‘Cloning’ ban proponents muddle facts in stem cell debate

The writers of this bill are not “muddling the facts.” You are. SCNT is cloning. Always. SCNT was the same process used to make Dolly the sheep. It does not matter if the cloned embryo (what you inaccurately call just “eight cells or so”) created by SCNT is used for research or is implanted in a uterus, it was still created by cloning.

Any legislation that does not place a ban on all SCNT in humans (whether for research or reproduction), does not “ban human cloning.”

While other legislation only bans the IMPLANTATION of a cloned embryo, this legislation is a TRUE ban on all human cloning and prohibits the creation of a cloned human embryo for any purpose.

‘ “I am sure that it is no one’s intention to speak incorrectly about the science,” said Wagner.’

Wooww – this guy knows SQUAT about right wing politics in the USA.

Collectively as a state, you should be ashamed of yourselves for electing such people. And as I can’t imagine such legislation getting too far, the fact that someone
elected with the public interest brings up such a proposal is silly.
You leave your medical and scientific professionals no option but to seek
a friendly enviroment abroad. And to think 70 to 100 years ago the worlds’ brilliant
cam to America

Therapeutic cloning is as different from reproductive cloning is the lightbulb is different from the lightning bolt. Should both forms of electricity be banned, because one causes forest fires?

Reproductive cloning to make babies is supported by no serious scientist or scientific body on earth. Nobody wants it; nobody does it.

Therapeutic cloning to make cells for cures is (though not successful) endorsed in principle virtually the entire scientific community. It offers the possibility of regenerating cells the body would not reject. That is why former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and first lady Nancy Reagan all endorsed it.

Republicans like Ms. Fischback are sending a message to the emerging biomedical industry– research for cure is not welcome in this state.

Patients should remember in the next election.

Don C. Reed

How is misrepresenting the work and opinions of Drs. Jaenisch and Wilcut not “muddling the facts,” Rebecca Taylor?

And this helps Minnesota’s economy and jobs outlook in what way?

This endless parade of extremist and pretty much pointless GOP pandering has got to stop. How about a legislature actually governing for the benefit of the citizens?

You can try and redefine cloning all day long but it doesn’t change the science. SCNT is cloning. It creates a cloned embryo. Whether that embryo ends up in a womb or in a research lab does not change the fact that it was created with cloning.

The reality is that no patient has ever been treated with stem cells from a cloned embryo and due to safety issues may never be. Think about it. We are nervous about drinking milk from a cloned cow but we want to inject ourselves with stem cells from a cloned embryo. It makes no sense at all.

Also, SCNT takes eggs lots of eggs and that means it is expensive, inefficient and it puts women’s health at risk to retrieve those eggs.

Many other countries like Canada, France and Germany have banned all SCNT in humans as per the recommendation of the United Nations.

There is no reason to be cloning embryos when there is a current and viable alternative. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) behave like embryonic stem cells and since they come from the patient they are a genetic match (unlike with SCNT that has DNA leftover from the woman who donated the egg.) iPS cells are patient specific stem cells, no creation or destruction of embryos, no eggs needed and no cloning. It is a no brainer!

Rebecca – no matter how many times you say it over and over, it does not change the science, reproductive cloning which no one wants is NOT the same as therapeutic cloning – please understand that your comments are the no brainers. I was the reciepent of a bone marrow transplant from my own stem cells 16 years ago – a new and scary therapy – and know the benefit of experimental therapies, life. Or isn’t that important to you.

Sandy I am all for life-saving treatments but not ones that require women be exploited for their eggs. Especially when alternatives are already working (iPS cells) that do not require eggs or the cloning of embryos.

I really am against pretending that cloning isn’t cloning just because it sounds better. In reproductive and therapeutic cloning the cloning part is exactly the same. Just because a cloned embryo is destroyed in research does not magically make the cloning part disappear.

