Ron Reagan Jr. at the 2004 Democratic Party presidential convention is highly unlikely to ever be developed.

A still medically important but farm more modest role for SCNT is now foreseen: SCNT as a research tool, a way to produce stem cells against which candidate pharmaceuticals can be efficiently tested. Acknowledging this more realistic prospect might temper what one commentator has called the ￂﾓirrational exuberanceￂﾔ about the prospects of medical treatments based on stem cell cloning, and foster the nuance and equipoise that are needed for policy and political discussions.

Two specific concerns about nuclear transfer are its potential contribution to illicit reproductive cloning efforts, and its requirement for large numbers of womenￂﾒs eggs.

Reproductive cloning is now prohibited in some dozen U.S. states, but not at the federal level. In the absence of federal policy and oversight, and clear protocols for tracking clonal embryos from creation to destruction, it is all too likely that rogue efforts to produce a cloned human will occur.

The procurement of eggs for research cloning poses significant risks to women. Two systemic conditions compromise the decision-making process of women considering undergoing egg retrieval, and challenge the possibility of meaningful informed consent: first, the over-hyped environment that now surrounds research cloning; second, the inadequacy of our data about short-term and long-term risks of egg retrieval.

Last September in California, a law was passed to establish minimal safeguards for women who undergo egg retrieval for research cloning. The law ensures that women be better informed of the risks, mandates that no woman who needs treatment for an adverse reaction will have to pay for it herself, and sets some rules to prevent conflicts of interest between the cloning researchers and the medical personnel who conduct the egg retrieval procedures. In order to head off the emergence of a market in which predominantly poor women are the ones who wind up selling their eggs, it limits payment to reimbursement for direct expenses.

Several womenￂﾒs health and public interest organizations (including my own, the Center for Genetics and Society) worked closely with the office of the Democratic state senator who spearheaded efforts to craft and obtain passage of the bill. The California law provides an illustration of both the benefits and importance of bringing public interest organizations and a broader public into discussions of the social and ethical concerns about this research. It also highlights the need for federal regulation and oversight of research cloning (and, for that matter, of embryonic stem cell research in general). The voluntary guidelines that exist are inadequate.

I find it interesting that your article does not even address adult stem cell research and the successes in that area.

The questions you pose boil down to these: ￂﾓHow do we go about cloning human embryos? Can we ￂﾑre-evaluateￂﾒ the rules to satisfy our consciences, or at least make our work appear ethical? What new terms can we use to silence those pests with ethical concerns?ￂﾔ

At this point I cannot see justification for creating an early-stage clone of a patient, then destroying it for therapeutic purposes, when the more promising alternative of using the individualￂﾒs own adult stem cells exists.

Adult stem cells are more specialized in the type of tissues that they can give rise to, which is precisely why they are SAFER (not ￂﾓless promisingￂﾔ) and less likely to form tumors.

Adult stem cell research is far from exhausted and should be at the forefront of this discussion, not excluded from it.

Whereas those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research are accused of heightening the emotional debate by using terms like "embryo" and "fetus," those who champion abortion rights have tried to remove emotional content (and scientific accuracy) by using terms such as "conceptus, products of conception, fetal tissue," et al. Perhaps "blastocystic stem cell research" would be more accurate, but remember the Orwellian (1984) euphemism game is played on both sides of the moral fence. Stripping the terminology of emotional content does not erase the ethical issues.

Not seen so far in these postings are questions about the suitability of embryonic stem cells based on such criteria as telomere length, polarity of the embryo established based on sperm entry location, and unknown epigenetic factors (briefly mentioned by others). Repeated cell divisions shorten the telomeres on chromosomes. Therefore the chromosomes of SCNT ESCs are already"old," the age of the somatic cell from which they were derived. Dolly the sheep died young of diseases related to old age. Telomere length would likely not be an issue for therapeutic cloning (using the patient's own somatic cells), but certainly for reproductive cloning (which few support). Polarity and epigenetic factors could also have an impact on cellular development.

Such arguments aside, if we balance the pros and cons -
adult stem cells:
no ethical concerns
results have been achieved
easily procured
immunological match
demonstrated progress in reprogramming

embryonic stem cells:
(major) ethical concerns
no cures yet achieved
moral dilemmas in procuring donor eggs
technical challenges

one wonders why there is a debate at all? Could it be scientific hubris alone that wants to push the moral envelope, trying it because we can, regardless of if we should?

I recommend you consider Delbecqￂﾒs classic ￂﾓA Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planningￂﾔ (Citation at end of this paper) but adapt it to an on-line process to create a breakthrough in any field of science or endeavor. This process systematically ustilizes the best thinking of those confronting the problem/opportunity and relevant experts from multiple fields. It then obtains the ideas and commitment of the executives and resource controllers and creatively assembles all these inputs into a decision and plan.

This On-line Creative Breakthrough Process can generate a comprehensive, sophisticated plan in as little as 10 hours. This process can be implemented with most net-based, group decision making software. Many large organizations have or are acquiring their own net-based group decision making software. This software is necessary for an agile comprehensive response to rapidly developing opportunities, crises and competitive environments.

Each of the Phases I ￂﾖ III, takes about 60 minutes using a similar brainstorm and prioritizing process. Participants can be in different locations, and must be on a networked terminal with access to the decision software. They brainstorm a list that meets the required criteria, clarify the items, then prioritize them by a multi-voting process. The product is forwarded to the next phase, along with a couple representatives from each phase of this process.

Phase 1, Problem Exploration
People experiencing the crisis or opportunity participate in ￂﾓPhase 1, Problem Exploration.ￂﾔ 10 to 20 people are needed who have a diversity of experience of the crisis or opportunity. They brainstorm a list of ￂﾓproblem elementsￂﾔ and multi-vote to prioritize the list. A well developed Problem Exploration is an essential foundation for a successful response.

Phase II, Knowledge Exploration
Appropriate internal & external experts participate in phase II, Knowledge Exploration. Identify in advance and brief experts for likely opportunities or crises. The group brainstorms, clarifies and prioritizes their ￂﾓsolution elements,ￂﾔ which includes information and resources. This phase may need to be repeated with the additional information & experts.

Phase III, Priority Development
Resource controllers and key executives are a well defined group. Because one needs the ideas, participation and support of the people in power, politics is handled directly, quickly and above board. To obtain their commitment and support, they are given the opportunity to eliminate any offensive solution elements. Then they too, use a multi-vote process to prioritize the solution elements and then also brainstorm and prioritize political and horse-trade solution elements.

