Sunspots 158

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
An amazing case of rapid evolution in lizards.

Wired reports that the South Koreans have cloned dogs for drug-sniffing.

Wired also reports that the US Congress has passed a bill prohibiting discrimination because of genetic makeup. The President is expected to sign the bill. (Perhaps already has)

A news source on stem cells , that seems to be kept up-to-date.

Politics:
Slate says that the real problem with all those mortgages was very simple: widespread lying.

Computing:
What CNet calls the 100 top webware applications. These included the Firefox browser, YouTube, and a lot more.

Literature:
From Christianity Today movies: a suggestion that Prince Caspian, the character, has a lot in common with C. S. Lewis, the author.

Christianity:
In Christianity Today, Charles Colson and Anne Morse warn about Christians being too concerned about pets. (They understand that some concern is appropriate, but question the appropriateness of healing services for pets, for one thing.) Say they:
These are signs of Christians weakening their best defense against activists on what constitutes the distinctiveness of humans.

Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 136

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
I have recently found "Quintessence of Dust," a blog by a Christian and a scientist. Two excellent (but long) posts are "They selected teosinte. . .and got corn," and "How to evolve a protein in (about) 8 easy steps."

Wired says that there is growing evidence that we are nearing the end of the oil supply, and that alternatives aren't sufficient, so far, at least.

Nature News reports on why small mammals, such as chipmunks, seem reluctant to cross roads.

Nature News also reports on advances in stem cell research, including an apparent important breakthrough, namely the production of human cells that are like embryonic stem cells by reprogramming adult human skin cells. This may (and may not) mean that there is no longer a research reason for taking stem cells from human embryos. The article indicates some of the questions about this technique, including the possibility that these reprogrammed cells might cause cancer.

Christianity:
In Christianity Today: "Answering the Atheists: A Reader's Digest version of why I am a Christian."

This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.

Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.

Image source (public domain)

Kant, Mill and brain damage

A recent article by Slate's "Human Nature" columnist discusses (and broadens) findings from a research article in Nature. (Most of Nature is not available freely over the web, although members of university constituencies should have access to it. It is the most important science periodical published in the United Kingdom, and, arguably, in English. The abstract of the article is available.)

William Saletan, the columnist, also discusses an earlier research article by a different group, but on a similar topic, which is freely available.

Both of these research studies involved measurement of neuron responses when the human subjects were presented with ethical dilemmas.

As the second article says, there is a long-standing debate in philosophy/ethics between advocates of consequentialism (way too simply, the end justifies the means -- utilitarianism is closely related to consequentialism) and deontologists (who argue that some things are right regardless of the consequences) or, as the article also puts it, Immanuel Kant versus John Stuart Mill.

To illustrate these two theories of right and wrong, some people argue that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, at least so long as any human embryos are destroyed to make it possible, regardless of the possible benefits. This is a deontological argument. Others argue that the possible benefits are so good that they outweigh the destruction of human embryos. This is a consequentialist argument. President Bush attempted to satisfy both sides, by authorizing federal funding of embryonic stem cell lines already in existence on August 9, 2001, but prohibiting the use of such funding for development of additional lines. This, of course, has not stopped calls for more such lines. When he made this important speech, I expected some significant condemnation of the President for allowing the lines already in existence to be used, but have seen no such.

The second article says that ". . . we speculate that the controversy surrounding utilitarian moral philosophy reflects an underlying tension between competing subsystems in the brain." (p. 389) They also conclude by saying that "We emphasize that this cognitive account of the Kant versus Mill problem in ethics is speculative." (p. 398)

Saletan says that the authors of the first study say that humans are not wired in a way that makes strict utilitarian thinking possible. He makes a bold statement: "In other words, brain science has discredited religion and philosophy . . ." Oh? We are wired for a lot of things, most of which we don't understand, but moral people, religious or not, can override their wiring, whatever it may be, and make moral choices, based on what they perceive as standards of absolute right and wrong (such as the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments) or on the supposed consequences of their actions (some people, of course, claim that Christians act and believe as they do in an attempt to evade eternal punishment, a most serious consequence).

The fundamental ethical standard of Christianity, the so-called Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12, it seems to me, is not exactly consequentialist or deontological, but requires thinking of both types.

Thanks for reading.

