So, how does an anti-cloning act become a repeal on embryo experimentation? Only in South Dakota.
From Pure Pierre Politics, it sounds a ballot measure on cloning will be introduced. But it has nothing to do with cloning, and everything with lifting the ban on harvesting fetal stem cells:
The official description of the committee’s purpose states, “To pass an initiative that strengthens the prohibition against human cloning and establish ethical guidelines for other medical research conducted in South Dakota.”
and…
“We are still working on the actual initiative (language),” he said. “It’s essentially amending out the restrictive language on stem cell research and stem cell activities.”
He said he intends to meet in the near future with state Attorney General Marty Jackley. State law requires that the attorney general write the public explanation of an initiated measure.
Ugh… Sounds like a ballot measure that might be a candidate for several months of drubbing.
Given the name and purpose of the committee, it sounds like they’re trying to do a bit of “bait and switch” in trying to obfuscate the repeal of South Dakota’s ban on embryonic stem cell experimentation by making it about “cloning.”
“Amending out the restrictive language on stem cell research and stem cell activities” sure doesn’t sound like an anti-cloning measure.
Seriously.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
OMG, they might introduce some nuance to SD’s stem cell research laws. People will never be able to grasp that. They’re trying to fool us aren’t they.
Seems like it might be a good way for South Dakotans to learn some basic biology. That would be refreshing.
Once again we will find out how far out of touch the SD legislature is with the voters. Should be interesting.
It would also be refreshing to fight this as hard as the pro-aborts fought every pro-life ballot issue.
Well, one of the rightwing’s “slippery slope” arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that it will lead to human cloning. So it seems like this ballot measure is designed to remove that argument by making cloning against the law.
Personally, I think human cloning is so unlikely that banning it is like banning illegal immigrants from Krypton. But if this initiative can shut down some nonsensical conservative arguments, I’ll support it.
It would be ‘refreshing’ if certain political consulting firms would find another way to pay their bills than with expensive, unnecessary ballot measures.
Not being a doctor, an embryologist, scientist, nor having slept in a Holiday Inn last night I ask these questions. What scientific advances in research savings people’s lives have come from the study of embryonic stem cells? When we look at fetal stem cells are we looking at ones coming from the umbilical cord? And do we harvest and study the bone marrow stem cells?
If fetal stem cells are the ones from umbilical cords and we can study them lets do so. What else are you going to do with an umbilical cord after it has been detached from mother and child?
Most likely, Charlie, the stem cells in question are present long before the umbilical cord ever forms. Just a guess. I’ve not read the proposed legislation.
Charlie –
From Wikipedia..
There exists a widespread controversy over human embryonic stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research is controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning.
and…
After nearly ten years of research[14], there are no approved treatments using embryonic stem cells.
and…
The use of adult stem cells in research and therapy is not as controversial as embryonic stem cells, because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo. Additionally, because in some instances adult stem cells can be obtained from the intended recipient, (an autograft) the risk of rejection is essentially non-existent in these situations. Consequently, more US government funding is being provided for adult stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Basically, if you believe that life starts at conception… embryonic/fetal stem cell research is not the way to go because it destroys a life. As one of the commenters quipped above, one could call this the “chopping-up-children act.”
This is especially bad in light of the fact there have been successes with treatments using adult stem cell research, and nothing arising from embryonic or fetal stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have been found very useful in curing blindness. But keep pushing the idea that there is no scientific value to the research. Hope your eyesight holds up.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6122757.ece
PP, the pro-lifer argument that we shouldn’t experiement with embryonic stem cells because we already have successful treatments from adult stem cells always annoys me. It just such an anti-science arguemtn.
Here is the scientific method: 1. Make observations 2. Formulate a hypothesis 3. Devise a testable prediction 4. Conduct a critical experiment 5. Draw conclusions and make revisions
One of the current hypotheses is that embryonic stem cells might lead to more cures than adult stem cells because of their ability to transform into every kind of cell. The scientific method says that scientists should experiment and test that hypothesis to see if it’s true or not. It’s certainly possible that the results of experimentation might prove the pro-lifers correct on the adult vs. embryonic issue, but we’re not there yet. And we will never know for sure as long as they keep putting up roadblocks on research.
What’s so wrong with letting the scientific method run its course?