Phase IV, Program Development
Relevant experts can assemble the acceptable solution elements into a logical sequence, verify the plan and estimate chances of success. They can develop several alternative strategies with different risks, pay-offￂﾒs and complexity. They can also recommend advancing on the 2 or 3 most promising alternatives with a later decision point when major resources must be committed and more information is available.

Phase V, Program Evaluation
This may take 2 hours as multiple simultaneous groups meet to assemble their recommendations. In this ￂﾓreality checkￂﾔ implementers and executives refine the strategy, increase the chances of success and clarify the decision and plan.

Recommendation:
Whenever possible, use the organizationￂﾒs in-house decision software. Here are some example commercially available group decision making software:
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
-=-====================================
This paper is a brief overview of the well researched process elaborated in:
LINK
ￂﾓA Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planningￂﾔ by Andre L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van De Ven, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 7 #4, 1971, pp. 466-491.

Phil Nelson, Ph.D. Mensa

Managing the message is the name of the game. Sadly this has become equally true for science as well as politics. The distinction between "therapeutic cloning" and "reproductive cloning" has been collapsed into "human cloning" in the mainstream press. The religious right has been skillful and creative in conflating terms like "unimplanted fertilized egg", "embryo" and "fetus".

So what can scientists do to reframe the debate? A coordinated media campaign is needed, not only for damage control, but for leadership in controlling the language of the debate. For example, "Sorry, cloning cells in the lab will only cure disease - not make your twin!" And the "slippery slope" argument: "Scientists support laws to put the brakes on abuse of knowledge". (A clever ad exec could come up with something more catchy, something to stick in the reader's mind.)

Another language issue: The public reads headlines about breakthroughs in "stem cell research"; how many will search to the middle of the article only to learn that the topic is new uses for bone marrow transplants? Progress with adult stem cells has been used to successfully argue (in Congress) that embryonic stem cell research is superfluous, not needed.)

Who can ensure that the bridge from scientific journal to the public media is made with accuracy, and that the debate is designed to raise the issue accurately, not conceal and confuse? Science can no longer let others do the job.

.. it does not solve the problem/ fact that there is a great number of people not believing big claims of experts and scientists - just grown into their own socio-cultural environments with their specific 'normative' horizons.

If scientists are not able to accept that there is something profound unagreeable to ESCR and ESCTherapy, all their efforts to bypass public concerns resemble much aggressive if not 'dirty' marketing and advertisement strategies employed by companies to promote products. If I am not wrong this is not what science is about - especially given the fact that public research research salaries & lab equipment are paid by people's pockets.

The Criticism has profound secular origins, and this is what scientists need learn to respect - it does not only come from religous pro-life folks. Again, better not to rush too quickly into everything, nor make these huge claims. Each scientist who ignores adult stem cells and their potential is blinded by the hype-discourse around SCR, hence, lacks an essential scientific capacity - which is to think beyond mainstream.

Understanding and technology come hand in hand and people can not separate these two. Given a time period, scientists should work on both simultaneously, however, there should not be a time table, e.g., having many technicians to crack out a number game. We have to follow what the laws of nature and the laws of scientific research may lead us, instead of that we try to challenge these laws. There should not be a milestone set for stem cell research and therapeutics.

Stem cell appears a political issue more than a scientific issue, which is very dangerous. We should learn from the history like the recombinant DNA by separating the indication verse the science itself. A uniform terminology should be created to clear out the confusion among the public. Some fundamental issues should be clearly defined: What is the therapeutic agent derived from stem cells? What is the stem cell research about? Research and therapeutic stage should not be misplaced that may mislead the public.

A simple solution will be to separate ￂﾓstem cell researchￂﾔ verse ￂﾓstem cell therapeutic.ￂﾔ ￂﾓStem cell cloningￂﾔ has an intrinsic ramification of misunderstanding, derived from the DNA cloning scenario in 20th century. The definition of ￂﾓstem cell therapeuticￂﾔ may guide the ￂﾓstem cell researchￂﾔ direction and vice versa.

Again, the recombinant DNA should be a model for solving the current issues in stem cells.

Is is dangerous that people don't understand clearly the meaning of an entity or of an operation; so we must do all it is required to find and diffuse a clear terminology of what is related with the problem in discussion

We need morality, ethical rules are made to control society and are unnecessary if society forbids actions that harm other persons. A living molecule is not intrinsically different from whatever other molecule, and in principle it may be syntesized with a chemical reaction.

Considering that each intervention is in agreement with the laws of nature and it is very possible that nature has already done it, I believe that we can do in a laboratory whatever type of experiment, but in an effective, intelligent, scientific way. In the seventies someone suggested to put more scientists to solve more quickly a research problem and the answer was: if we put nine man with a woman the result is not a baby in one month but a mess.

It is not a matter of technical skill and resources these will always be available but the border line is misusing the right thus leading to a lot of complications and in turn handicapping the growth of this field. Work on the available resources and get the maximum out of it.

I feel the ethical concerns should not be shoved off as it arises only when considering the embryonic stem cells. If abortion is an ethical issue so would reproductive cloning. Even if eggs were to be donated there is always a limit as to how much. Most of the scientific community are in demand for resource and results and tend to overlook the rights of egg donors.The advancement of this technolgy is of great therapeutic importance but there must be other methods of solving the problem. Why not work on what you already have and tackle the difficulties of the present adult stem cells. Why not put more into cordal stem cells and amniotic fluid stem cells, these would have a lesser ethical concern.

"stem cell cloning" now that term isn't appropriate when looking at embryonic point of view. Whatever said and done even a change in name will not change the source of the stem cell and as long as it revolves around an embryo there will always be ethical issues to block the progress.

So instead look for other means, develop what you have and tackle the present problems

Thank you.

I definitely think that finding new words to describe what has been called 'stem cell research' is wise because I believe that term has way too much emotional baggage associated with it for some people.

Stem cell research: fine. Stem cell cloning for treatment of human diseases: yes. Stem cells from human blood: yes. Stem cells from human marrow: yes. Stem cells from human embryo: no. Human research: yes. Inhuman research: no.

not about cloning, but the term "embryonic" stem cells cause a lot of problems. I propose to change it to "blastocistic" stem cells - a more precise definition based on the actual frame of development when the cells are derived and less appealing to the lay public where "embryonic" means "small baby".

