S
Obama nominates Dr. Francis Collins to head NIH [Evolution and Faith]
- Status
C
chewchoo
Guest
wow, hooray!
P
punkforchrist
Guest
This is great news. Dr. Collins is a class act and a very engaging communicator. Thanks for sharing!
C
chewchoo
Guest
i just heard today that Dr. collins is for embryonic stem cell research. is this true?
P
punkforchrist
Guest
Apparently, Collins uses what he calls somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which an embryo is created artifically and not from the union of a sperm and an egg. I’m not sure exactly how this works, though, or if there is even a significant difference.
R
rossum
Guest
Wikipedia is your friend: Somatic cell nuclear transfer.
The process does not involve sperm. An unfertilised egg has its nucleus removed and replaced with a nucleus taken from a non-reproductive (somatic) cell. The resulting cell has the full complement of genes and can be triggered to start dividing.
rossum
S
seductus_sum
Guest
So it’s a person… or not… maybe…? I don’t even know anymore.
R
rossum
Guest
That depends on your definition of person. We already know that a single conception does not always result in a single person: identical twins are two people from a single conception, while a chimera is a single person from two conceptions.
I suspect that this is one for the theologians and the scientists to work out between themselves.
rossum
D
David_Luis
Guest
Thanks for your data, interesting.
I think that it is very important: a harmony of science and faith.
May God bless you.
I think that it is very important: a harmony of science and faith.
May God bless you.
W
Wesley7
Guest
Errm. You are not supposed to artificially inseminate any embryo ~ the emybro is supposed to be conceived naturally at conception.
A
Arandur
Guest
“Somatic cell nuclear transfer” is the scientific definition of cloning. We must treat the result of an embryo implanted with a human nucleus as any other fertilized embryo, because essentially the nuclear transfer accomplishes “fertilization” in that it provides a complete set of DNA that is fertile, results in embryonic development. Also, IIRC, the original embryo is whole and is killed, with its fertilized nucleus ripped out and replaced with the foreign nucleus to produce the clone.
I don’t have a reference for you, but the Church views cloning as gravely immoral and a serious offense against human dignity, and typically involves murder of a human being in its earliest stages of life.
So it would be very disconcerting if Dr. Collins were in favor of this process. Even most non-Catholics recognize the immorality and dangers of cloning.
It is encouraging that Dr. Collins at least attempts to promote the compatibility of faith and science and dispel the modern misconception that they are at odds. Let’s hope he also defends Life.
I don’t have a reference for you, but the Church views cloning as gravely immoral and a serious offense against human dignity, and typically involves murder of a human being in its earliest stages of life.
So it would be very disconcerting if Dr. Collins were in favor of this process. Even most non-Catholics recognize the immorality and dangers of cloning.
It is encouraging that Dr. Collins at least attempts to promote the compatibility of faith and science and dispel the modern misconception that they are at odds. Let’s hope he also defends Life.
R
rossum
Guest
Not quite a complete set of DNA. Nuclear DNA comes from the donor nucleus, but the Mitochondrial DNA is that of the denucleated egg cell.
This is incorrect. An unfertilised egg is used, not a fertilised one. The removed nucleus only has half the required DNA as it has not been fertilised. The donor nucleus comes from a somatic cell and will have the full complement of nuclear DNA from the original act of fertilisation that resulted in the organism from which the donor cell was taken.
An unfertilised egg is not a human being, it does not even have all of the DNA needed to make a human being. AIUI the human soul is only present from fertilisation onwards so an unfertilised egg will not have a human soul either.
I have no moral problem with SCNT for theraputic cloning. Reproductive cloning is a much trickier question.
Much of your argument seems to rely on the mistaken belief that a fertilised egg, rather than an unfertilised one, is used in SCNT. Given this, I see less of a problem than you seem to.
rossum
O
Orogeny
Guest
Why? If the technique can, at least theoretically, produce a viable fetus that will result in a baby, why is it ok to destroy the embryo for theraputic reasons? How is that different than using an embryo produced by natural means (fertilization)?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
To a Buddhist all living things are to be respected, but it is recognised that it is sometimes neccessary to kill living things for food, medical purposes etc. As a rule of thumb the smaller the living thing the less bad it is to kill it. Also the more pressing the requirement the less bad the killing; a starving man is allowed more leeway than a well fed man. The action is still bad, but the shade of grey depends on the circumstances.
Obviously in this case, food is not the issue but medical purposes are. I can see that medical purposes can justify killing a very small living thing to help cure a much larger living thing.
I might also question the use of the word “killing”. All the individual cells continue to live in the new host body. How can there be a “killing” if all of the cells present at the start continue to live at the end of the procedure? What living thing has been killed?