Rebecca, you are sadly misinformed as well, or willfully misleading. SCNT also CREATES eggs and other tissues by reprogramming receptive cells. You wouldn’t know it by the offensively misleading diagram which wrongfully alludes to “fusion” as FERTILIZATION.

http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=290

What you are attempting to legislate is the process by which an infertile female can have her dna, for example from a skin cell, infused into a cell for the purpose of creating her own eggs, or sterile male reproducing his own sperm in the same way. PRE-FERTILIZATION. There are reasons why these legislators arent explaining thoroughly what exactly they are trying to criminalize too. In so doing would let the proverbial cat out of the bag. They rather use the intellectually dishonest example of Dolly the sheep.

Wendy I think you are mistaken. SCNT takes an egg removes the haploid DNA, then takes the diploid DNA from a skin cell and inserts it into the egg. This creates a cloned embryo WITHOUT fertilization with sperm. SCNT doesn’t create eggs, it uses eggs. It creates EMBRYOS.

The American Medical Association agrees, “Alternatively, stem cells have also been obtained from embryos generated from unfertilized eggs using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Initially, SCNT technology was designed to produce embryos from which immunologically compatible stem cells could be derived for use in treating human diseases (therapeutic cloning). However, recent advances in the technology have prompted concerns about embryos formed by SCNT being misused for generating human clones (reproductive cloning).”

And so does the National Academy of Sciences, “The method used to initiate the reproductive cloning procedure is called nuclear transplantation, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). It involves replacing the chromosomes of a human egg with the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell from a developed human. In reproductive cloning, the egg is then stimulated to undergo the first few divisions to become an aggregate of 64 to 200 cells called a blastocyst. The blastocyst is a preimplantation embryo that contains some cells with the potential to give rise to a fetus and other cells that help to make the placenta. If the blastocyst is placed in a uterus, it can implant and form a fetus. If the blastocyst is instead maintained in the laboratory, cells can be extracted from it and grown on their own.”

Both of these quotes are clear. SCNT creates a cloned embryo. That embryo can be used either for research or for reproduction. Fertilization has no part in SCNT.

Just in case you want to look that up:

American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13630.page

National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10285&page=R12

Who is Rebecca Taylor? What are her credentials?

Welcome to the 21st century, and directly linked to why they want this banned, wont tell you and their agenda.

1. Cellular reprogramming: the creation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)

One source of pluripotent stem cells is the inner cell mass of a developing embryo – embryonic stem cells. However, a technique known as “cellular reprogramming” allows a pluripotent stem cell to be created from a mature adult skin cell after being treated with a number of transcription factors. These cells have been dubbed “induced pluripotent stem cells” or iPSCs. They are nearly identical to embryonic stem cells. More importantly, they are genetically identical to the person who donated the skin cells. This makes the cells “individualized” pluripotent stem cells. These cells can be used to form any type of tissue in the body.

2. Creation of Oocytes (eggs) from pluripotent stem cells

Pluripotent stem cells can be directed to “differentiate” into any type of cell in the body. It was reported in 2003 that scientists successfully directed mouse pluripotent stem cells to differentiate into mouse oocytes. What this means is that a skin cell can be taken from any person (male included) reprogrammed into an iPSC, and then the iPSC can be differentiated into an egg cell.

3. Creation of Sperm from pluripotent stem cells

The same exact logic from eggs can be applied to sperm. Scientists have recently demonstrated the ability to form sperm from embryonic stem cells. While the team has warned that this science will not be used for fertility treatment.

Wendy, now I think I understand the point you are trying to make. But induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) the technology you mention are not made with SCNT. Banning SCNT will not ban iPSC research. SCNT reprograms an adult cell back to a TOTIPOTENT state by making a new cloned embryo using a human egg. If implanted into a uterus, that cloned embryo will grow into a cloned fetus, then a cloned baby etc.

iPS cells are adult cells that are reprogrammed to a PLURIPOTENT state using various techniques, none of them involve an egg or creating a cloned embryo. iPSCs cannot become a fetus if implanted. iPSCs were developed as an ALTERNATIVE to SCNT so embryos do not have to be created or destroyed to get patient specific pluripotent stem cells. In other words, this legislation has nothing to do with iPSCs.