As a practical approach to eventual stem cell therapy, nuclear transfer is unlikely to be of much if any use.
Can it contribute to our understanding of reprogramming as a basic biological phenomenon? Maybe, but experiments are difficult and interpretations even more. What is successful reprogramming following NT: blastocyst formation, isolation of ES cells, newborn clone, adult clone or something else? Without defining the desired end result it is difficult to compare experiments. Frequency of success (however defined) is still very low. In other fields nobody would do experiments which "work" one in twenty to one in fifty attempts. We are sort of in agreement that ovulated oocyte can reprogram but zygote cannot. Why?
Are the "reprogramming factors" used up following fertilization by reprogramming sperm? Or are the "reprogramming factors" normally in the nucleus so they are released to the cytoplasm in MII oocyte but removed with the zygote pronuclei? Or both? Why are people trying to use rabbit or cow eggs to reprogram human cells but not mouse. It seems to me that one could use WI38 or other diploid human cell lines and mouse eggs without needing anybody's permission and maybe one could learn a lot.

U.S. Senate S30 of 2007 is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. It is a farce.

On the 201st day of his FIRST term the US President issued an order allowing federal research funding for embryonic stem cell lines derived before that date. (August 9, 2001)
Since then , there has been a logjam. with severe restriction of scientific progress.
To break it , I propose a single simple change to that order by the Congress. Change the effective date of that order to the 201st day of his SECOND term (August 9,2005)
This would allow a several-fold extension of usable stem cell lines. but would not violate the ethical or moral principles that the President was observing when he issued the order.
Any date between Aug 9, 2005 and April 9, 2007 would also have the same ethical `neutrality` but increased substantial scientific benefit.

Hi, this is just a quick thank you to the bloggers listed below who have posted about the special feature. Thanks for taking the time to tell your audiences about this, if we have left anyone off the list, do please let us know.

Simon Frantz
Web Editor, The Scientist

Wired (LINK
A Blog Around the Clock (LINK
Secondhand Smoke (LINK
JivinJehoshaphat (LINK

I encourage everyone to research specifically how embryonic stem cells are obtained and how they are indirectly sold. Also, how some vaccine manufacturers are growing viruses in these aborted cell lines and we are injecting them into our children - one possible cause of autism, besides the thimerosol issue. Please make an informed decision on your position in the stem cell debate! Great success has been achieved with non-fetal stem cell tissue research.

Unfortunately, any technical substitute for "therapeutic cloning" such as "somatic nuclear transfer" is likely to be tuned out by the public and not widely used in the popular media.

If there is a more media and public friendly term than cloning, I am not sure what it is. The way to approach the problem would be to conduct focus groups and surveys examining and testing language that might substitute.

In the meantime, cloning remains a major trigger word for the public. Whether asked in a survey question specific to human children, research embryos, or animals, the term evokes a strong negative public response.

There are really two major challenges in engaging the public on the ethics of therapeutic cloning.

First, even in the top daily newspapers, discussions of ethics often become polarized "he said, she said" debates that feature only the extreme tail ends of the bell curve of perspectives on ethics.

As part of this polarized depiction of ethics, what's often lost is that within the academic field of bioethics some consensus has been reached on a number of issues.

Second, beyond this polarization at the top newspapers, this coverage only reaches a small segment of the public who have a preference or interest in science and public affairs coverage. The great majority of the public is never reached.

The challenge then is to use a combination of new media platforms such as entertainment TV and film; targeted documentaries; YouTube; (non-science) blogs, and other outlets to engage the wider public.

Government should not endorse, nor should it compel the taxpayer to finance, a utilititarian approach to human ethics, treating innocent living embryos as a commodity and a means to an end. Human dignity must not be trampled upon in pursuit of medical progress.
Human embryos are a form of developing human life deserving of respect. There is a clear need for ethical safeguards in any program involving human research subjects, including living human embryos History is replete with instances of abuse and neglect of helpless human beings, all in the name of scientific advancement. I urge you to establish firm and necesary ethical boundaries which are currently missing from this debate. Pursuing funding for adult stem cell research seems most prudent.

Possibly one important use for SCNT is in vitro lead optimisation against cells which reflect a specific disease. The pluripotent adult stem cell isolated initially by Catherine Verfaillie, and now by many others, could also be used for this purpose, either by isolating them from a suitable patient or genetically modifying / silencing appropriate genes in primitive adult stem cells before expanding and differentiating down lineage specific pathways to obtain both disease specific and tissue specific progenitor / somatic cells. The in vitro conversion of theses primitive , embryonic adult stem cells into all three germ layers and all somatic cell types has repeatedly been shown.

Treatment may also be possible with such cells and would in those cases make the use of SCNT, and indeed gene therapy, obsolete. These cells have in many cases been shown to be immune naive and useful for allogenic transplant.

Source and trans-differentiation has yet to been convincingly shown but the in vitro work is I think solid.

The term cloning evokes a lot of misconceptions, which was the reason for the attempt to give it the more technical name Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which hasnￂﾒt been a success because it's too complicated. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, to the lay public, isnￂﾒt too meaningful--it has confused the issue more than clarified it. The move away from the term "cloning" is correct but SCNT is the wrong name. Addressing the nomenclature is a key issue. People think of cloning and think of creating another person and there's no debate about that.

Getting the egg donors is not a trivial matter; I don't think they're going be that many people who come forward for egg donation purely for research purposes. There will be some but it will be rare. I've advocated a scenario where people who don't get In Vitro Fertilization done for financial reasons, even though they have the fertility problems, get the procedure partially or fully paid for in exchange for donating a portion of their eggs to research. In many cases of IVF, some of the eggs get frozen and never used, and that doesn't do anybody any good.

--Deepak Srivastava, Director, Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, UCSF

To take up on the last comment, re-naming has never really worked - to call cloning cell nuclear transfer instead has not improved levels of acceptance. However, the differentiation of cloning into research and reproductive cloning (if I recall correctly in the late 90's) was very powerful...

The new genetic technologies - is my forecast - will never be genuinely accepted by the public, just like nuclear energy isn't after so many decades. But as the example also shows, public accpetance doesn't really matter much anyways, does it? And yet, new alternatives (to remain with the example of nuclear energy) are on the rise and in some places old nuclear power is on the brink of abondenment. That could be the fate of stem cell therapy, if it continues to show poor medical results.