Successes in the use of embryonic stem cells

As far as I am aware, there have been no successful treatments of a human medical condition with human embryonic stem cells so far. This is not surprising, given the complexity of nucleated human cells, and the recent discovery of embryonic stem cells (1998). Some advocates of human embryonic stem cell research have made some exaggerated claims, or at least claims that, so far, can not be backed up with clinical results, about the benefits of using such cells. Some opponents of human embryonic stem cell research have done the opposite, and would have us believe that there is no potential for medical good possible from these cells that can't be obtained in other ways. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

This post does not deal with the ethical, moral, and legal issues involved in research on human embryonic stem cells, except to say that such issues exist, and are important enough that some people have argued that no such research should ever be done.

There have been some treatments of conditions in rats, using human embryonic stem cells. ("Human" is not a typo in the previous sentence.)

One of these is reported here. Rats with Parkinson's disease-like symptoms were treated with cells derived from human embryonic stem cells, and showed considerable improvement. However, they also developed tumors. Clearly, whatever the ethics of using such cells, this treatment isn't ready to be used in humans at this point.

Another study is reported here. Rats with spinal cord injuries were treated with cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. A group which was treated within a week after the injury showed improvement. A group of rats which was treated ten months after the injury did not.

It is possible that other successes have been reported, and, most likely, other successes will be, perhaps successes in humans, not just with human embryonic stem cells.

See here for a post on a technique that may bypass most or all of the ethical issues involved.

See here for an editorial in First Things on the subject. (Summary: no human successes yet.)

Thanks for reading.

Stem cells without embryo destruction?

A news report suggests that cells derived from amniotic fluid (which surrounds an embryo or fetus, but is not part of it) may have as much potential as embryonic stem cells.

If this holds up (and the report indicates that this is a pretty thorough study) it might mean that the destruction of human embryos for the production of embryonic stem cells is not necessary.

This report includes some experimental use of the technique in producing tissue for replacement in patients, apparently with positive results. One scientist (I'm not clear as to whether he was part of the research team, or commenting on the work) said that he thought research on embryonic stem cells should be continued.

I haven't seen the original scientific report of this research.

Note added Jan 11, 2007: I have posted on the question of the success of research in the use of human embryonic stem cells.

Moral Stem Cells

An editorial in the May issue of First Things argues that there is a possibility of producing embryonic stem cells without producing (or, hence, destroying) any human embryos, using a technique known as Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (ANT-OAR). The technique, if it can be made to work, would involve transferring the nucleus of a cell from an adult human into an altered unfertilized egg cell which had had its nucleus removed. Additional tinkering would ensure that the biochemistry of the host cytoplasm would not turn the nucleus into a totipotent cell (that is, one that could develop into an embryo, as happens in cloning) but into a pluripotent cell (that is, an embryonic stem cell).

The author, a theologian, argues that this would not be equivalent to murder. (Some people, of course, believe that use of fertilized eggs would not necessarily be equivalent to murder, but ANT-OAR is an attempt to satisfy even the many who believe that it would be.)

Writes the author:
An entity is a human embryo only if the organic material is able to be human—if, in the language of Aristotle, it is apt to receive a substantial human form. Not every collection of organic material, even material that includes an oocyte and a diploid nucleus, can be a human being. We know this because we know that teratomas (naturally occurring tumors)—together with hydatidiform moles (disorganized entities that occur in humans and other animals as a result of certain types of defects in fertilization) and even oocytes themselves—are not human embryos, yet they all have as their starting material an oocyte and a diploid nucleus. [links added]

As I understand it, one of the bills recently passed unanimously by the U. S. Senate could authorize support for research of this type.

Thanks for reading!

Ethical ways (?) to produce embryonic stem cells

I have already posted for the day, but this was too hot to pass up, and, besides, the main link may expire. That link is to an article in NewScientist, on two ways that might by-pass objections to embryonic stem cell research, but still use embryonic stem cells. Both original research articles were published in Nature, which is not freely available. Nature has published a commentary on this research, which is available.

The first method is simply to take one of the cells of an eight-celled embryo and use it, but let the remaining, now seven-celled, embryo be implanted and develop. The article says that, when tried in mice, the birth rate of pups from seven-celled embryos was the same as for eight-celled ones. If the same is true of humans, this means that a cell from an early embryo could be harvested, then used to produce embryonic stem cells, but that that early embryo could still be implanted and develop. See the first link above for a brief discussion of research in humans.

The second method is one I have previously reported on, known as ANT. At least some conservative Roman Catholics are not troubled by this possibility (see previous post and comments to it).