In moral terms it is not. I do not have a big problem with that either, provided the purpose is sufficient. However on medical grounds a naturally fertilised embryo is unlikely to be as close a match for the recipient’s tissues as a SCNT generated cell would be. Hence the range of situations in which using a natural embryo in justified is probably going to be smaller.
My point about the definition of “killing” applies here also; the individual cells continue to live.
rossum
O
Orogeny
Guest
Which I would suppose is the position of those who justify embryonic stem cell research. I reject that completely because that very small living thing is a human being just as I reject going to a homeless shelter or a daycare or a factory to look for candidates to donate hearts to those who need transplants. The ends in this case don’t justify the means.
If the embryos are used for stem cell research, how are they not killed?
Would you be comfortable with the idea of cloning a person using this method, implanting the embryo, allowing it to come to full term, grow to be a child of sufficient size and then removing its heart so that it could be transplanted to the cloned person?
Peace
Tim
C
Chiral
Guest
As a side note, I find the “rule of thumb” amusing (in a despicable sense) for reasons which are probably obvious (size of a child vs adult, size of an elephant vs human, etc.)
Main point, SCNT or cloning creates a new individual being - transplanting that full set of nuclear DNA does effectively “fertilize” the egg such that it can develop into a more recognizable creature, in the case of human SCNT that creature is an adult human being (if developmental complications don’t cause its destruction beforehand). This is unfortunate for supporters of human SCNT because it makes them murderers, especially since research always involves a lot of trial&error, plus (in this case) histological analysis among other assays which necessarily involve the destruction of large numbers of such artificially generated beings. As for implantation of SCNT-cells into a separate host, you must understand that a) the two individuals’ cells are still separately discernible, and b) when implanting these cells into a host, remember that the donor cells came from an original host who is now deceased as an individual, thus “killing” even when the constituent parts survive. Sorry, but therapeutic human-SCNT is actually more violent and inhumane (namely murderous) than reproductive SCNT in which an individual might be allowed to develop to adulthood. Note, both are quite evil and involve the wanton destruction of individual human-beings… but hell, ends-justifies-the-means, right, life-lover?
A
Arandur
Guest
There’s another dimension to all this (beyond murder) that the Church teaches clearly on. That is the dignity of human life.
“Creating” humans in laboratory conditions is demeaning enough to human life, treating it as a commodity, simply another material object with no value whatsoever other than to be bought or sold, possessed by another or manipulated. This (and the high incidence of death of embryos, as well as the abuse of the dignity of women, treating them as mere body parts–an egg factory, a host womb) is why IVF is immoral and why the Church speaks out against it.
Therapeutic SCNT is even worse, building human embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting them for organic parts. It is essentially equivalent to us force-breeding slaves, producing children for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs.
Don’t think this dignity of human life thing is just an aesthetic concept, either. The Church’s opposition to contraception also recognizes the dignity of human life, and with extreme, unquestionable accuracy predicted the moral evils that befell our societies with the permissiveness of contraception–increased: commoditization of children, sexual promiscuity, infidelity, child abuse, abortion, lack of respect for human life in general, materialism, broken marriages and homes, selfishness. It all stems from encouraging the belief in society that human life has little or no dignity, that life is not a gift, but just an object, and so any concept of a moral dimension to humanity is deeply undermined.
“Creating” humans in laboratory conditions is demeaning enough to human life, treating it as a commodity, simply another material object with no value whatsoever other than to be bought or sold, possessed by another or manipulated. This (and the high incidence of death of embryos, as well as the abuse of the dignity of women, treating them as mere body parts–an egg factory, a host womb) is why IVF is immoral and why the Church speaks out against it.
Therapeutic SCNT is even worse, building human embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting them for organic parts. It is essentially equivalent to us force-breeding slaves, producing children for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs.
Don’t think this dignity of human life thing is just an aesthetic concept, either. The Church’s opposition to contraception also recognizes the dignity of human life, and with extreme, unquestionable accuracy predicted the moral evils that befell our societies with the permissiveness of contraception–increased: commoditization of children, sexual promiscuity, infidelity, child abuse, abortion, lack of respect for human life in general, materialism, broken marriages and homes, selfishness. It all stems from encouraging the belief in society that human life has little or no dignity, that life is not a gift, but just an object, and so any concept of a moral dimension to humanity is deeply undermined.
A
antunesaa
Guest
As a scientist myself, I welcome this nomination by President Obama. I read Francis Collins’ book The Language of God and I found it most interesting, although not totally original. He makes a vigorous defense of Darwinian evolution and its compatibility with a Christian view of the world. This is a position I also have.
A
antunesaa
Guest
When he wrote his book the language of God he was against, and I think he still is.
- Status