Genetics: Cloning, Gene splicing, all that stuff--Need Help Defending Faith in School!

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Aloysius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St_Aloysius

Guest
Hi!

We’re doing genetics in science right now. (Eighth grade.) I LOVE biology. I’m a proud Catholic (theistic) evolutionist and devour works on the subject. Good stuff. (I came from an overbearingly conservative school and am glad to find a more general openness at this one.)

Anyway, back on topic:

In class, we’re going to be having discussions Monday about the ethical nature of subjects such as cloning, gene splicing, etc.

What does the Church teach about animal cloning for its practical purposes and why? Human cloning? (This one’s easier, I know.)

What about gene splicing? (Putting a certain human gene in goats, for instance, so that their milk is more beneficial to curing common human ailments?) Why?

What about growing human skin in order to replace that lost in a severe burn? Why?

What exactly IS stem cell research (I know vaguely) and what can I do to to defend the Church’s position besides, “The end doesn’t justify the means”?

Thanks!

Peace
 
What up? :confused:

I did a little bit of research on this when we had to decide what our position was on cloning last year in Bio. (I don’t know a lot, but I’ll try!)

The Church doesn’t have any teaching on the issue of non-human cloning. I suppose it could be considered alright, but outside of theology, cloning does pose a threat to biodiversity, and so it would be dangerous for agriculturists to clone their own flocks and crops for their own financial advancement. It would, obviously, prevent natural selection, and so bacteria and viruses would learn how to attack their immune systems quickly and it would make lots of them die. 😦

Also, since most cloning attempts cause the death of an animal (and sometimes after a few years of living with “birth” defects.) That could definitely be considered cruelty to animals.

The Church considers human cloning “a grave matter,” and, clearly, is opposed to it.

The philosophical question of whether or not clones have souls would also arise, being that their existences weren’t brought about the normal way. One would assume that God would give them souls, but the possibility of soul-less humans certainly is frightening. This, of course, would lead to extreme discrimination against clones.

The above point, interestingly enough, is one that is raised in Frankenstein. Does this being, created out of pre-existing bodies, even have a soul? Perhaps you should raise this point. The story of Frankenstein was meant as a warning to society about meddling with human creation. It is God’s job, not ours.

People might also be inclined to think of clones as less than human and might even go so far as to “harvest” their living bodies in order to provide for the person they were cloned for. (ex. - Amputating a clone’s arm so that the original person could have one.)

It is also worth mentioning the social devastation that the clone would feel. Wouldn’t he just be living always in the shadow of his “original self”? How would he even justify himself as a different person? How could he ever have a sense of individuality? There are just too many ethical issues that simply can’t be answered, and so it would be morally irresponsible to engage in human cloning, whatever the purpose.

Gene splicing… ummmm… 🤷 Maybe there would be some unseen consequences? :confused: No idea.

Regrowing skin seems OK, I mean it’s only a part of a whole, but I don’t really know. Sorry!

Stem cell research is the study of human cells that have not differentiated yet; that is, cells that have not “decided” whether or not they are going to be liver cells, skin cells, heart cells, bone cells, etc… Such cells are found in a human embryo, especially at the beginning of his/her development. The zygote is a stem cell, and so are all the cells that it divides into up to something around 32 or something. Scientists think it is beneficial to study these because they might be able to put them in people who need to regrow new organs. The studying of these stem cells almost always results in the death of the embryo.😦

Stem cells are also present in adult human beings, and can be taken and studied without causing harm to the person.

Here’s the kicker: Stem cells from human embryos that have been applied to attempt to treat people have resulted in zero successes. Stem cells from adults that have been applied to attempt to treat people have resulted in at least nine successes.

Scientist think they might make some significant progress with embryonic stem cells in the future, but is it really worth the mass genocide of these innocent human beings? Of course not. It is embryological fact that they are alive (Heck, the very notion of studying them is because they’re alive!).

Sorry my post was so long and dumb. Hope I helped! 😛
 
Hi. I just wanted to recommend a great site to you. www.ncbcenter.org is the National Catholic Bioethics Center. A priest there, Fr. Tad, has a PhD in neurosciences, & is like a genius in bioethics & explaining the Church’s teachings on these new technologies.

The Church is against embryonic stem cell research because a human embryo is killed in order to extract its stem cells. An embryo, a tiny new human life, is already a boy or girl. It has an inner cell mass, & scientists suction the stem cells out from the inner cell mass. This kills the embryo.

The Church is all for non-embryonic stem cell research which does not kill embryos. This is the use of stem cells from amniotic fluid or adult stem cells from places like bone marrow. Some will say that these non-embryonic stem cells aren’t as good, but they are the ones that are leading to all the treatments!

