Sunspots 950

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to others*

Environment: A Conversation writer discusses making forests less susceptible to fires.

Health: (Or something) Gizmodo reports that the US is running low on laxatives, probably, in part, because of TikTok influencers. Really.

TheScientist discusses chronic itch -- lasting for months, maybe years.

NPR reports on populations that live for a long time, and why.

A Conversation article tells us why fevers are (usually) good for us.

Science: Gizmodo reports that some Italian scientists say that they have produced a human embryo, from stem cells, not from a normal fertilized egg. They say that this is an ethical procedure. No doubt there will be questions about that.

TheScientist reports on a study that describes what makes mouse hairs turn gray with age.

ScienceAlert reports that elephants may name each other with sound patterns.

*I try not to include items that require a password or fee to view

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 599

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

Christianity: Relevant says that the U. S. is not now, or soon won't be, a Christian nation, and suggests how to react to this.

Relevant also has a post on reasons why we don't actually have a quiet time, even though we know we should.

Listverse gives us 10 common misconceptions about the separation of church and state.

From the National Association of Evangelicals, brief statements on "Biotechnology and Bioethics," "Sanctity of Life," and "Bioethics and Stem Cell Research." (These are not new, one going back to 2005, but they seem to be current."

Billy Graham turned 98 a few days ago. Christianity Today (which Graham founded) looks back over his life, which was characterized by "chastity, integrity, sincerity, ambition, humility, and, above all, hope."


Humor: (or something) The BBC reports on giant natural snowballs in Siberia.


Politics: The Presidential election is supposed to be over by now. But the New York Times examines the effectiveness, or not, of fact-checking.

Science: A graphic, showing all of the rivers, and their tributaries, in the 48 US states.

Scientific American reports that one-celled organisms that act like both plants and animals are much more important to ocean life than we had known.

Scientific American also reports on the reason why first-born children make more money than later children.






Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 578

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


Christianity: An articulate former atheist describes her process of coming to belief, in Christianity Today.

Ken Schenck on what the Bible says about bearing false witness.

The Environment: National Public Radio reports on a study of light pollution. 80% of North Americans can't see the Milky Way, because of so much light at night. We can't see it from our home. Can you?

Finance: Relevant and other sources report that HBO's John Oliver purchased (he says it's easy to do it) $15,000,000 "worth" of medical debt for about $60,000, and forgave all the debtors.

Health: The New York Times reports that the US is about 25th in the world in infant care.

Politics: Sojourners reports that Russell Moore, an important Southern Baptist, believes that Donald Trump is a lost soul, who should repent.

A woman writes, in Christianity Today, about being refused the use of women's restrooms, and other facilities.

Science: National Public Radio reports on our relationship with dogs. We may have domesticated dogs twice, or perhaps they domesticated us twice.

Listverse describes 10 groups of organisms that have been extinct for a long time. Like Trilobites, and lesser known creatures.

Science News reports that it may be possible to produce fully pluripotent stem cells from adult cells, thus making the use of embryonic cells unnecessary.

Sports: USA Today says that the first 14 LPGA golf tournaments of 2016 were won by young women -- under 23, until a week or so ago. The most recent one, a major tournament, which finished on June 13, was won by the youngest player ever to win a that major, in a playoff with another player who would also have been the youngest. Both are still teenagers.


Image source (public domain)  

Sunspots 468

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


Christianity: We are less religious than we used to be, and National Public Radio reports on a study that says that the Internet is partly to blame.

Computing: Gizmo's Freeware recommends SeriesGuide, an Android app that gives information about upcoming TV shows, and more.

USA Today reports that cheerful posts on Facebook affect others positively, and the effect is unexpectedly large.

Are you storing your files in the cloud? Be careful out there, says NPR.

Wired on how the stock market is rigged in favor of traders with lots of resources, and access to superfast information feeds, and on what one man is doing about this.

Health: Studying the genetics of the whooping cough (pertussis) germ has led to an understanding of how it became a dangerous disease, according to a report by National Public Radio.

Humor: (or something -- this is real) Wired reports on 21st century California gold miners, who are doing things the old-fashioned way.

Science: Wired reports on the Absurd Creature of the Week, in this case an axolotl, which can re-grow limbs, and never outgrows its larval gills. We may learn how we can regenerate lost body parts by studying these animals.

New Scientist reports that pregnant mice with damaged hearts (artificially damaged) may be helped to recover with the help of fetal-derived stem cells. Interesting.


Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 418

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

Christianity: Christianity Today has published a graphic, with accompanying text, on "The Sex Lives of Unmarried Evangelicals." Conclusion: Evangelicals are not having sex outside of marriage as often as some people have said that they are.

Computing: (and maybe politics) It is now possible to make a handgun with a 3-D printer, according to National Public Radio and the BBC.
 