One thing that will help cool passions over use of embryonic stem cells would be renaming the cells "Totipotent Progenitor Cells" or something similar. While renaming something is not particularly scientific, it has been done in the past successfully to encourage the public to accept a new technology. Those of us old enough remember Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging which was renamed MRI, dropping the Nuclear, because of public perceptions. Similarly, "Totipotent Progenitor Cells" derived from nuclear transplantation, fusion with "ES" cells (now called Totipotent Progenitor Cells) or by specific gene transfer, will be more acceptable to the general public.

You label them ethical concerns, protest groups, or backward - and treat them like just a mutated error of nature or society.

It is not convincing to promote a so deeply impacting technology as something that we need to compete for in the global technology race. Scientists, experts, journals like this one etc. make themselves untrustworthy the more they prematurely claim what SC technology can supposedly achieve. Billions go into the field, taken away from other areas of medidine that may do as well.
It is striking also, how blinded scientists and some policymakers (especially in UK) are about less controversial areas in SCR. If adult stem cells can be re-programmed and de-differentiated and are much better accessible, why not pay more attention instead of disquietingly and affectively ignore them, as many scientists do. The few existing more cautious stem cell scientists are often in favor of adult stem cells, as well as keeping SCR longer in studies with animals.

In the UK, the Government is now investigating into permitting research with hybrid embryos. Strangely enough though, in January 2004 the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology in Beijing issued national 'ethical guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research' which forbid all research into the creation of hybrid embryos. If the UK gives permission, British law will ironically be by far more permissive than Asian countries, which everyone thinks of as the new 'wild east'. The UK is repeatedly showing that it has become the new wild boy in the world, the 'taboo' breaker - in areas where previously existed broad international consenus for condemnation.

As a physical scientist for the DOD for several years, I have seen my share of ethical approaches to several issues.
The latest solutions to cloning seem to be one of chemical manipulation - only! I say this because if you consider the public appeal, the past has proven that A bombs are fair game for the garage constructionsit, as have chemical and biological weapons, but everyone wants to maintain that association with the ultimate Spiritual Being- no matter how slight - and therefore, no created beings from our local neighborhood crackpot!!! So advance our existence on earth as the human race but do it with expertise. God loves every soul on this earth, as should we!

Scientific activity per se cannot be considered ethycal or unethycal.

Those who use scientific knowledge for a specific purpose (and the purpose itself) are the ones we should label as ethycal or not, but this lebeling ultimatelly depends on core social values, which often are not consistent.

I don't see anyone protesting because while we can use lasers to perform delicate surgeries, or listen to music, we can also use them to guide bombs. Isn't this an equally valid ethycal issue? So, why don't we ban lasers then?

I do agree that there are ethycal concerns that need to be addressed while conducting *any* scientific endeavor, but we must keep our feet to the ground.

Those who fanatically oppose stem cell research, in my humble opinion, may be divided into two categories: those who create unrealitic horror, Orwellian stories about cloning, etc. to fit their individual political agendas and those who blindly believe in these stories.

There are though many others who believe said research should be well-guided, and limited. Some may also make logical, well-educated arguments, opposing SC research. They may (and likely do)have something positive to add to this discussion, and they should be heard.

But the mere reductionism of SC-related issues to religion-based, cartoonish view of potential outcomes should perhaps be given less attention, if any at all.

Is the nuclear transfer challenge one of understanding or technique?
Technical challenges cannot be completely eliminated; however, a full understanding of how the process works for other animals and the basic biology underlying development will help us establish the best approaches for addressing technical challenges.

One of the key bottlenecks of translating embryonic stem cell research into clinical applications is our current inability to produce pluripotent embryonic stem cell lines that carry the same histocompatibility genes as the putative patient (transplantation of therapeutic cells derived from non-compatible cells may result in graft rejection). Human somatic cell nuclear transfer, the transfer of the nuclear material from a donor cell into an enucleated egg, and subsequent activation of the egg to begin development is based on a technology that has worked well in many mammalian species (for both reproductive purposes and embryonic stem cell derivation). However, as of yet, human nuclear transfer embryos rarely reach the blastocyst stage, and no embryonic stem cell lines have been derived. While it is conceivable that the same basic procedure that has worked well in many species simply will not work in humans, it would be premature to make this judgment given how few laboratories have tried and how difficult it is to procure sufficient material (especially human eggs). The efficiency of the process of non-human nuclear transfer increase constantly, and knowledge drawn from these successes should help guide the human efforts. Use of animal models may help identify the type of adult human cell that is most amenable to reprogramming and successful nuclear transfer. In addition, the elucidation of the biochemical machinery responsible for establishing and maintaining the uniquely pluripotent state of embryonic stem cells is a matter of intense research. Genes and signaling involved in these processes have been identified and could be used to improve efficiencies. Finally, embryonic stem cells from mice have been converted into eggs. If the same can be achieved with existing human embryonic stem cell lines the lack of sufficient numbers of oocytes would instantly be overcome and successful nuclear transfer likely ensue soon thereafter.

As is often the case in high-reaching scientific endeavors, patience combined with a multi-pronged approach is the best recipe for success.

Is it time to reevaluate the ethics of stem cell cloning?
The two most pressing ethical concerns relate to a) human egg donation and b) the moral status of pre-implantation embryos (or the embryo-like entities created by nuclear transfer). It is important that women who consider donating eggs are made aware of the risks (e.g., ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome), are informed about the experimental use of the eggs, are protected (e.g., samples and materials are anonymized), do not suffer any disadvantage if they decline to donate, and are not subjected to undue incentives (e.g., monetary). Both the United States National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research have issued detailed guidelines on the ethical procurement of human eggs. Debate continues around the world about when monetary incentives may become an undue factor in a womanￂﾒs decision to donate eggs (e.g., compensation for child care, lost wages, parking/transportation, time, discomfort, risk, etc).

As far as the moral status of human embryos is concerned, the critical question really is: what entities, at what developmental stage, and under what circumstances, deserve protection? It is important to note that the developmental stages in question are confined to the earliest stages (pre-implantation).

A recently suggested alternative called ￂﾑaltered nuclear transferￂﾒ entails the inactivation of a gene critically required for implantation, thereby rendering the embryo-like structure theoretically incapable of full human development. I believe that this is an ill-conceived ￂﾑtrickeryￂﾒ that is likely to offend as many who were originally in favor of nuclear transfer as it may convert opponents, since this strategy is based on the morally highly questionable notion that it would be more acceptable to destroy a human embryo because it is crippled.

