Rabu, 28 Oktober 2009
research 01
Scientists have extracted stem cells from embryos in the past, hoping to one day use them as medicine. But they worried that the patient's body would reject stem cells taken from someone else. So for the past several years, various groups around the world have been trying to first create a clone, which would be a patient's exact biological match, then take stem cells from it.
Researchers have said they believe that some stem cells taken from embryos can be coaxed to become almost any type of cell in the human body, a characteristic known as "pluripotency." The stem cells in the Korean study differentiated into retinal, bone and other types of cells when implanted into mice.
Advanced Cell Technology, a private company in Worcester, Massachusetts, announced in a splashy Wired magazine cover story in January that it had cloned an embryo to the 16-cell stage. But the company apparently didn't extract stem cells from the embryo, and it wasn't clear how long the clone survived.
It's significant that the Korean research went through a stringent peer-review process in order to be published in Science, scientists say. Advanced Cell Technology has published just one study in an online scientific journal on its human-cloning experiments. In that study, the researchers -- including Cibelli, who worked there at the time -- achieved a clone with only six cells.
Researchers have said they believe that some stem cells taken from embryos can be coaxed to become almost any type of cell in the human body, a characteristic known as "pluripotency." The stem cells in the Korean study differentiated into retinal, bone and other types of cells when implanted into mice.
Advanced Cell Technology, a private company in Worcester, Massachusetts, announced in a splashy Wired magazine cover story in January that it had cloned an embryo to the 16-cell stage. But the company apparently didn't extract stem cells from the embryo, and it wasn't clear how long the clone survived.
It's significant that the Korean research went through a stringent peer-review process in order to be published in Science, scientists say. Advanced Cell Technology has published just one study in an online scientific journal on its human-cloning experiments. In that study, the researchers -- including Cibelli, who worked there at the time -- achieved a clone with only six cells.
In 1993 I conducted a poll called the International Bioethic Survey, which asked ordinary people about ethical dilemmas, and one of the questions was whether they would be for or against genetic enhancement in their children. An interesting finding was that in Thailand and China there is a lot of support for eugenic engineering. In western countries there seems to be a tolerant attitude towards modifying genes for medical reasons and yet a deep suspicion of doing it for enhancement purposes, but in Asia there isn’t that distinction. The philosophies of Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism don’t seem to lay down laws against trying to make ourselves better than we are.
One of the things that drove me and my co-authors to write our report on human cloning recently was the way the issue was being treated in the UN. In 2005 there was supposed to be a convention to ban reproductive cloning; it had unanimous support, but when some countries tried to ban embryo research as well we ended up with a split decision and a weak declaration. It was a missed chance and one of our main points in the report was that the UN has to do a better job at governing cloning.
The danger is that we’ll come to accept the idea of consumer children, or think that we can select our children from a supermarket catalogue – or we might clone in order to replace someone we've lost. That attitude is wrong because clones are inevitably different to the human being they came from. Even if there are a hundred clones from one person, every one of them is going to be an individual and has to be treated as such. The same is true even for a cyborg or any sort of future artificial intelligence creation. It may sound crazy, but they’re all beings.
One of the things that drove me and my co-authors to write our report on human cloning recently was the way the issue was being treated in the UN. In 2005 there was supposed to be a convention to ban reproductive cloning; it had unanimous support, but when some countries tried to ban embryo research as well we ended up with a split decision and a weak declaration. It was a missed chance and one of our main points in the report was that the UN has to do a better job at governing cloning.
The danger is that we’ll come to accept the idea of consumer children, or think that we can select our children from a supermarket catalogue – or we might clone in order to replace someone we've lost. That attitude is wrong because clones are inevitably different to the human being they came from. Even if there are a hundred clones from one person, every one of them is going to be an individual and has to be treated as such. The same is true even for a cyborg or any sort of future artificial intelligence creation. It may sound crazy, but they’re all beings.
Thursday November 22nd 2007 Darryl Macer is a Unesco bioethicist who co-authored the recent UN study into reproductive cloning. In it he explains that
Human embryo clone, used for stem cell research. I started out studying biochemistry but became interested in bioethics after reading a work by Martin Luther King Junior, which was probably a strange way to be introduced. It was a book about social justice called Strength to Love, and it made me realise how important it is that society uses its knowledge to construct a just, ethical society.
I was also interested in the exchanges taking place between people who thought science was a good thing and those who were against it. There was a lot of early debate on genetic engineering and reproductive technology in the 1980s, and there seemed to be two different groups in society who couldn’t talk to each other. I felt it would be useful to become an intermediary between the technophiles and technophobes, those who like knowledge and those who dislike it.
I took a PhD in molecular biology because I wanted to understand the way scientists think, but the day I submitted my thesis I left the laboratory for good. I felt I couldn’t continue working as a lab scientist when there were so many interesting social questions to look at. I started to read philosophy and history of medicine full time.
Some people thought it was a bit of a waste of a laboratory scientist, but after a few years it became clear that bioethics was an interesting area in itself. I’ve never looked back. I still find that there are a lot of scientists working on the production of knowledge, but very few on how we should use it in society.
I am a Christian but I don’t find it hard to reconcile religion with science. As a scientist, I’ve worked with people of many different faiths and backgrounds – naturalists, Buddhists, Muslims and agnostics. There are basically two types of question: the scientific type, which is open to falsification, or disproving; and another, more important kind of question, like why is loving people better than hating them? I don’t really find any conflict between the two types. It’s wonderful to try to understand the natural world and use technology for the good of people and the environment, but that's just it: it has to be good, it has to stay within a moral framework.
I was also interested in the exchanges taking place between people who thought science was a good thing and those who were against it. There was a lot of early debate on genetic engineering and reproductive technology in the 1980s, and there seemed to be two different groups in society who couldn’t talk to each other. I felt it would be useful to become an intermediary between the technophiles and technophobes, those who like knowledge and those who dislike it.
I took a PhD in molecular biology because I wanted to understand the way scientists think, but the day I submitted my thesis I left the laboratory for good. I felt I couldn’t continue working as a lab scientist when there were so many interesting social questions to look at. I started to read philosophy and history of medicine full time.
Some people thought it was a bit of a waste of a laboratory scientist, but after a few years it became clear that bioethics was an interesting area in itself. I’ve never looked back. I still find that there are a lot of scientists working on the production of knowledge, but very few on how we should use it in society.
I am a Christian but I don’t find it hard to reconcile religion with science. As a scientist, I’ve worked with people of many different faiths and backgrounds – naturalists, Buddhists, Muslims and agnostics. There are basically two types of question: the scientific type, which is open to falsification, or disproving; and another, more important kind of question, like why is loving people better than hating them? I don’t really find any conflict between the two types. It’s wonderful to try to understand the natural world and use technology for the good of people and the environment, but that's just it: it has to be good, it has to stay within a moral framework.
Kamis, 20 Mei 1999
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
