Help me understand this (medical question)

[Atreyu]

In an online comment to a letter to the editor of The Australian (one of Australia’s biggest newspapers), someone wrote:

Where did this confusion between human tissue and human beings come from? We discard human tissues all the time, including reproductive cells and somatic nuclei. A somatic nucleus in an anucleate ovum is not a human being. And currently, there is no evidence that it can become one.

Can someone please help me understand what all of these terms mean, and how they relate to IVF and therapeutic cloning?

Cheers.

 

[DailyBread]

In an online comment to a letter to the editor of The Australian (one of Australia’s biggest newspapers), someone wrote:

Can someone please help me understand what all of these terms mean, and how they relate to IVF and therapeutic cloning?

Cheers.

The person is trying to say there is a distinction between regular human tissues (there are four types) and a full human being, a completely unique individual. A human cell although containing all the DNA of the individual (except for a few like red blood cells), does not have the capacity to develop on its own as an individual because it is limited to expressing only part of the DNA and cannot differentiate into any other cell type.
In the case of taking DNA from a somatic (a human cell other than a gamete) cell into an anucleated ovum (the nucleus with the 23 maternal chromosomes from mom are not present), it is possible in theory for that to be an individual because it would now have the full compliment of 46 chromosomes and the proteins present in the egg to lead to differentiation and growth into an indiividual human. It would be essentially like making a younger twin of you.
It is true science has not gotten a clone to develop fully (atleast to our knowledge), but this sadly will be only a matter of time. Even if a human clone hs not successfully survived the first days of life (embryological life), it still appears to have the capacity and its only a matter of time when a clone will survive all nine months of gestation. hence, we cannot really say its not an individual human because the cells although having the same DNA as our tissue cells, it has the capacity to use its DNA to develop into a full grown human. My stem cells that make blood cannot be placed into a womb and develop into a full human. That is how a clone and somatic tissue are different.

 

[JimG]

I guess the question is this: If the nucleus of an ovum is removed, and replaced with a somatic cell, will that new cell now begin to divide and grow in the same manner as a fertilized egg?

If so, then I would consider them to be equivalent–being new individuals of the human species.

 

[RyanL]

Where did this confusion between human tissue and human beings come from?

It came from idiotic secular humanists who have no moral (or common) sense whatsoever.

We discard human tissues all the time, including reproductive cells and somatic nuclei.

This is misleading. We discard reproductive cells, like gametes (individual sperm and individual eggs) all the time. We do not discard embryos “all the time”, unless you live in California.

An embryo is a living human. It is genetically distinct, has a metabolic rate, is self-directed in growth, and given time and nutrition the embryo will tell you so him/herself. It’s a human in the embryonic stage, and it will soon be a human in the infant stage.

A somatic nucleus in an anucleate ovum is not a human being. And currently, there is no evidence that it can become one.

This is junk-science, technically speaking. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Cloning) produces human embryos, which if given time/nutrition/proper culturing will continue to grow and divide until the cloned human will discuss the matter with you. Anyone who tells you that a cloned embryo is not a human embryo either (1) doesn’t know what they’re talking about, scientifically speaking, or (2) is lying to you. Don’t be deceived.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Atreyu]

This is junk-science, technically speaking. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Cloning) produces human embryos, which if given time/nutrition/proper culturing will continue to grow and divide until the cloned human will discuss the matter with you. Anyone who tells you that a cloned embryo is not a human embryo either (1) doesn’t know what they’re talking about, scientifically speaking, or (2) is lying to you. Don’t be deceived.

I wonder if the following is a good way to refute this line of thinking:
I imagine a future - let’s say 100 years from now - where science has advanced in such a way that women are no longer absolutely necessary for the propagation of the species. Instead, a child can be fully raised - from conception to birth - inside a laboratory. Let’s say that one particular child that is “born” in this way was “conceived” by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Surely it is conceivable that science would be able to achieve this feat the way it is progressing today. So who would say that this child is any different than a child born the “normal” way? Therefore, it is irrelevant how an embryo comes into being; an embryo is an embryo is an embryo. It doesn’t matter if an embryo has been conceived in the old-fashioned way or in a test tube in a lab: it’s still an embryo. Even if it is made using SCNT, it is still an embryo like any other.

Does that make sense? Thanks for all of your responses, people!

 

[Dale_M]

It makes sense to me! (finally)

I appreciate the explanations, DailyBread and RyanL