We live in a pluralistic society. We owe respect to the views of others, but as a society we would be ill-advised to only proceed based on the ￂﾑsmallest common denominatorￂﾒ.

Does stem cell cloning need new terminology?
It is critical to use terms that are scientifically accurateￂﾗcloning, as it is commonly understood, implies the creation of a genetically identical, developmentally mature being, and this is not what is being proposed here. Products of nuclear transfer are genetically unique (e.g., they contain a unique combination of nuclear and mitochondrial genes) and therefore are not clones, and they are only created to produce stem cell lines rather being used for reproductive purposes. Clearly, what we need to do is continue to inform the public about what stem cell research and nuclear transfer is all about. There is ample evidence from opinion polls and otherwise that opposition to stem cell research and nuclear transfer is largely due to a lack of understanding of the techniques and intentions.


Leonard I. Zon, M.D.
Director, Childrenￂﾒs Hospital Boston Stem Cell Program
Children's Hospital of Boston

Thorsten Schlaeger, PhD
Head, hESC Core Facility
Children's Hospital Boston

Heather Rooke, PhD
Science Editor
International Society for Stem Cell Research
Web: www.isscr.org

The editors at The Scientist want to thank everyone for posting their thoughts to our online discussion. We are just about a week in and we hope that the discussion can continue exploring the biological questions and their intersection with ethical questions.

A couple of interesting ideas have already arisen. 'Avingus' frames the discussion about the scientific challenge before the scientific community quite well:

'First we must understand all the influences that are necessary to produce such viable cells, and subsequently reproduce these conditions. The techniques employed must be centered around our increasing understanding of phenomena such as DNA remodeling and epigenetic reprogramming that naturally occur in fertilized zygotes.'

We would love to hear opinions and novel ideas on how to gain this kind of understanding. Animal models have taken us far, but what are their limits? Testing with human eggs is costly and fraught with ethical concerns. If we are working on the assumption that creating stem cells from cloned human embryos is an interesting and worthy goal, how can we spare valued resources while still making discoveries that lead us to the goal?

'MB' asked about the value of deriving stem cells from already established cell lines like WI-38 and IMR-90. Great point MB, I intend to take questions like that to the experts in our reporting for the June feature.

MB also asked about deriving stem cell lines using nuclei from individuals with trisomy X, and as well as responding specifically to our initial questions, Evan Snyder, director of research at the Burnham Institute neatly prescribes an approach to this issue:

'I still think that the focus of nuclear transfer should be on a) creating cellular models of disease and b) studying nuclear reprogramming.'

As for part a), here's another ethical conundrum, how do we prioritize the disease models we begin to study?

Several people on our discussion board have mentioned reversion-type reprogramming experiments -- creating an embryonic stem cell line from an adult somatic cell by reprogramming the nucleus. Steve Summers comments on the work at Tristem and others. Rudolf Jaenisch has spoken openly about such work, and Shinya Yamanaka has offered us in a publication last year a tantalizing glimpse that a somatic cell can be reprogrammed to be more 'stem like' with just a few factors (albeit in mice, LINK Approaches like this and others appear to offer a solution that abrogates some ethical concerns. Are these worthy adjunct or replacement projects? If so, how should they be pursued?

The ethics of cloning and embryonic stem cell work have unsurprisingly elicited the most polarized discussion. We hope that these discussions will continue and that you will take part in the online polls that will be appearing on our website over the next couple of weeks. I thank everyone for commenting and hope that further discussion can drill deeper into some of these issues.

I've read that there are scientist's whom use the term 'Somatic stem cell' instead of 'Adult stem cell'. Perhaps one reason being a technique used with Somatic cell nuclear transfer, involving a donor's egg that is enucleated and combined with a patient's Adult cell. This creates what is then termed as a pre-esc cell through SCNT containing the patient's DNA. Stem cells are then removed and cultered to grow for the patient's need.
If this is the case, it would be just one example of current terminology misrepresenting stem cell/cloning definitions of and the much needed education of it with the public.
Therefore I tend to think the nuclear transfer challenge is one more of understanding.

I am totally in support of any research that evolves the human race forward. The most pressing problem on this planet is overpopulation.We need to figure out what to do about that. We will live longer and longer. We will discover how to save more lives and less space will be available for new lives. The research must and will go on..
The focus must be on quality of life ..both for the living and for the soon to be living....
All of our social ills stem from bad life styles not bad stem cell lines.
Carry on.

One of the most difficult aspects of making therapeutic cloning viable is obtaining eggs. Evan Snyder's suggestion that they might come from oophorectomies is an interesting and novel one.

But where will he source the ovaries? As a by-product of hysterectomies? This doesn't sound like a good business model. From deceased donors? From aborted foetuses? The last two sound more feasible, but have a very high yuk-impact factor. It would be interesting to find out whether this is the next frontier in sourcing eggs.

You ask if we should revisit the terminology surrounding somatic cell nuclear transfer. Why? So people can feel better about what goes on in research labs? What is wrong with the current terminology other than it makes people uncomfortable?

The terminology is accurate. Keep it. If we change it to suit political winds then science is surely corrupted.

If the public is against the idea of cloning embryos for research, that is a valid concern. Don't change the terminology just so they are confused about what somatic cell nuclear transfer really entails.

Years ago, those who support destroying human embryos for stem cell research assured us that this is as far as they would need to go -- that they would never get into the business of creating NEW embryos for the express purpose of destroying them. Now, there is a perfectly good secular reason to oppose even the destruction of those embryos already in existence, since we know from countless science textbooks and encyclopedia entries that they are nothing less than human beings.

No matter. The "promise" to avoid cloning didn't last long, anyway. Soon, many were announcing that cloning represents "our best chance" to find cures for horrible diseases, assuring the public that they would only permit so-called "therapeutic cloning" (cloning for research) and not "reproductive cloning" (a tautology by which they mean to clone and then to give birth).

They thought this would quell everybody's fears, but instead they received a rude awakening when they learned that most people oppose that form of cloning, as well; some oppose it even more than they do "reproductive cloning."