I understand your point that you think that this legislation is about preventing same sex couples from having genetically related children but it isn’t. As you pointed out that can be done with iPSC technology which this legisaltion DOES NOT ban.
It is simply about banning all cloning in humans. Which by the way is the policy in many, many other countries around the world including Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Iceland, Italy and Ireland, just to name a few.

Lane, I am in the genetics field. I am certified to perform genetic testing in a clinical setting. I have worked in hospitals testing patients for genetic disorders for many years. You can take my credentials or leave them it does not change the reality that all SCNT in humans is human cloning.

The way I see it, iPSC and SCNT are some of the existing technologies that enable manipulation of DNA. Banning human SCNT outright does NOT guarantee that existing and future technologies won’t be used for reproductive cloning for whatever reason.

I sense that this bill is premature, that further discussion and thought needs to take place, one that includes people who know what they are talking about. We need to further understand and define what is reproductive cloning and what is therapeutic cloning, and establish public policy based on this understanding. To have this public policy based on specific technology is a poor approach – and won’t last long given the ongoing rapid pace of innovation that will still take place whereever whether or not such innovation is banned or stifled in Minnesota.

It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the GOP legislators and MCCL are too stupid to recognize this “reality” – yes, I am using this word intentionally, my dear Rebecca! Sheesh.

Mini Me.
Sorry couldn’t help it.

Lane it is not “stupid” to ban SCNT. If it was the long laundry list of countries that have banned it would not have it. A ban is smart for lots of reasons but one is important for women’s health. SCNT takes lots and lots of human eggs. Thousands upon thousands. Those eggs don’t just come from out of nowhere. They have to been extracted from young women. The egg extraction process is grueling and has cost women their fertility and even their lives. There is a whole group of progressive and conservative men and women called Hands Off Our Ovaries that have joined together and are telling the scientific community to stop looking at women like they are crop for harvest. Rejecting SCNT in favor of the alternative iPSCs that does not use eggs is a move to protect women from exploitation.

It does not necessarily follow that banning human SCNT altogether will solve the problem of exploiting women for their eggs.

Unfortunately, Rebecca’s growing hysterics but further muddle the waters on this very important issue.

Lane, I never said that banning SCNT will solve the problem of exploiting women for their eggs. But it is sure a step in the right direction. It is not hysterics either. There are documented cases of cloning researchers in countries where SCNT is legal taking advantage of underprivileged women for their eggs. Some have even have coerced the female scientists in their lab to “donate” their eggs for the cause because the lab could not get enough from IVF clinics. This is not a small problem that can be easily dismissed.

A researcher in this country, Dr. Sam Wood, just wants the eggs and said, “Just give us the eggs. If we don’t succeed, then be critical.” He really could care less if women are exploited as long as he gets his “tools.”

I agree that this is an important issue and muddling the waters is bad. People need to understand what SCNT is and what it isn’t so they can make an informed decision. What DOES muddle the waters is the assertion that SCNT is not cloning, it is just “stem cell research.” Most stem cell research has nothing to do with SCNT. And researchers can use SCNT to clone embryos that are not intended for stem cell research. It also does not help leaving out the fact that eggs are needed for SCNT which is problematic for women, especially when there are viable alternatives.

Clicking on Rebecca’s name above takes you to her blog that is a “Catholic’s Guide to Genetics, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.” I think the political editorializing with a good measure of Catholic doctrine thrown in speaks for itself.

Lane, the old ad hominem argument. Nothing to say so try and discredit the person. Yes I am Catholic and I have never said otherwise. I have also never used any religious arguments in this discussion. It has simply been about the science and practical issues around SCNT. But if you want ignore all of the facts (with sources I might add) I have presented and want to assert that Catholics cannot have a discussion about such issues then so be it.