Science: National Public Radio on some of the structures of the tongues of animals, especially bats, and how those tongues are used.
NPR reports on recent research which created cloned human embryos, for the purpose of producing embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes. This is in the earliest stages -- no therapeutic treatments have been attempted yet. The NPR article indicates the obvious, namely that there are lots of serious ethical questions raised by this research.




Note: If anyone cares, I have published this part of my blog on Wednesdays, without fail, for years. The previous Wednesday, and surrounding days, were unusually busy. So I'm publishing on Friday.

Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 287

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

Science: Science News reports that scientists have discovered some unique proteins in the immune systems of people who have been infected with the HIV virus for years, but not developed the disease. They don't yet know the mechanism of this immunity.

A blog entitled The New Creationism has posted "The top five challenges for creationist geology."

A Canadian team of scientists have apparently transformed adult skin cells into blood cells. This has tremendous potential in medicine, and by-passes any objections against using embryonic cells in research.

Politics: I didn't know the official name of the state commonly referred to as Rhode Island until the recent election, when voters rejected an attempt to change the name.

Christianity: Ken Schenck wonders, among other things, why US churches (many of them) have national flags prominently displayed.


Image source (public domain)

Sunspots 238

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

Science:
A list of 96 examples, it is said, of bad design, with discussion of each. This web page was written to show that Intelligent Design isn't very, well, intelligent.

Reuters (and others) report that the Obama administration has approved 13 new human stem cell lines for research. There have been ethical safeguards. Some people, of course, think that no research on human embryo cells should be allowed at all.

I found a link to a new blog, Todd's Blog, which deals with origins from a young-earth creationism viewpoint. Unlike all too many such authors, Todd Wood, apparently a Ph.D. in biology, teaching at Bryan College, does not claim that scientific findings rule out views of origins other than young-earth creationism, because he knows that they don't. He sets forth his reason for being a young-earth creationist, which reason is his understanding of scripture. I disagree with him, as many other Christians do, because we believe that scientific data are also part of God's revelation to man, and that they cannot be ignored, and we believe that the Bible can be interpreted differently, without doing violence to the meaning that God intended. But it is refreshing to read an author with his honesty and his qualifications. Unfortunately, his blog does not allow comments.

Sports:
A study on graduation success rates of football players at schools involved in end-of-year bowl games. There are 14 colleges out of the 38 shown, where white football players have a graduation rate 20% or more higher than the African-American players from the same school. There are some schools where there is little difference, including a few where the whites don't graduate quite as often as the blacks, but that doesn't excuse the shameful overall trend. Texas, which will be playing for the national championship, has a black football player graduation rate of 37%, but the white rate is 69%.

Computing:
Wired tells us how to test our Internet connection speed.

Christianity:
Jan has some holiday survival tips for singles.


Image source (public domain)

Stem cells and Lou Gehrig's disease

On July 2nd, CBS Evening News reported on what they say is a ground-breaking new technique, aimed at treating Lou Gehrig's disease, or Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. According to the report, it is possible to take skin cells from a patient, modify them genetically so that they become like, perhaps even identical to, embryonic stem cells, which, then, can be turned into motor neurons.

If this is true, and repeatable -- the mainstream media occasionally reports on "breakthroughs" in science that turned out to be neither -- it is remarkable, not only for the potential for treating this disease, but, probably, treating other diseases. It is also remarkable in that, as I listened to the report, and read it, I didn't see any indication that any human embryos were used in the process. Opponents of using embryos occasionally have reported that adult stem cells were as useful as embryonic ones, and that may be true, but doesn't seem to have been demonstrated yet. The research reported here seems to be a case of a non-opponent reporting a potentially important use for stem cells derived from embryos. That would be splendid.

Thanks for reading.

Falling Free, by Lois McMaster Bujold

I recently read Falling Free, by Lois McMaster Bujold. The book, published in 1988 (Riverdale, NY: Baen) is part of the Vorkosigan saga. Miles Vorkosigan, the main character in that series, does not appear until about two centuries after the events in this book.

I last posted on this saga here. The saga is space opera, an often superficial type of fiction, but Bujold works in important ethical and moral issues. At least one character in the saga is a Christian.

In Falling Free (Riverdale, NY: Baen, 1988), Bujold explains the origin of the quaddies, intelligent, capable humans with four arms, two of them replacing their legs, and some less obvious differences from normal humans, deliberately bred by GalacTech, so as to work in low or zero gravity. The plan is to use them as temporary labor, with GalacTech getting the pay for their work. (There are a few quaddie characters in subsequent books.) Leo Graf, an engineer, is sent to the Habitat, where they live, and discovers that they are not paid in any way (although they do have a place to stay, and food), that they are taught a distorted view of history, and that they are considered the property of the company that developed them, at least by the company. They are also told who to breed with, as parts of a breeding program, and who to breed with may be different for each child. Their babies may be taken from them, to be raised by normal human cartakers. All this is in the interest of quickly establishing a large breeding population.