So, have they given up? Of course not. They still plan to clone human embryos, but now figure that by avoiding the word "cloning" altogether -- calling it by the clinical euphemism "somatic cell nuclear transfer" -- they might be able to slip it by the public. Worse yet, much legislation has been written that dishonestly claims to "prohibit human cloning" when in fact it "redefines" the term so that it only includes implanting a cloned embryo in a womb. This absurd, self-serving definition is completely counter to that used by the American Medical Association and several other organizations -- even some that support embryonic research. Cloning takes place when an embryo is created, NOT when that embryo is implanted in a uterus. Imagine a bill to ban arson that states that "arson" means "burning down a house and building another in its place," so that the act of burning down a house, itself, will become protected by law. Then you will understand how mendacious and phony these so-called "cloning bans" are, such as the one introduced by Senators Feinstein and Hatch.

We keep hearing that people "overwhelmingly" support embryonic research, and yet polls demonstate that the more people know about it, the less likely they are to endorse it. For complex scientific issues such as these, we need accurate terminology, not deception from people claiming to "ban" something when they really aren't.

The debate over embryonic stem cells and human cloning does not rest so much on the terms we use to describe the process of cell extraction or the age of the blastocyst/embryo (as Jason and bkp have proposed earlier in this thread), but rather those words that both sides employ regularly to support their position, though they mean very different things.

I am thinking here of phrases like "medical progress" and "scientific advancement." On these fundamental terms, there is disparity among what is meant by scientists, liberal ethicists, conservative ethicists, politicians, and so on. We are talking past each other, and confusing everyone in the process.

Until we find agreement on these terms, why bother with whether to call it "SCNT" or "cloning"? Those with an idea of "progress" that's partial to scientific knowledge will continue to pursue these techniques even if they are shunned in some parts of the world for doing so. Others who deplore the coercive manipulation of human life will find this kind of research on embryos to be taking us in the opposite direction of "progress" because it undermines moral and social justice.

I am glad to see that the editors of The Scientist are opening up the doors for discussion. However, I doubt that much will be accomplished here until we move past the semantics of the technology (the means we use) and talk about the semantics of progress (the ends we seek).

It seems to me that much of the popular debate on cloning and on the ethics of cloning assumes that it is possible to clone any number of identical replicas of a template organism. What is forgotten is that we are not simply the expression of a specific genome. What we are as persons depends also, and strongly, on our environment, our history, our experience. Even our intelligence is affected by these factors. And of course any clone will have to start as a newborn, no matter how old the template may be. These considerations should hopefully steer the discussion toward a more sensible form.

The Federally restricted 'embryonic' stem cells are the blastomeres taken from the inner cell mass on day 3-4 post fertilization - and therefore should be called blastomeric stem cells. Cells taken after day 7, that is cells taken from embryos after implantation, should be called stage 1 through stage 23 stem cells. Those taken from fetuses should be called gestational week XX stem cells. Development is an ongoing process and the cells within the anlagen of a certain organ early in development may have characteristics much different than those found in the more mature organ.

I think that any technique involving the manipulation of human embryos is immoral, and therefore unacceptable. Human live should not be manipulated. Human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Thank you for the opportunity to give input. I decided to respond in the comments section as my submission deals with cutting edge research in theraputic cloning -defined as taking cells from a patient, reverting them to an earlier cellular developmental stage and exposing them to chosen growth factors for the intended cellular differentiation outcome- that has the possibility of making some of the discussion questions obsolete.

For those who are not aware, a British firm, Tristem, appears to have succeeded in *rapidly* reverting blood cells to a pluripotent stage, even a totipotent stage and redifferentiating them to chosen cell types. This can be done in hours and, in some cases at least, the cells reintroduced into the patient with the effective, desired results. The information I am providing here in brief is largely taken from the New Scientist; 10/9/2004, Vol. 184 Issue 2468, p36-40, 5p.

They have the support of "Richard Boyd, an independent stem cell researcher from Monash University in Melbourne, who witnessed the procedure in Mumbai from start to finish" and who "has reviewed their data first hand," and the "respected team of stem cell researchers led by Tim McCaffrey at George Washington University in Washington DC." McCaffrey has worked in collaboration with Ilham Abuljadayel, who made the original discoveries and who patented the technology with her husband in 1994 and founded Tristem. At the time of the New Scientist article Boyd had intended to investigate whether the `retrodifferentiation' pathway to bone marrow cells (only one of several retrodifferentiation/ redifferentiation stages they accomplished) produced true haematopoietic stem cells or non self-regenerating stem cells. McCaffrey has established in research that "autologous adult stem cells can be used to partially repair the damaged myocardium." His "current studies are optimizing different methods of obtaining adult human stem cells, and examining methods of improving their conversion to cardiomyocytes"
(LINK

In reference to at least one of the discussion questions, "Is it time to reevaluate the ethics of stem cell cloning?", this technology, if proven in placebo-controlled trials of sufficient size, for therapeutically using many different retrodifferentiated/ redifferentiated cell types, would completely sidestep the real ethical and legal issues of using fetal stem cells.

Considering how many names there are for the usual method of creating embryos, what's wrong with having a few names for this method too? I do think some of them should be more sporty and mysterious, like, "shoosting", or "crunking" or something.

1) I think it's both; you can't separate the two.

2) No, it's dangerous to do so because if we do, then the opponents to therapeutic cloning will say 'there, we told you so' (slippery slope argument).

3) I think therapeutic/ research cloning is apt; also, the laypeople won't get confused.

It is often said that those who do not support nuclear transfer in order to do embryonic stem cell research are 'anti-science.' In fact, just the opposite is true.

What is an embryo? Biologically, an embryo is a member of the species homo sapiens. It is an organism that is in a different biological category that mere tissue, gamete or somatic cell. Discrimination against these youngest members of our human community based on what she or he looks like, their ability to reproduce asexually (what some call 'twinning'), level of cell differentiation, etc. is not valid based on any biological consideration...none of these considerations change the organism's status as a member of homo sapiens.

While it is a stronger argument that human organisms who 'are going to die anyway' could be killed in order to provide therapies for other human organisms, there is NO argument which justifies bringing a new human organism into existance in order to be killed for the benefit of other human organisms.

Indeed, another reason that those who take science seriously would reject embryonic stem cell research (either from nuclear transfer or other method) is because embryonic stem cells form tumors...and we've recently discovered that stem cells from amniotic fluid do not form such tumors and can form all the cells that ES cells do (i.e. they were found to also be pluripotent).

Bottom line, if you take science seriously, you are should reject nuclear transfer embryonic stem cell research.