Also, you left out some info in what you quoted from Wikipedia. Yes, embryonic stem cell research hasn’t provided as many cures as adult stem cell research, but part of that is because adult research have been around for over 30 years and embryonic research is still very new. So saying that we shouldn’t research one because the other has provided more results is not scientifically accurate.
Even though I support embryonic research, it doesn’t mean I want them to stop researching adult cells. Whenever conservatives promote a new study about good things coming from adult cell research, I cheer right along with them. I personally think we should be researching both to expand our knowledge and hopefully get even more cures out of it.
John, as I said;
If you believe that life starts at conception, embryonic/fetal stem cell research is not the way to go because it destroys a life.
From the draft measure as I’ve posted at http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/10102 – that’s what they specifically intend to allow; the use of fertilized embryos.
The embroys from which they take stem cells have already been created. Even if it is killing a human life, the alternative is some sort of permanent suspended animation.
PP, I know what your beliefs are. I guess I was just pointing out that arguements based on belief might not sway scientists from trying to do this research because of the scientific method.
Life doesn’t begin at conception. That’s ridiculous. Both the sperm cell and the egg cell were already alive before they joined. If you want to argue scientifically, get the language straight.
Bill,
Did you not do well in grade school biology? Because I think you’re the one who needs to get your language straight.
You’re very clearly trying to paint the science with your own world view.
The cells existed – they weren’t necessarily alive, as they don’t divide, reproduce or grow. Eggs are produced (very early on) by Women. Sperm are produced on an ongoing basis by men. Produced, as in created by other cellular structures.
(from the author of what to expect while you are expecting….)
As soon as the one lucky sperm cell succeeds in penetrating the egg, the egg immediately undergoes a chemical reaction that prevents other sperm cells from penetrating as well (to the victor belongs the spoils). Then the chromosomes carried by the sperm and egg come together, and the egg is officially fertilized. Within a matter of hours, the microscopic zygote divides, then divides again and again. About a week later, a ball of around 100 cells (called a blastocyst) reaches your uterus and settles down into the uterine lining. This is implantation.
There are those of us who believe – and here’s the belief part – that life begins at conception. There are those who believe it occurs at the point of implantation. There are also those misguided souls who believe that life begins only at birth, so anything done to the baby before that is ok.
As soon as someone can conclusively and scientifically determine who is right, then much of the debate over when life begins will be rendered moot.
It’s doesn’t matter one bit what you “believe, PP. The fact remains that a dead sperm cell can’t conjoin with a dead egg cell. There are living cells and dead cells. In reproduction, both cells have to be living in order for fertilization to occur.
Why only kill preborn kids? I think we should be able to chop up live kids to experiment on. It will help all humans except for the ones we kill.
This Country is heading down hill at an alarming rate!
All the sanctimony will go right out the window should a cure come from fetal stem-cell research.
Just like PETA or other animal rights activists that set aside their outrage and go ahead with insulin therapy if one of their own children is born a diabetic. (In spite of the fact that so many animals suffered insulin research.)
Just like the people that don’t believe in (understand) evolution that run right down and get the flu vaccination
– because the flu virus has evolved into a new strain.
Just like the most vocal pro-lifer quietly takes his daughter down to the clinic if she turns up pregnant after being brutally beaten and raped by a great big ugly, criminally insane (insert minority here).
Sanctimony almost always lasts just exactly as long as it is someone else’s problem.
Why don’t we see what we can accomplish with research on our own stem-cells? How cowardly are we when we have to justify abortion by using the aftermath for make-up and “research”!
Sanctimony doesn’t seem to effect progressives; and if it did they would just change the meaning. – You can’t argue with a progressive, they haven’t made up their mind yet! -
Randall, ‘Just like the people that don’t believe in (understand) evolution that run right down and get the flu vaccination
– because the flu virus has evolved into a new strain.’ Christians that don’t believe in evolution – believe that God created the world in 6 days. You are confusing Creation with the life process. If you want to understand it; study it!
“As soon as the one lucky sperm cell succeeds in penetrating the egg, the egg immediately undergoes a chemical reaction that prevents other sperm cells from penetrating as well (to the victor belongs the spoils).”
Right! And then, do you what happens to those sperm cells, PP?
THEY DIE! That’s right. They were ALIVE for about 48 hrs and then they DIED.