The website talks about cloning. Basically, scientists can make new embryos by taking the DNA & cell contents from a skin cell from someone (say, Eli Manning) & infusing that in a human egg that has been “emptied out”. As the fertized egg develops, it grows into an embryo, a new life. If allowed to develop in a womb, a baby would be born that would be an identical twin to Eli. It would not be another Eli, just his identical twin years younger. If they repeated this process with enough eggs, you could have 50 people that were Eli’s twin… Reproductive cloning is cloning in which the embryo is allowed to grow until it is born. Therapeutic cloning is the exact same thing, except they HAVE TO kill the embryo before it is 2 weeks old. Most laws require the embryo has to be killed by 2 weeks because most people abhor the idea of allowing the cloned embryos to develop & having 50 Eli’s, etc. The idea of creating the embryos to kill them at 2 weeks poses no problem to them. No one has been very successful at this yet, but very close. They want to make lots of embryos through cloning, take out their stem cells, which kills them. This is embryo harvesting. Creating life just to strip mine the embryos for their stem cells. Both forms of cloning are essentially the same & gravely evil in the eyes of the Church. Takes God out of the creation of human life, humans become a product, a commodity that is killed, etc…

I don’t know about gene splicing. I think skin grafts, like other tissue transplants is fine in the eyes of the Church as long as the donor does not die as a result. If you are talking about growing part synthetic/part human skin that is not from a traditional skin graft, I think that’s fine. Check out the site, though!
 
Just off the top of my head on gene splicing, I’m sure it would be permissable if it was done for theraputic reasons as opposed to just something to improve something that isn’t lacking. It would be important that it doesn’t harm anyone, or is cruel to any animal. It would also be important to take a heavy consideration on to what ill-effects it could produce. That would play an even larger role as one moves from a very isolated population to one that can spread throughout an entire wild population. That matter would in general would just be one of prudence. Like I said just off the top of my head, correct it if there is anything wrong.
 
From an evolutionary standpoint, Cloning species is stupid because it’s anti evolutionary and anti-adaptation. Sexual reproduction is always superior to asexual reproduction since it’s always about biodiversity. asexual reproduction of humans or animals for that matter has no place in higher organisms. People who want to clone humans want to do so for egotistical reasons. There really is no biological need for it. Especially as much as people like to complain about over population. the only way I can see people justifying it is like in Neon Genesis Evangelion where the charascter Rei had hundres of clones of herself where they would rip organs and spare parts when she got injured. Kind of like in that movie “The Island”. But then, we don’t need to clone full humans for that. Only organs which is perectly okay.
 
You might want to take a look at **Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life **by William E. May (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2000) It has a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.
 
Cloning and gene splitting are not creating life. This kind of work has been going on for hundreds of years. One of the earliest pioneers in hybridization was a catholic monk. Gene spitting, etc., is just an extension of hybridization. We’re trying to improve our environment and agriculture. Roanoker
 
I find it interesting that scientists are no longer using stem cells from embryos anymore because 9 out of 10 times it causes tumors. They have no idea why this happens. Now they are forced to look elsewhere, and they have been using stem cells found in your nose with good results.

My mother told me this after a doctor on that particular field was on Coast to Coast AM
 
I have no idea what Coast to Coast AM is, but I have never seen where embyonic stem cells result in cancer 90% of the time. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel real comfortable with embryonic stem cell research, but if this is true, surely we would have heard about it before. Was this a doctor of medicine? Or some huckster like “Dr. Phil”… I’d really like to know more about this… Roanoker
 
roanoker said:
I have no idea what Coast to Coast AM is, but I have never seen where embyonic stem cells result in cancer 90% of the time. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel real comfortable with embryonic stem cell research, but if this is true, surely we would have heard about it before. Was this a doctor of medicine? Or some huckster like “Dr. Phil”… I’d really like to know more about this… Roanoker
Click to expand...
Roanoker, the problem with an embryonic stem cell is scientists don’t know enough to understand how to engineer it or “guide” it.

We can set it loose and make it grow to some extent, but we have no ability to form it to our desires.
 
roanoker said:
I have no idea what Coast to Coast AM is, but I have never seen where embyonic stem cells result in cancer 90% of the time. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel real comfortable with embryonic stem cell research, but if this is true, surely we would have heard about it before. Was this a doctor of medicine? Or some huckster like “Dr. Phil”… I’d really like to know more about this… Roanoker
Click to expand...
Um, no, ESCs pretty much always cause, other than in I think one test where they found a way to stop it, what are called teratomas.

Which is Greek for “Monster Tumors”.:eek:
 
Matthias123 said:
I find it interesting that scientists are no longer using stem cells from embryos anymore because 9 out of 10 times it causes tumors. They have no idea why this happens. Now they are forced to look elsewhere, and they have been using stem cells found in your nose with good results.

My mother told me this after a doctor on that particular field was on Coast to Coast AM
Click to expand...
It’s because embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated, When unifferentiated cells multiply without the proper end trigger found in adult cells, they just become a mass ie tumors. Cells in your body are supposed to have an ending sequence in their programming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top