Embryo Bill

L

llwyd

New member
Not had a good serious discussion for a while have we fellas?

Whats everyones views on the current bill going through parliment? Allowing the creation of embryos with hybrid DNA between humans and certain animals for medical research?

For those who haven't heard much: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7309445.stm

Whats everyones views on the morality of this? If you're against it, why? and would you, if when older you became ill, refuse a cure they're hoping to develop? I doubt anyone would.

Animal rights activists wouldn't turn down painkillers and medicine to save their life, all of which is tested on animals.

Personally I think it's a fantastic step forward for science and medicine.
 
^^i concur.

I admit, for those who don't know much about gene manipulation, it can seem very Frankenstein-esque.

What's being proposed is actually very different to what the church and co state. It's not about blending aborted babies.

Actually, i see this new method as step back almost. The science community has been demonised over the use of embryos, so they have to change to pre-embryos hybrids.

I should probably cite some stuff and actually structure an argument, but i'm tired so i'll post it as it is.
 
I guess that as long as the research is kept at the level where they use pre-embryonic cells then it's a good thing. Although it does have the potential to be abused, if not monitored and regulated stringently. I can see why the Church would have a problem with the moralities of the whole idea. Using a pigs kidney as a replacement to a human donor organ is far removed from actually making a human/animal hybrid embryo.
 
I think it is perfectly fine.. as long as it doesn't get abused as Matt said.

I really like the idea of "modding" humans and so on. :)

Chruch has always been in the way of Medical evolution. They think they are in the right but most of the time they are the ones causing death through this anti-science views.

Meh?
 
As long as nothing is being hurt or turned into a super biotech killing machine kinda thing im all up for it

Curing cancer etc. ? Go for it!

The amount of cosmetics tested on animals is appalling though especially when the animal is hurt/killed in the process
 
i think we should focus on genetic reaserch instead

get rid of desises, and problems, like problems with eyesight, problems with limbs, so everyone who is born is different, as now, but everyone who is born, is born healthy, ...

could eliminate so many things by doing this...

thats just my thoughts though
 
But then as nature intended...a disease/virus/bacterial strain will develop and evolve attacking one person for example...if we are all the same there will be no natural selection as such

If we were all the same - say goodbye to the human race lol
 
nooo....not what i meant!

i mean, leave us exactly as we are

eye colour

hair colour

features

etc etc etc

just remove the DNA that causes desises, deformities, problems etc etc
 
name='ionicle' said:
nooo....not what i meant!

i mean, leave us exactly as we are

eye colour

hair colour

features

etc etc etc

just remove the DNA that causes desises, deformities, problems etc etc
Click to expand...

That is only really possible by aborting fetuses that show signs of those diseases. And that is illegal as it stands. There is also a bill being pushed that would allow deaf parents who are not able to conceive naturally to have a deaf baby. Which i think is completely sick and should be binned straight away. But again they see it as perfectly acceptable.

I think we need to be careful altering unborn children, even if for the better. From there its only a small step to building a new arian race.

I think the government needs to take a clear cut stance on this, if there is a good chance of ANY medical progress coming out of it they should put it through and let people moan until they give up, which they will. I mean a few years ago it was illegal to be gay, now if you disagree with homosexuality you're a bad bad person. And this is a far greater cause than .... you know .... :boink:ing

Interesting posts:views ratio this thread has
 
i think, that DNA of unborn children should be left alone

BUT

if the child is deaf, remove the deafness, leave everything else

if the child is blind, give it sight

if the child is deformed, either abort it, or fix it

if the child has eyesight problems, fix them

if the child basically is ill, in any way, fix, or get rid

HOWEVER

dont change anything else

dont change eye colour

height

build

hair colour

brain

or anything else that affects who we are

dont even change IQ

just remove illness
 
i think, that DNA of unborn children should be left alone

BUT

if the child is deaf, remove the deafness, leave everything else

if the child is blind, give it sight

if the child is deformed, either abort it, or fix it

if the child has eyesight problems, fix them

if the child basically is ill, in any way, fix, or get rid

HOWEVER

dont change anything else

dont change eye colour

height

build

hair colour

brain

or anything else that affects who we are

dont even change IQ

just remove illness
Click to expand...
The screening process as it stands here in Australia is very, very good with regards to potential birth defects and/or abnormalities and I would imagine that the rest of the world would be at a similar level. Obviously though there are things that the can't pick up.

The whole areas of stem cells and cloning is getting increasingly complex, with much confusion among the general public as to what the different techniques involve. However it certainly does have its merits for eliminating/reducing the effects of disease.

Does anyone have a link to the UK Govt White Paper on the Embryo Bill? There appears to be a lot of confusion over the 'hybrid' term and what it entails. A human-animal hybrid embryo would be produced by fertilising an animal egg with human sperm or vice-versa. Human-animal hybrid cells have been made by fusing human cells with animal cells, a technique that has been widely used for genetic studies but which does not involve the production of an embryo. An embryo produced by combining whole or partial embryos from different species is called a chimera, not a hybrid. There are legitimate but different ethical concerns raised by the production of hybrids versus chimeras.

Interesting reading - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL] 2007-08
 
I think i probably used the wrong term. I was tired.

More on hybrid Vs chimera. Now with sheep and goats

Hybrid - Is a cross breed. Usually are still birth.

_813466_gs300.jpg


Chimera - Are basically two organisms in one, you get different bits from different species. Some bits wooly, some hairy. If fertile, the offspring are one or the other, depending on which animals reproductive parts grew.

Sheep_goat_chimera.jpg
 
Yeah I wasn't pointing out the fact that you used the term incorrectly, it was more that a lot of peeps on the net are making the error (since Llwyd posted this I have tried to read as much on it as I can). Regardless, it will be an interesting time to sit in the public gallery when they debate this further.
 
In terms of banning, I`d prefer to see religions banned rather than anything scientific.

name='ionicle' said:
i think, that DNA of unborn children should be left alone

BUT

if the child is deaf, remove the deafness, leave everything else

if the child is blind, give it sight

if the child is deformed, either abort it, or fix it

if the child has eyesight problems, fix them

if the child basically is ill, in any way, fix, or get rid

HOWEVER

dont change anything else

dont change eye colour

height

build

hair colour

brain

or anything else that affects who we are

dont even change IQ

just remove illness
Click to expand...

There again, is deafness an illness ? Sure if I took your hearing away - you`d be upset. But if you`ve never heard anything before, you don`t know any different and you grow up with it being your norm. Other senses you posess become more accute than other people`s, would this be a hinderance ?

There`s also the question of natural selection and messing with nature. To be fair, we`re probably too far into this already so to stop everything we do right now would take 100s of years to put `right` in terms of the natural progression of `man`. So many drugs, artificial dependancies.

I don`t think many people think along the lines that if some couple aren`t able to conceive naturally - there may well be a reason in nature`s plan for it. So should we be assisting just to make them happy ? Saying that, we were doing it to animals for ages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top