Nice work starting off on the right foot, Pat… with your left foot right on top of it.
Bill –
You’re confusing cellular activity and human life.
A Sperm Cell or unfertilized egg are cells. An embryo is a unique human being.
Unless you’re trying to tell us that you believe that an embryo should be considered life just as you consider cells alive, and both should be preserved.
Or are you telling us that you recognize both as life, and it doesn’t matter to you, and people should feel free to cut up embryos for experimentation?
I’m saying that life is life, PP and that gametes are unique, living, human cells just as zygotes are.
But that’s the generally the end of it as far as genetic “uniqueness” goes.
Once a zygote divides and forms other totipotent, multipotent and/or cells, the uniqueness is gone, since there are first two, then four, then 8, then 16 etc. cells that are all exactly the same, genetically speaking.
And that’s what stem cells are. Nothing unique about them whatsoever except for the first one, which is unique because the two gametes that formed it were unique.
Beyond that, I’m not making any judgments as to what should or should not be preserved. I think it’s very important to just get the science straight first, and then work our way toward an ethical position.
Bill, Do you know what chromosomes are? I bet you could find some really good chromosomes in those zygotes! Then with the chromosomes you’d have to address the DNA found in the chromosomes! The DNA and chromosomes have the EXACT information of the individual that will be produced, excluding any external stimuli!
Therefore, this is not only an individual, but one at their most vulnerable state! So, don’t let claim you don’t pick on the little guy. For Christians it’s faith! But it’s also science!
Yes I know what chromosomes are Guy. And what DNA is. I also know what a human hair is. The same DNA and chromosomes are in the hair that just fell out of my head as are in my stem cells. And neither the hair, nor the Chromosome nor the DNA are alive. Saying that DNA = life is like saying blueprint = house.
Or that sheet music = Mozart concert performance.
I am going to ask one more question on this matter and then before we all go mad trying to second guess GOD, maybe the answer perverts the question. If a baby is only human upon delivery into a space of air requiring its’ lungs sustaining its’ own life than how do we ever get Alcohol Fetal Syndrome; Fetal Cocaine Addiction; etc., to occur?
Charlie, everything we’re talking about here is human in terms of species.
We’re just down to the molecular and cellular level over a very brief time span.
What you’re talking about is development far beyond the window of time outlined in the proposed law (which is 14 days, I think.)
There are no systems in place in that amount of time. Nothing capable of getting addicted to anything. Addiction requires a central nervous system…. neurotransmitters and receptors… which don’t exist in a zygote BY DEFINITION. i.e. they were NERVE cells, they wouldn’t be STEM cells.
at conception, you have a unique, living being. bf might call them a cluster of cells, but that cluster of cells is biologically classified as something: a human being, a member of a particular species. a strand of hair is but a mere part of that member.
yet, bf, that is an interesting discussion about addiction and a central nervous system and zygotes and such. interesting.
the basic biological classification chart, 8:29. i believe the science is called “taxonomy.” the genus-species name for the offspring of human beings would actually be “homo sapien.”
and to date, i have never heard of a man and woman producing anything besides homo sapiens.
8:29, how do you think a taxonomist would classify the zygote in a mother’s womb — a canis lupus, perhaps? maybe a felis catus?
So, Bill, What happens when you destroy all forms of that DNA? Your hair is part of a whole lifeform called Bill Fleming. You ignore the fact that you are destroying all potential of that life.
blueprint = house…you either know nothing about blueprints or nothing about building houses. You can build a house without a blueprint. There is no life without DNA.
Ok, Guy, fair point. And conversely, life is DNA’s way of reproducing itself. You certainly could look at it that way. Not sure what the ethical ramifications are, though. Any thoughts?
lex,
“the genus-species name for the offspring of human beings would actually be ‘homo sapien.’”
It’s not the “human” part I’m hung up on, it’s the “being” part. Similarly, I’m not exactly sure that a zygote is “offspring.”
that’s a good question, 11:37. here’s your answer: A zygote … or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
if that “new organism” doesn’t fit the definition of “offspring,” then i don’t know what does. maybe it’s still very small and undeveloped, but it is still offspring.
I would think the perspective should be value life above all else. It doesn’t solve problems but it does give a direction. It also doesn’t mean life always wins.