I guess I don’t see a problem with therapeutic cloning. Sandy above would not have been here to write that letter if not for the procedure.

If there are other ways to do it then so be it. It is a persons choice on how best to live their lives.

I am very much against making decisions for other people unless it is to stop violence.

Paul, Sandy was not treated with therapeutic cloning. On one has been. Therapeutic cloning for stem cells is not yet been accomplished. She was treated with adult stem cells. This is the problem with claiming that SCNT is stem cell research. People get confused and think cloning is the same as stem cell treatments when they are totally different.

I haven’t seen any politician from any party know enough to be qualified to vote on issues concerning stem cell research and therapies of any kind. What is so promising is being weighted down with arguments that will slow down and divide the nation. It doesn’t just come from Republicans, it comes from ignorance. In the meantime, millions are suffering and dying who could benefit from stem cell treatment. As a woman, I believe it is a personal decision, not one that politicians make or Rebecca Taylor who thinks this would exploit women. Time to quit making this a political issue. Let’s have those that are so worried about this because of moral concerns, look a small child or anyone for that matter, in the eye and tell them that they should be denied treatments that could improve or save their lives. Where are the ethics or morals in that?

It is all above my head I just don’t see any real problem.

I do however see healing ailments not previously cured.

Oh, I don’t know that I am committing the ol’ ad hominem argument, Rebecca. Your strident comments here as well as what I saw in your blog has solidified my initial suspicions as to your motivations behind the rush to ban human SCNT before any of us has a chance to fully understand and discuss the issue. If you are angry at the actions of some unethical researchers, focus on that, but don’t try to force your “facts” and conclusions on the rest of us.

As for religious perspectives, I consider them suspect – and not a good basis for formulating public policy that affects all of us with varying beliefs and non-beliefs. These should be questioned at every step of the way. Catholics are no exception.

I admit to scratching my head now and then in utter perplexion at the notion that an eight-cell embryo is worthy of protection as “human life.” The limb about to be amputated is similarly human and non-sentient, but we don’t protect that as “human life.” Hmmm.

Lane – I am very sorry you are playing the religion card. I merely was clarifying what SCNT is and what it isn’t. I left religion out of the discussion. You obviously cannot. Don’t be so biased that you can call quotes from the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences just “my facts.” Just because a Catholic posted those quotes does not make them any less accurate or informative. Just because a Catholic pointed out that SCNT uses thousands of eggs and women are are risk for exploitation does not mean it isn’t true. And just because a Catholic pointed out that there are viable alternatives to SCNT like iPSCs that do not have all the sticky ethical problems does not mean they do not exist.

Thanks for the lively discussion y’all! Check out Hands Off Our Ovaries for more information on the exploitation of women for eggs: http://handsoffourovaries.com/

Yes, it is unfortunate that I must play the religion card given the Catholic bias throughout Rebecca’s blog.

It is disturbing that the legislators still do not have a good grasp on this serious issue, and even more disturbing that the Republicans are purposefully handling this with closed minds not permitting open, meaningful discussion and input that could make all the difference between good law and bad legislation. Rebecca is part of the problem in pushing for the ban now both here and also on her blog. Meh.

Finally, don’t be so sure, Rebecca, that iPSCs and other alternatives to SCNT don’t come with their own set of ethical problems …

Rebecca is correct in her scientific analysis. SCNT, if successful, will always produce a living human embryo that is the virtual genetic duplicate of the original somatic cell donor. To deny this, as those who would make a bogus distinction between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning do, has been branded “disingenuous” by none other than James Thomson, one of the two scientists credited with first isolating human embryonic stem cells:

Q: The people who use nuclear transfer generally say that the technique is optimized for producing the stem cells rather than making babies.
They would not want to equate this with the process that produces embryos that were fit for implantation, and they’d argue that they’re using the reproductive process differently.