Let's start with the ethics involved in the names we choose to call cloning by. Stem cell cloning? No one is cloning stem cells. They are cloning human embryos (or so they try). The stem cells are then removed from the embryo, killing it in the process. Be honest with the public. Stop using names for cloning that obscure what scientists are really doing. The politicization of science will be its downfall.

I find it interesting that you labeled ￂﾓsomatic cell nuclear transfer,ￂﾔ ￂﾓresearch cloning,ￂﾔ ￂﾓtherapeutic cloning,ￂﾔ and ￂﾓstem cell cloningￂﾔ as ￂﾓguises.ￂﾔ All the more so in light of the fact that you used one of these guises in your title!

ￂﾓSomatic cell nuclear transferￂﾔ is the proper scientific term to describe the process of cloning, but this word should be used for scientific, not lay audiences. When intended for a lay audience it tends to confuse, rather than clarify. People know what cloning is, but not SCNT.

Unfortunately, many in the scientific and media community are not interested in clarification. The reason most opt for names besides ￂﾓcloningￂﾔ is they are painfully aware of the publicￂﾒs overall moral objection to cloning. So they resort to technical verbiage to fly under their moral radar (e.g. SCNT), or invent inaccurate scientific descriptions to intentionally deceive them.

Two examples of the latter come to mind. ￂﾓCloningￂﾔ and ￂﾓSCNTￂﾔ refer to the same procedure. Scientists use the terms interchangeably. But politicians have created a fictitious distinction between the two, redefining each in the process. Cloning purportedly refers to the implantation and gestation-to-birth of the ￂﾓproductￂﾔ of SCNT, while SCNT purportedly refers to creating stem cells asexually for scientific research. Neither definition is accurate. Cloning is SCNT, and refers to the asexual creation of a new human organism through the process of nuclear transplantation. The act of cloning is complete with the production of the organism. What one does with the organism afterward (implant, or use for research) is unrelated to the act of cloning. Nevermind that, though. It serves the purpose of legalizing cloning while pretending to ban it. Theyￂﾒre pulling the wool over the publicￂﾒs eye, and scientists are either standing by idly allowing it, or supporting it.

My second example consists of the public relations terms scientists are using to deceive the American public about what it is they are doing. Stem cell cloning? No one is cloning stem cells. They are cloning human embryos, from whom the stem cells are derived. That term is deceptively unscientific. Therapeutic cloning? The act of cloning has nothing to do with therapy. Itￂﾒs the asexual reproduction of an organism through nuclear transfer. One might use the new human embryo as someone elseￂﾒs therapy, but thereￂﾒs nothing therapeutic about cloning. Itￂﾒs as simple as starting with one organism, and ending up with an identical copy of it. End of story.

Forget trying to put a new face on cloning. Just call it what it is. Let the public know what it is that you are doing. If they object to it, then take notice. Donￂﾒt try to deceive them to further your agenda.

Is the nuclear transfer challenge one of understanding or technique?
To an extent, it still is a technical challenge. However, there is no question that the technical hurdle may be cleared by a better understanding of the biology of nuclear reprogramming, which appears to be different in the human then in lower mammals.

What are the most pressing ethical concerns about proceeding with a nuclear transfer research program and who has novel ideas on how to address them?
I still think that the focus of nuclear transfer should be on a) creating cellular models of disease and b) studying nuclear reprogramming. There should be an absolute proscription on creating ￂﾓnew human lifeￂﾔ. As to the rights of egg donors, they should be addressed, as we do all organ donations-with respect and without direct compensation. Technological advances that would make this easier would include a) better techniques for freezing and thawing eggs, b) better techniques for maturing immature eggs from oophorectomies to maturity, c) better ways of creating eggs from ES cells, d) using non-human eggs or chemical equivalents to reprogram somatic nuclei.

Is there a better name for this type of research program?
I would use the term ￂﾓnuclear reprogrammingￂﾔ and abolish the word ￂﾓcloningￂﾔ from this area of research. Leave it for cell biology and molecular biology.

I am adamant that any technique which involves the destruction of human embryos is inherently immoral. Human lives are not just cells to be manipulated. Each of us, and each of our children, deserves to be treated with more dignity than that.

In its editorial of February 21st, "Nature" ended by stating that "...human reproductive cloning is an eventual certainty". I whole heartedly endorse the statement, and whole heartedly disagree with those who would limit discussion of cloning to "stem cells".

Cloning is a political issue whether anyone likes it or not, because he-she who is cloned once will be cloned again. And this will change the entire social fabric of civilization--and about time. As a civilization we are, so far, a failure. We have constructed it with violence and are maintaining it with violence, because no one involved with it has asked to be born into it. A clone will ask to be born into his-her civilization only if it can promise him-her a nonviolent environment, something our civilization cannot even come near promising.

I am currently arguing for the cloning of U.S. (and any other nation's) servicemen and women killed in the illegal war in Iraq, which is a war caused by an elite sitting behind their desks and dreaming up either lethal scenarious for the rest of us or a utopia for their own kind. I believe that our civilization can be saved only through self-sacrifice, a phenomenon pretty much eliminated from modern language. Clones will bring self-sacrifice back to the fore, because a clone does not live for his "I", but for the Self.

In so many discussions on ES cells and therapeutic cloning ethics issues we can easy find contra-arguments like "embryo rights" or commercial abuse of poor oocyte donors, etc. Sure, there are the problems which have to be discussed. However, except of common understanding of the possible benefits for future regenerative medicine, we can barely find another approaches that would clearly show to the public just ethically positive sides of the problem. Let's show one of them.
Conditions: mother and her child with some disease curable by cell replacement therapy. Mother donates her oocyte and with her child's somatic cell nuclei via NT technique we create ES cells and, eventually, differentiated cells of interest fully matched to the child's immune system. The life of the child is rescued.
What (or how much) is un-ethical in such a scenario? Does mother have no right to save her own child by donating her oocyte for therapeutic cloning? Are we sure that even the Pope would immediately reject such a mother right?
Of course, that is only one particular (however-very possible) scenario but do we try to explain the issue to public in such understandable terms instead of scaring them by "cloned Hitlers" or "soldiers on demand" ?

Dr.Eugen Kolossov
Scientist (Stem Cells Research)

Only a limited number of human ES cell lines are currently available for research.

Would it be useful to establish new ES cell lines by nuclear transfer from known human cell lines, like normal WI-38 and IMR-90 or fibroblasts from individuals with genetic abnormalities (like trisomy 21), into currently available human ES cell lines?

