Nuclear transfer (better known as therapeutic cloning) is one of those issues that the majority of people would automatically skip over unless you were a keen medical science student majoring in stem cells or the likes. We see the word ‘cloning’, freak out by the thought of recreating people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc and move on to the next blog.
And I would probably be the same had my dad not brought it up at the dinner table just about every night for the past fortnight (you see, my dad is one of those keen medical scientists!!)
So to all those art or commerce students who are about to move the mouse to that green button that says ‘BACK’, please resist the urge to skip over this blog and learn what the whole shebang is about, as this is an issue that will affect everyone.
Firstly, therapeutic cloning will not recreate Hitler. It will instead potentially cure some chronic diseases such as diabetes, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries.
Quite simply, it involves taking an unfertilized egg from a woman, removing the nucleus from the egg and replacing it with a nucleus from an affected cell. The new embryonic stem cell is manipulated, and presto, the patient has new cells replacing the disease ridden cells. There has been quite a bit of research on animals to show that it is successful, and the question is whether to allow the procedure to be done on humans.
So, if therapeutic cloning is that great, then why did Mr. Iemma recently reverse the NSW’s pro embryonic stem cell research stance?
It goes back to the title of ‘cloning’. Some people assume that if you give the green light to therapeutic cloning, than you give a green light to reproductive cloning (the one where we can clone humans.) But this is not the case.
The other issue that some people have is that the use of an egg for anything but reproducing humans is considered a waste of a potential life. This is a valid opinion, but then again, you could consequently be saving lives that already exist by using an egg that would never be used for reproduction anyway.
Countries like Singapore, Israel, USA, Japan and England support therapeutic cloning. Australia federally does not.
For those of you considering a career in medical research, remember it can be painfully slow, bureaucratic and make you want to bang your head against a brick wall. But the rewards may just well be worth the battle!
Comments
Hello Keren,
Nice little piece there. Props.
What does your dad do?
BK
Posted by: Black Knight | August 14, 2006 09:27 AM
For the ignorant among us (i.e. me), have there been any negative side effects amognst the animals that have had theraputic cloning?
Posted by: Ghassan | August 14, 2006 12:28 PM
There have been 2 studies done on mice in 2002 and 2003 - one with parkinsons disease and the other with immune deficiency. Both showed positive effects and no negative effects.
So it's looking good for the animal kingdom!
Posted by: Keren | August 14, 2006 02:06 PM
Great choice in topic. I can only imagine how frustratingly bureaucratic your dad must feel about all the red-tape around the issue.
i recently met a person involved in therapeutic cloning in the US, and as you said, yes, they do support therapeutic cloning, but only in a very round-about way, GWBush allocated a certain portion of the budget towards the cause, but specified (pedantically so) that the money may only be used towards research using the resources that were available at the time the bill was proposed. Consequently, in the decade that has come to pass, research has been performed on only a very small range of samples, and the equipment being used by the public research labs is painfully medicore by today's standards.
And this is where the red-tape makes the issue so ludicrous... the guy was describing to me how his lab is partially funded by the govt, but also conducts its own private research through pfizer, but they are not permitted to use any of the new machines/technologies towards the limited field of research stipulated by the govt, and they are that anal about it that they have govt officials come in and label public and private equipment separately such that only equipment with a red dot sticker may only be used on projects with a congressional stamp.
It sounds as though the US supports the cause, but the reality is a very different matter. so much more could get done faster and so much more efficiently if conceptually, everyone understood the same issue!
My heart goes out to your dad and his colleagues
Posted by: Rahil | August 17, 2006 03:46 PM
Well it looks like former Health Minister Kay Patterson is going to present a Private Member's Bill lifting the ban on stem cell research. Howard's allowing a conscience vote on the matter.
So you might get to see this research happen after all.
Posted by: Ghassan | August 18, 2006 12:42 AM
How about that.. a 34-32 vote passing the bill allowing researchers to clone embryos to extract stem cells. I can't wait to hear what everyone's response is.. it's going to be an interesting week! That'll only be relived when it goes to the house of rep.s. I'm gonna lounge on a bean bag with some pop-corn!
I like the way Kay Patterson's amended bill included the following: "cloned embryos would have to be destroyed within 14 days and could not be implanted in a woman"... i wonder if this is because they thought that if God was perhaps angered by the matter, He would only become angry after 14 days had gone past (that is, if He got angry). The senators must have a copy of God's protocol manual!!!
Interesting to note that Sen. Barnaby Joyce voted against the bill. After identifying himself as the link between the underdog's common-sense and politics in the last few years.i wonder if there's something we are yet to find out...hmmmm
Posted by: Rahil | November 7, 2006 10:09 PM