A: “See, you’re trying to define it away, and it doesn’t work. If you create an embryo by nuclear transfer, and you give it to somebody who didn’t know where it came from, there would be no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is. It’s true that they have a much lower probability of giving rise to a child. But by any reasonable definition, at least at some frequency, you’re creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you’re being disingenuous.”
(Stem-cell pioneer does a reality check. James Thomson reflects on science and morality By Alan Boyle Science editor MSNBC 6/25/05 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756/ns/health-cloning_and_stem_cells/).

The same issue of what cloning is and what it produces also came up in California in 1993 regarding Prop. 73, to provide state funding for cloning and stem cell research. In a court affidavit, Dr. Stuart Newman, a professor in the Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy at New York Medical College, and someone who has testified in Congress on these issues, said:

“The term “cloned embryos” is still the term of art in this field of research for the
products of nuclear transfer. …The assertion that the viable product of nuclear transfer is not an embryo is equivalent to the assertion that organisms that develop from these products, such as Dolly the sheep, are not animals.”

He concluded:

“Whether or not a scientist or physician intends to implant a cluster of cells does
not determine whether or not it is an embryo. If it is a cluster of liver cells, for example, the intention to implant it does not make it an embryo. Correspondingly, if it is a blastocyst capable of giving rise to embryo stem cells, the lack of intention to implant it does not cause it not to be an embryo. To believe that the material nature of a biological entity changes depending on the intention of the investigator is an example of magical thinking, which is antithetical to modern science.” (BTW, since the religion card has already been played in this discussion, I’ve spoken with Dr. Newman and he told me he was Jewish and pro-choice, after having been falsely labeled Catholic and pro-life in a news story quoting him).

So if people want to cling to the baseless distinction between so-called therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, they are free to do so. Just don’t pretend its science; its magical thinking.

Therapeutic cloning is also a bogus term because (1) it is certainly not therapeutic for the embryo that is destroyed as result of the research, and (2) no therapies exist or have been developed as a result of human cloning. In fact, scientists have not yet even successfully produced a cloned human embryo and grown it to the point where its stem cells could be harvested, much less derive therapies.

Finally one more point on the religious card. The remarks made regarding Rebecca’s Catholicism smugly suggest that because of her faith, she cannot be trusted in scientific matters i.e., Catholics can’t be trusted as scientists. Dr. Jerome Lejeune was a devout Catholic and one of the greatest 20th century researchers in the filed of genetics, having discovered the chromosomal basis of Down Syndrome. When he died, one of his colleagues in the scientific community hailed him as having “basically opened up the whole scientific field of what you might call clinical cytogenetics — the field that deals with genetic disorders resulting from different types of chromosome abnormalities.”

One correction to the above. The California initiative on cloning and stem cell research was actually Prop.71 and it came before California voters in 2004

Speaking about any subject within the realm of a relgion, especially one of Science, and especially on a subject that try’s to control other peoples lives, choices, and thoughts, such as reproductive rights (when it comes down to it, its about this period in Rebeca’s reasoning).

Perhaps, Rebecca you are truly not using religion to make your decision but as long as though thoughts are spread through religious formats and in religious context (which your blog is) there will always be suspect.

I accept that you don’t understand this, but I can not support the outcome.

I just wish you could accept the fact that you are going to think one way, even if you can’t support an out come. Which will never be as long as you try to oppress society with your personal lifestyle choice of oppressive religion.

Oh I don’t know that I am being smug in casting aspersions on Rebecca because she is Catholic. Rather it is because she is mixing faith and politics – something that I doubt Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a man of “discreet and radiant faith,” would do based on what little googling I’ve done.

I’ve met some deeply religious people with such grace that I consider myself blessed to have experienced that in their presence. I don’t sense this at all with Rebecca.

ECT asserts that “therapeutic cloning” is a bogus term. Really? From article:

Sen. Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato) tried to do that with an amendment to Fischbach’s amendment to make clear that the law would ban both therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, but Fischbach and the panel’s Republicans were having none of it.