Probably the most interesting part of the article in NewScientist is this quote from Arthur Caplan: ". . . this terminology undermines the moral stance of scientists pursuing the other techniques,” says Arthur Caplan of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “If you hint that it might solve the moral dispute, you’re providing ammunition for opponents, so it’s essential to back the original stance . . ." In other words, Caplan, perhaps the most prominent U. S. bioethicist, seems more concerned with "sticking to his guns" than with a possible way to satisfy ethical concerns.

This post will make up for a coming travel hiatus.

If it works, it should satisfy stem cell opponents

As is well known, lots of people are strongly opposed to embryonic stem cell research, so strongly that they are not persuaded by the possibility of benefits from this research. Lots of other people think it holds great promise, and that it should be pursued, regardless of the ethical concerns of the first group. (To many from the second group, not exploring possible medical benefits is a serious ethical concern.)

How do we solve this ethical (and political) dilemma? Perhaps we can't satisfy both groups. But, perhaps we can.

In First Things, Maureen Condic writes about "Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (or ANT-OAR)," and gives some explanation of this proposed technique. If it works, it would work by using "epigenetic reprogramming to convert an adult cell into an embryonic stem cell." An unfertilized human egg (oocyte) would also be used, in addition to an adult cell, in the process. The cytoplasm (material outside the nucleus) of such an egg can "turn off" the programming of an adult cell. Epigenetic reprogramming has already been done, with the assistance of oocytes, in the cloning of mammals.

At no time during this procedure, as proposed, would there ever be a human embryo, or any entity that would be capable of developing into a baby. No human embryos would be harvested. What would be needed would be unfertilized eggs and adult cells.

Should this procedure work, it might be possible to do what therapeutic cloning is supposed to do, namely produce stem cells with the power of embryonic stem cells, and derived from, and with the characteristics of, a particular adult. One such characteristic is tissue type. If an embryonic stem cell derived from me were to be used, in me, to cure, say, Parkinson's disease, my immune system would not be expected to reject such cells.

Some experiments need to be done to test the feasibility of this procedure.

Condic cites a statement, published in "Ethics and Medics," a publication of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, making this proposal. (The same issue of the publication has an interpretation of what the Pope said concerning the Schiavo case.)

Perhaps I'm a little cynical, but I wonder if some of our politicians (and others, including well-known evangelical figures, TV stars, etc.) would really accept this procedure, if it works. I fear that there would be fears of losing influence and donations (on both sides), and refusal to bury the hatchet. I hope this works, and that the embryonic stem cell political battles end in a friendly truce. I hope one side accepts this procedure, if it works, and that the other side stops calling for the use of human embryos in stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells without embryos?

An essay, "Eggs alone," in the March 10, 2005 issue of Nature states that normal human females begin their reproductive period with about a million eggs. Ann A. Kiessling, the author, who is at the Harvard Institutes of Medicine, says that the vast majority of these eggs, about 20,000 per year, "die in the ovary." (Volume 434:145--Nature is not freely available on the Internet, but the essay can be obtained here for a fee, and should be available in all university libraries. Nature is among the most important scientific periodicals in English. The original Watson and Crick paper was published there, for instance.)

Some ovarian growths may come from eggs which develop without fertilization. (Such growths occur naturally.) Teratomas, the author says, have some differentiated tissues, indicating that, if they indeed come from unfertilized eggs, such eggs, or the tissue developing from them, might work as if they were human embryonic stem cells. (This article, from eMedicine, indicates that parthenogenesis, or the development of an unfertilized egg, is the most likely cause of such growths, which agrees with Kiessling.) There would be no destruction of human embryos involved in using these as stem cells. As she writes, we would, however, be exchanging "the moral dilemma of using human embryos for obtaining stem cells with the moral dilemma of collecting eggs from the ovaries of women for therapeutic instead of reproductive purposes."

She further writes that, as far as she can see, there would be no moral problems with using such eggs for therapy on the woman who is carrying them, and suggests Type 1 diabetes or spinal-cord injuries as two such applications for therapy from self-derived cells. As she points out, few persons object to storing your own blood for later use in a surgical procedure, and she sees use of egg cells derived from your own body as morally equivalent. It remains to be seen whether this sort of treatment is possible, and would be effective. I would be amazed if there were no moral objections to this, or any other procedure involving human eggs.