You can’t build a house by throwing a bunch of nails, shingles, and lumber on the ground. There has to be organization, or in biological terms–emergent properties. A house is more than the sum of its parts, and a human being is more than a collection of DNA.
Solely using DNA to define life is weak. Are viruses alive? Or just the ones that use DNA instead of RNA? Or are no organisms that reproduce asexually alive? What about living organisms that reproduce without mixing together two genomes? What about living organisms whose dominant phase of life is the haploid (like sex cells) rather than the diploid (like body cells)?
A taxonomist would call a zygote a zygote. Perhaps a human zygote, but not a human being. To claim scientific definition of life, but to redefine what is meant by pregnancy or stages of embryological or fetal development is disingenuous. One shouldn’t pick and choose in science. Sperm cells and egg cells are just as genetically unique as a zygote. Destroying these cells destroys a potential life just as much as an embryo. The cells that give rise to sperm cells and egg cells play an active role in development.
If conception is the point where a unique human being is created, does that mean twins are not unique? When embryos fuse does that mean two unique human beings have been destroyed, despite the fact of a healthy newborn?
If removing a nucleus from an embryo equates with killing a life, does replacing the nucleus with one from a skin cell equate with saving a life? Due to accumulated mutations, this cell would also be a genetically unique individual.
denature, a zygote is a being, an organism. so call it a human organism. you and i are human organisms. call it a human zygote, if you want, but it’s still human.
and sperm and egg cells are NOT genetically unique. they are genetically the same as the human beings from whom they come. the zygote has a unique DNA construct from its mother and father.
you can twist and turn all you want, but the common dictionary and basic biology will keep you on the straight-and-narrow.
I don’t think that’s accurate, lexrex. The haploid cells don’t have exactly the same DNA as the parents. They have only half the number of chromosomes and are unique from cell to cell. i.e. not all sperms are created equal. That’s why each of your kids are different from the other. You might want to double check your notes here, lr.
Conversely, if by “being” you mean”existing” and by extension a “person” due to a complete set of human DNA chromosomes, then you would have to conclude, by your own definition that every living cell in your body is a person, wouldn’t you?
Final point, lr. Once the zygote divides, the cells are not “unique” anymore. Now is exactly when every cell is genetically equal to every cell for a while at least, until the cells start to specialize…. with one proviso… the average person’s genome contains 100 mutations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8227442.stm
So, does that mean each and every one of us is a different species, lexrex?
You know, you really do have to be careful about what you say on this topic when you’re trying to argue that science is the reasoning behind your belief system. A note of caution. Science is not like religious dogma. Its conclusions are subject to change as new evidence comes to light.
It might be better for you to just stick with religion, where you can just make stuff up, and not have to be bothered with these pesky empirical facts.
DNA is the driving force for all cell activity. The blueprint??? An illustration of the five elements – I would call it ‘fire.’ Science is the documentation of what is oberved. It is NOT the whole body of evidence. Thought would have to be proven to satisfy the courts that it is Life. But then the courts are still political aren’t they!
Oh boy, the five elements.
Now THERE’S some real science for ya!
Earth to Guy:
There are, shall we say… quite a few more elements than that, big fella.
Here’s a sneak peek: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Periodic_table_of_elements_showing_electron_shells.png
5 elements.
That’s just great… ker, ker, ker,
One more question, Guy.
Okay, you have your body of evidence… i.e. all the evidence that’s been found.
Now what other kind of evidence is there again? Help me out here.
Do you mean the evidence we haven’t found? Or maybe the evidence that will never be found?
And if either or both of those are the missing evidence you’re talking about, tell me something.
How well do those kinds of evidence hold up in court?
Hmm. Wonder what happened to my esteemed opponents?
They’re so rude that way. Get them in a pickle between bases
and they just grab their balls and go home.
lexrex: If you want to get biology textbooky, look up the phrase hierarchy of life. As applied to higher plants and animals, you will see a depiction that looks something like: atom–>molecule–>organelle–>cell–>tissue–>organ–>organ system–>organism.
There are emergent properties at each level, and an organism is certainly more than a collection of organ systems, but the point is that you’re skipping levels. Biologists would not call the zygote of an animal such as a human an organism.
Why don’t they just call it the “chopping-up-children act” and be done with it?