You're not serious, are you? You're talking about re-evaluating the possibility of reproductive cloning of humans, when our artificial variations on natural reproduction have already produced a morass of legal and practical complications, let alone the ethical concerns.

You ask about new technical terms, and yet you write all this about stem cell research without any mention of the different areas (and results) of adult v embryonic stem cells.

Are you really interested in a discussion, or are you just trying to push the discussion (and research) in a particular direction?

The challenges of SCNT are two fold. First there is a lack of understanding about what the minimum requirements are to produce viable cells using such methods. This leads to the second problem of using an inadequate technique. First we must understand all the influences that are necessary to produce such viable cells, and subsequently reproduce these conditions. The techniques employed must be centered around our increasing understanding of phenomena such as DNA remodeling and epigenetic reprogramming that naturally occur in fertilized zygotes.

As the efficiencies of such techniques improve, the ethical discussion that is raised today will change as well. Instead of focusing on the biological waste that is produced by cloning research, the realization of improvements in human health will come to dominate the argument. At some point the technology will become so widely accepted and understood that it would be considered unethical not to use the technology to benefit a patient. Some will still oppose the technology, but the benefit of the technology would be there for all to see and evaluate for themselves.

From extracting the first human embryonic stem cell lines in 1998, we have moved a long way.....therapeutic cloning or SCNT is the next step in making stem cell - based therapy a reality. The word cloning makes the lay public react dramatically as it is assumed that the cloned embryo will be allowed to develop fully. It is not understood that the scientific world is in opposition to this and is only looking to extract embryonic stem cells from the blastocyst stage of the embryo. Since cloning has been successfully performed in sheep, cows and other organisms, I am convinced that therapeutic cloning will become an everyday reality if given the right support. I think the process of nuclear reprogramming needs to be understood a lot better before trial and error experiments to create cloned human embryos should be performed.

Kurinji Pandiyan
Undergraduate Student
University of Georgia

I suggest that we simply focus on therapeutics research that will have an impact on a variety of hitherto incurable diseases or abnormalities. A more appropriate and scientific terminology is "Pluripotent cell Therapeutics". Let us,the scientists focus on solving problems of the society, not creating new ones for the general public to handle. Let us not sit on a high pedestal and proclaim that those who hold human reproductive cells, zygots, embryos as sacred, are religious fanatics. This is sheer arrogance. Instead, let us gather as much information as we can and apply the knowledge to correct human ailements such as paralysis, blindness, cancer, and other maladies. Pluripotent cells are available in adults, placentas that we throw out at birth,, neonatal cord blood; let us focus on these first and exahaust all possible uses. Most importantly, let us start research to find ways of reprograming adult cells or of the neonatal cord blood cells to render them as pluripotent as needed to be suitable for specific therapeutic purposes. "Stem Cells" have an incredible potential in the field of therapeutics and we have a lot to do to harness their potential. Even from the days I learned in Embryology about differentiation, pluripotency has always fascinated me. So, let us get on with our job and stop complaining.
Dr. Shanthi Raam
Retired Scientist (cancer research)
Tufts university School of medicine

I'm happy that finally someone with pharmaceutical connections is asking publicly help to other fields of science and to critical readers! I hope all these helps will be recognized or go to good end.
In any case, on my opinion the object of cloning, be it theraperutic or not, has been seen too much either as a mechanical toy or as a religious relic, maybe for socio-political reasons. I think people forget that embryo is part of nature and obeys to the laws that govern natural phoenomena (not to Lego and neither to the Pope). A good way to gain some good hint over the topic could be a much extensive study of early developmet of a much larger number of organisms, as for eukariotic evolution. To stick to a single organism can be good, but it must be done with a good reference. Just to make an example, evolution is twisty and some features of early embyogenesis and lineage differentiation could have been conserved among very very distant lineages but not between close ones. So, this could point out, more minutely or imediately, the differences between organisms studied for such a long time and give hints over how to overcome obstacles. Scientist must act more as Nature does, on my opinion. They are trying to reproduce life, afterall.
In addition, another important factor could be the physical one, such as the steric hindrance, for example the geometric structures, cells, groups of cells and tissues, or temperature, magnetic fields and electric currents; the interaction of the embryo with them should be taken seriously. All nature deals with physics but I hardly see a book explaining a precise interaction of physics with not strictly chemico-physical biology. I hope one day you'll be able to clone transplantable organs that work as the natural.
My best wishes.

Francesca

What I worry about is the unethical folks. Where blastocysts and fetuses are harvested from poor women for the well-to-do. I worry about desparte people getting pregnant simply to sell their stem cells.

I worry about a society that in effect cannibilizes its young.

I think there must be another way.

Rather than labeling things "ethical concerns" I would like these concerns listed for all to see.

Cloning for reproductive poses a threat to out entire species. We cannot allow people to go about creating exact clones of themselves for whatever purpose. At the most cynical side of this would be someone trying to literally create an army of themselves or an army of specifically chosen people that have specific purposes in life (ie. Eintseins for physiscs, Allen Iverson's for athletics, Hitler's for charismatic manipulation or society). I see no need for this type of cloning and so far it isn't really possible (Dolly didn't survive like expected)

On a whole different side of ethics, does the cloned offspring live a normal life. Are there epigentic traits that are expressed on protiens of the donor egg that will affect embryonic development? Who is to say that these clones will live a normal life.

I donￂﾒt think the social consumer movement that has been created as a result of stem cell research has been recognized in the media. This whole issue started as a political movement, but now if you ask a person on the street whether they support stem cell research itￂﾒs become a personal health issue.

Those that have used rhetoric in their arguments to demonize science are in for a shock, because people are really beginning to get it now, you canￂﾒt use the word ￂﾓcloningￂﾔ as a sledgehammer word and expect to get scientists and patients thrown in jail. People understand thereￂﾒs a difference between cloning a baby and cloning a stem cell line.

I find your treatment of those with ethical concerns, concering to say the least. You seem to want to lump me in with moonbats that believe aliens are hiding in comets tails.

Why not work on other lines of stem cells, those that have also shown promise (great promise I believe).

You often lament the lack of federal funding and seem to take pleasure in taking shots at the current administration because of it. I would recomend that you instruct folks on how to seek other lines of funding. Why rely on my tax money? Get other funding. Certainly there must be some other than that of the federal gov't.

You label them "ethical concerns". Print what they are in black and white, and discuss them.

thank you.