UK nod to human cloning for research

[Dreamer128]

Britain has approved for the first time the use of human cloning for medical research.

The announcement from the government's fertilisation authority means scientists from the University of Newcastle now have official permission to clone embryos.

"I can confirm that we have given approval," a spokeswoman from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) told AFP.

It's thought to be the first such licence given in Europe.

Researchers at the University of Newcastle in northern England will be allowed to create embryos as a source of stem cells to cure diseases, a spokeswoman for the university said.

"It has taken a year of work, and I am most pleased that the HFEA has recognised the potential of this technology in modern medicine," Newcastle University's Dr Miodrag Stojkovic said in a statement.

The scientists said they plan to duplicate early-stage embryos and extract stem cells from them with the aim of developing new treatments for degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes.

The embryos will be destroyed before they are 14 days old and will never be allowed to develop beyond a cluster of cells the size of a pinhead.

Cloning to create copies of human babies is outlawed in Britain but therapeutic cloning is legal.

(Source: AlJazeera)

[Timber Loftis]

This, added to the fact that you can abort babies but not kill murderers over there, leaves me pretty befuddled as to what, if any, reasoning is behind the law in England.

Oh -- and I'll wait for a second source before I presume it's true, because I don't trust AlJazeera to look up in the sky and tell me if it's warm and sunny in Iraq.

[Dreamer128]

It's in pretty much every newspaper Timber.
Here's a link to an alternative source; http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/arti...281376,00.html
Not really needed, though. I've never known AlJazeera to provide misinformation on any topic. To me, it's a newssource like any other. You want bias? Check Al Arabia, or perhaps Fox.

[ 08-12-2004, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Timber Loftis]

I've been giving Fox a chance lately. I notice it has more talk shows with a Righty and a Lefty both on the same show than any other network. I watched that show Hannity is on last night and thought it was pretty good -- and NOT because of Hannity. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Anyway, yeah I saw the news story all over the place too. And I stand by my opinion that the practice is unethical. And by my opinion that every Al Jazeera office we can get at should be bombed into oblivion. Al Jazeera is a willing agent for the enemy. Maybe it's no more propoganda than some of our news networks, but those are on our side in the war, so you'll forgive me for not wanting to bomb them into the ground. Propoganda is bad, but I really only care about destroying the other side's propoganda.

[Dreamer128]

Hm.. unfortunately (Or not. Depending on your point of view), you got your wish. Al Jazeera offices have been bombed. Both in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Leading to the deaths of innocent journalists. People who had nothing to do with international terrorism. People with families. What we need to keep in mind is that Al Jazeera is not making propaganda for anyone. In the Middle East, most television stations are under strict state censorship. Al Jazeera, however, is an independent News Station, founded by personel from the BBC. And they've proven to be no friends of the local (in a broad sense of the word) governments. To quote from an MSNBC article;

One day in April 1996, as I headed for my desk in the newsroom at BBC Television Centre, I noticed an odd gathering of journalists in the space beside ours - the newsroom of BBC Arabic Television. There were tear-streaked faces, hugs among staff members and anger as the 250 journalists were told that the network, a BBC partnership with a Saudi company, would be shut down because the Saudis tried to censor a documentary on executions in their puritanical country. It was a devastating defeat for a brave group of journalists.

or as the Guardian wrote (source above); Gowing's argument was that Al-Jazeera's only crime was that it was "bearing witness" to events that the US would rather it did not see. Indeed there is no clear evidence that Al-Jazeera directly supported the Taliban - simply that it enjoyed greater access than other stations. Certainly, Al-Jazeera reflects a certain cultural tradition: but only in the same way that CNN approaches stories from a western perspective.

Gowing demanded that the Pentagon be called to account for the destruction of Al-Jazeera's Kabul office. Journalists now appeared to be "legitimate targets", he said. "It seems to me that a very clear message needs to go out that this must not be allowed to continue."

It has to be stressed that the Pentagon denies the charge. Indeed, few senior news executives were prepared to go on the record and give credence to the theory. But it is not the first time journalists have been deliberately targeted: Serb television was bombed during the Kosovo conflict because it was seen as an agent and advocate of state terrorism.

The situations are somewhat different (although not by much, some would argue). Al-Jazeera is not an agent of a state, and few (except perhaps the US military) would claim that it is an agent of Bin Laden. But the fact that Al-Jazeera has reported in such depth the other side of this conflict is troubling to the authorities. "Al-Jazeera has been providing some material that has been very uncomfortable," Gowing said at News World.

I can't say I blame Americans for disliking Al Jazeera. After all, not like they can actually watch the channel and form their own opinions. But bombing their offices is really a bridge too far IMHO. Sure, Osama Bin Laden has been known to get screen time. But so has the message from George Bush (I've been told they've actually broadcasted some of his speeches - not even our media do that ). These people are just normal journalists who try and give both sides screentime, as dictated by theirCode of Ethics (Read more here).

[ 08-12-2004, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Timber Loftis]

It has to be stressed that the Pentagon denies the charge.

[Dreamer128]

That's not the main issue.

And by my opinion that every Al Jazeera office we can get at should be bombed into oblivion. Al Jazeera is a willing agent for the enemy.

It's not whether they have been bombed but whether they should be bombed. And regardless of what the Pentagon denies, their bombs hit two Al Jazeera offices. That's an amazing coincidence. Especially considering that Al Jazeera had provided them with the exact coordinates of their office.

[ 08-12-2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This, added to the fact that you can abort babies but not kill murderers over there, leaves me pretty befuddled as to what, if any, reasoning is behind the law in England. Oh -- and I'll wait for a second source before I presume it's true, because I don't trust AlJazeera to look up in the sky and tell me if it's warm and sunny in Iraq.

I take it that you are using befuddled as a euphemism for ignorant in this case.

As far as I know the US is the only country in the world that executes murderers.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: The embryos will be destroyed before they are 14 days old and will never be allowed to develop beyond a cluster of cells the size of a pinhead.

I am grieved. Can't believe it.

We can shout all we like about how it's for research for Parkins etc.

I lost my Grandfather to Parkinsons. My other Grandfather had Alzheimers when he died. I am aware of how important finding cures for these are.

Nothing justifies stem cell research though.

Nazi scientists wanted to kill people for advancing medical science. Is that moral? It's a never ending conundrum. Do you sacrifice some NOW for the benefit of others in the future. Lesser of two evils I say. Never destroy a life.

I even take issue with animal experimentation. Rats. Mice. Rabbits. A good friend of mine is a biologist who works on rats and mice to find new medical breakthroughs. Doesn't justify it in my book, though they obviously disagree. Research may be slower without, but then.... ah whatever.

I'm still grieved by the English decision.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This, added to the fact that you can abort babies but not kill murderers over there, leaves me pretty befuddled as to what, if any, reasoning is behind the law in England. Oh -- and I'll wait for a second source before I presume it's true, because I don't trust AlJazeera to look up in the sky and tell me if it's warm and sunny in Iraq.

I take it that you are using befuddled as a euphemism for ignorant in this case.

As far as I know the US is the only country in the world that executes murderers. [/QUOTE]No, I believe China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea also do. Possibly Iran as well. Iraq used to. Nice little coalition of citizen-killers there isn't it?