It is bogus because such usage is based on politics, not science. It exists to try and convince pepole there are two types of cloning: one that produces a cloned embryo for implantation and live birth (the so-called “reproductive” cloning) and another type of cloning that produces stem cells for therapeutic uses (the so-called “”therapeutic” cloning.

By its very nature, all cloning is reproductive in nature, as the goal is to create a live human embryo that is the virtual genetic duplicate of the somatic cell donor: if successful, it genetically reproduces the somatic cell donor. Whatever the intention of the scientist undertaking the SCNT process, if successful that scientist will have created a live human embryo, so there are not two different types of cloning. Moreover, while some researchers may undertake cloning in the hopes of producing new therapies to treat disease, the act of cloning itself is not therapeutic. Certainly not for the embryo that will be destroyed for its stem cells.

Understanding how important terminology was to the public policy debate on human cloning, the President’s Council on Bioethics (President Bush’s council) took up this subject early on when it turned its attention to cloning. The Council agreed that the terms “reproductive” and “therapeutic” cloning were inadequate and misleading, and were based on the intentions of the cloner, not on any real distinction in the act of cloning itself (SCNT). Therefore, the Council replaced those terms and unanimously adopted “Cloning to produce children” and “Cloning for biomedical research.” Because this terminology was adopted unanimously, it means that even those members of the Council who endorse human cloning for research purposes, endorsed this language and rejected such usages as “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning (http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/terminology.html).

So only one type of cloning exists, but it can be done for different reasons. Sen. Sheran can continue to make this bogus distinction that there are different types of cloning all she wants, but it is bogus nonetheless. Republicans and anyone else supporting a comprehensive ban on human cloning are right to reject such an amendment, because to support it would mean embracing the false distinction on cloning it enshrines.

On the religious card: Lane charges that the points made by Rebecca “have a good measure of Catholic doctrine thrown in” and that her comments display “a Catholic bias throughout.” Could you please point out which of the scientific points Rebecca makes are based on Catholic doctrine? The Catholic church does oppose human cloning, but you don’t have to be Catholic to oppose it. A profile the Wall Street Journal ran of columnist Charles Krauthammer described him as being raised in a “modern Orthodox” Jewish home and that today he considers himself a religious non-believer. Krauthammer supports legal abortion and human embryonic stem cell research. Yet for all this, he opposes human cloning. This can hardly be because of his adherence to Catholic doctrine. Nor is concern over the exploitation of women for their eggs (literally thousands would be needed for SCNT research) being hysterical or based on Catholic doctrine. Judy Norsigian, executive director of Our Bodies Ourselves (hardly a hotbed of Catholic doctrine) testified in the U.S. Senate over her concerns regarding cloning and the exploitation of women for their eggs (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=25&compID=67&page=9). Richard Hayes, the current head of the Center for Genetics and Society ( he is a long time activist for liberal causes, e.g., he headed up the Sierra Club’s global warming committee) has also expressed similar concerns and has written:

“It’s well known that religious conservatives oppose research involving human cloning, based on their belief in the personhood of human embryos. But the great unreported story of the cloning debate is that research using cloning also has been viewed skeptically by many scientists and public interest advocates who identify as liberals, progressives and supporters of women’s health and reproductive rights.” (http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3786)

So now it is “cloning to produce children” and “cloning for biomedical research,” eh?

I think I’ll go grab me some popcorn to munch on while this debate muddles on. Oh yeah, a Surly sounds good, too!

I direct the reader to the last paragraph of this article to further appreciate my concern for the way the lawmakers so far are mishandling this very important issue:

Sen. Fischbach and MCCL have cited a United Nations declaration numerous times in committee hearings as an example of international agreement on banning “human cloning,” but the UN declaration is nonbinding and the international body [is] working on changing its position to allow the very research that Fischbach wants banned in Minnesota.

Yep, that Surly is one excellent brew!

I am back because someone suggested I take a peek at how Lane was disparaging me personally.

Wow Lane, first I am too religious for this conversation then you “sense” I am not “deeply spiritual” enough or have enough “grace.” There is a bigot in this conversation and it isn’t me.

Stop attacking me on a personal level. It does nothing but “muddle” the argument. Instead come up with some hard facts that women have NOT been exploited by SCNT researchers in the past. Demonstrate how if SCNT is not banned HOW women will be protected. Prove that SCNT doesn’t need eggs by the hundreds PER ATTEMPT and that increasing that research will NOT put women at greater risk. Show that progressive, conservative, religious and secular alike are NOT concerned about women’s health. Demonstrate how SCNT isn’t cloning (other than some quote from a researcher who wants your tax dollars to play around or some advocacy group that wants your money.) Prove there ARE ethical problems with iPC cells. Show how pioneers of SCNT research have NOT switched to IPSC technology.

Do something other than just denigrate my spiritual life. The conversation will benefit form it.

On a side note, my father knew Jerome Lejeune personally and he was a man of great intellect AND great faith who fought the widespread abortion of Down Syndrome babies in every venue possible political and otherwise. He was a Catholic through and through AND a great man of science. Now that you mention it so was Roger Bacon, Gregor Mendel, Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur just to name a few.

Rebecca, you opened yourself up to scrutiny when you included the link to your blog which showed clearly that you are mixing faith and politics. I do not agree with your push to have the ban on human cloning passed into law in its current form given that the discussions need to continue.

I do not have to prove anything simply because I am asking the hard questions here. Let’s start again with why should an eight-cell embryo be granted personhood when a limb about to be amputated isn’t even though both have human DNA and are non-sentient. Where did this “personhood” idea come from?

Lane, I apologize in advance for using the word bigot. That was too strong a word. I was just so shocked and angered by your speculations about my spirituality that I let it get the best of me. That was wrong. I am sorry.

I want keep this about the issue. What is SCNT? Are there good secular reasons to oppose it?

The facts are that a dozen women would have to place their fertility and life at risk for just one cloned embryo with SCNT. It is good public policy to ban the practice which encourages the alternatives and protects women.

I have never mentioned personhood. Why are you so intent on it?

Biologically speaking (not personhood speaking) the 8 celled embryo and the amputated arm are very different. The embryo is a whole organism that can self-direct toward more mature stages. The amputated arm is only part of an organism which cannot.

In other words, while an embryo (under the proper conditions) will continue to self-direct through all the stages of a human life cycle. There are no conditions under which an amputated arm would achieve that.

I am a weary survivor of the ongoing culture wars fomented by the religious right of which the Roman Catholic Church is a member. This ban in its draft stage is pushed by MCCL who considers an eight-cell embryo “human life” which I immediately associated with personhood arguments used by anti-abortion foes that constantly whittle away at the right to safe, legal abortion, limiting it to earlier and earlier stages of fetal development until the day finally arrives when the just fertilized egg is protected – family planning and mother’s health be damned.

I still feel the ban is premature and poorly written. Even the legislators on both sides don’t know what they are talking about. The Republicans are ignoring expert testimony. Even the United Nations is struggling with revising its declaration against “human cloning.” Again, the key word is PREMATURE. We need more discussion and input, and I will do my darndest to try to make that happen even if it means snatching away a good Catholic’s rosary to catch her attention.

Lane I disagree that a ban is premature. I think we know all we need to know about what SCNT entails and the body parts that are needed. We know hundreds of eggs are needed in an attempt for JUST ONE SCNT embryo, we know that women have already been exploited for exactly this research. We know that experts have said that with any SCNT, even just for research, reproductive cloning is “inevitable” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-cloning-is-now-inevitable-711095.html) We know that IPSCs are a viable alternate that does have the chance for reproductive cloning and does not put a woman’s health at risk. I think it is a smart move that many a secular progressive and religious conservative agree on.

Thanks for the discussion again. I have to get back to my life!

Rebecca, am I correct in that your primary objection to SCNT stems from the exploitation of women for the necessary eggs? I am curious. It is my understanding that it is possible to create eggs using iPSCs. Why can’t these eggs be used in SCNT? Are there any reasons not go this route? If none, then a ban on SCNT would not make sense, but a carefully worded ban on harvesting eggs from women would be in order.

AS long as the driver of the ban is religious the ban should not be made.

We would be still using leaches and bleeding ourselves if it was left up to the religious right. Every single advancement we have ever made has been against the extremist.

They are to only pay homage to one God but they all tend to want to play God. They can not have both. If its against God’s Plan then would he allow such Medical advancements to be made?

Proof of exploitation, please.

I thought it was a well-compensated and voluntary procedure, that like all medical procedures, requires a medical consent form signed, in which the signer acknowledges full accountability.

“We know hundreds of eggs are needed in an attempt for JUST ONE SCNT embryo’

So What – they are eggs, not people.

I was always under the impression that my eggs were my own and I could do as I choose with them. All I need to say on that one.

After some thought, I decided that Rebecca’s chosen phrase “self-direct” is but one variation of the personhood arguments used by the anti-abortion folks, and thus she did not answer my question. All cells “self-direct” – whether it be animal, plant, human, bacteria, cancer, skin, neuron, etc. etc.

I am still waiting on that proof of “exploitation of women for their eggs.”

Although I don’t claim to speak for the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission, on which I sit, I can say unequivocally that equating SCNT with human cloning is squarely against the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion. Rebecca and ECT are simply wrong on the science here, and I can’t decide whether their conflation is misinformed or disingenuous, although I suspect it’s the latter.
Leave your religious beliefs in church where they belong, and have the intellectual honesty to disavow the misrepresentations being propogated here by the MN Republican party.

Ira Schwartz, Esq.

In her March 31, 2011 @ 10:53 pm comment, Rebecca said:

“We know that IPSCs are a viable alternate that does have the chance for reproductive cloning and does not put a woman’s health at risk.”

I rest my case re: Rebecca’s motives and credibility.

FWIW, Rebecca put a post on her blog (click on her name in any of her comments above to be taken there) last Monday, April 4, “The Clone Wars Are Back!” – obviously in response to this discussion thread that she characterized as “aggravating and discouraging” …

Good work, Lane!

the religious right extremists will stop at nothing to win their unconstitutional fights in their special interest group religious based items.

Rebecca wrote on her blog:

“This is very interesting. Researchers in Minnesota have grown a human heart from adult stem cells. Hear that Minnesota? No cloning was used. As far as I can see not one Minnesota newspaper has picked up this story. Here is a tip: spend less time arguing about SCNT and more time talking about and supporting this kind of research.”

Cloning–and the issue with cloning is…what exactly? Therapeutic cloning is pretty much morally trivial, and it’s difficult to see how you could arrive at any other conclusion without importing theological and “pro-life” moral fictions into the discourse.

Once the Dems regain both state branches I intend to be writing letters encouraging increased investment in all types of stem cell research.

Cloning? Who cares? This is not glib, this is moral realism.

The thing that gets me on a philosophical nature, is how the extremest religious right get so hooked on the two things to fight. How one sin is bigger than any other.

I don’t get how they don’t look and understand history, how they don’t take a look at the books they use as their corner stone of morality and see who wrote what when exactly (hundreds of years after the so called important dates) and do not take into effect honest facts to their “laws”.

How they can say well god will take care of it all, there can not be global warming, God wouldn’t allow that, or no way there were dinosaurs, or think there were dinosaurs on a wooden boat. But then think they need to play the inbetween all the rest of society and god with their two huge talking points.

I wish I could be here two hundred years from now to see the changes from one cult thought pattern to the next. just to see what the next will be.