There are characters in the book who believe that the production of the quaddies in the first place is a moral monstrosity. Graf, and some others, believe that their subsequent treatment is the moral monstrosity.

There is a sudden development -- scientists from Beta, a scientifically advanced civilization, have produced a new gravity-making device, which makes the quaddies obsolete. GalacTech decides to move the quaddies to a gravity world, and let them fend for themselves, or just kill them all.

Van Atta stopped abruptly, and backed up two screens on his vid. What had that said again?
Item: Post-fetal experimental tissue cultures. Quantity: 1000. Disposition: cremation by IGS Standard Biolab Rules. (293) Thus, some faceless person in GalacTech's General Accounting & Inventory Control has declared the quaddies, who are sentient, intelligent, moral agents, and biologically human, no more than "tissue cultures."

Graf decides to lead a quaddie escape to an asteroid belt. He has a little help from a man who has been doctor to the quaddies for many years, and a jump pilot helps them escape, because they are giving him the jump ship that they have taken. But the initiative is Graf's:

"This isn't crime. This is -- war, or something. Crime is turning your back and walking away."
"Not by any legal code I know of."
"All right then; sin."
"Oh, brother." Ti rolled his eyes. "Now it comes out. You're on a mission from God, right? Let me off at the next stop, please."
God's not here. Somebody's got to fill in. (161.) Leo thinks the last line, and he has, indeed, filled in for God, righting a monstrous wrong. Ti is going to be the pilot. Graf, like some other Bujold characters, is acting for a deity, doing God's work. He doesn't realize it, though.

The quaddies, since they have been oppressed, feel morally superior. This is a mistake, as one of them finds out. Silver felt that she had to use a weapon on an uncooperative jump pilot, or the quaddie escape wouldn't succeed. (She didn't kill him.) Her thoughts:
Was this the pleasure in power Van Atta felt, when everyone gave way before him? It was obvious what firing the weapon had done to the defiant pilot; what had it done to her? . . . So. Quaddies were no different than downsiders after all. Any evil they could do, quaddies could do too. If they chose. (199)

Bujold writes good books, well-written, and exciting, and she puts in moral and ethical, even sometimes religious questions.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 203

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

Humor:
The Onion reports that a man cannot quote properly from The Princess Bride. Horrors!

Science:
Slate warns us to be careful about claims of fiber content in food.

William Saletan, who does not believe embryos are morally equivalent to children, is disturbed by the prospect of using embryos in research. He is even more disturbed by the prospect of harvesting fetuses .

Politics:
Christianity Today on what John Calvin would have thought of former Vice President Cheney's views of the Presidency and the rule of law. (Or, presumably, what he would have thought about what Nixon said, in the trailers from the recent movie.)

Image source (public domain)

Stem Cells, again

Yesterday, March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order that would expand federally-funded embryonic stem cell research in the United States. (Michigan, Missouri, and California had already passed laws allowing state funding of this kind.)

President Bush had allowed such research, but only on a limited number of stem cell lines, that were already in existence when he signed his Executive Order, in 2001. Additional stem cell lines now in existence seem to include some that would be superior for this type of research.

Executive Orders are binding on the Federal Government, but may be overturned by a succeeding Executive Order, by the same, or a different president. Such an order normally does not try to undo acts by Congress. Acts of Congress can only be overturned by the Supreme Court, declaring that a law is unconstitutional, or by a subsequent Act by Congress.

Two recent articles, written for non-scientists and non-lawyers, are an introduction to stem cells, in Newsday, and a discussion of the likely effects of President Obama's action, in the Los Angeles Times. I'm guessing that neither of these articles will be available for more than a few weeks, as is typically true of newspaper articles, on any subject. The Wikipedia article on the subject is here.

There are those who object to the use of embryonic stem cells, because they believe that an early embryo is the moral equivalent of a baby, or an adult human being. Most people who oppose abortion also oppose stem cell research, for much the same reasons. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is one person who opposes abortion, but favors embryonic stem cell research. He believes that the potential benefits of human embryonic stem cell research make support for such research a pro-life issue.

The new Executive Order does not allow creation of a new embryonic stem cell line from an embryo, using Federal research money. That is prohibited by law. President Obama says that he opposes human cloning, the production of a human being by taking DNA from an existing person, and inserting such DNA into an embryonic cell, after removing the DNA from that cell. (We are not certain if human cloning, all the way to birth, is even possible.) That is also prohibited by law.

The new Order does make it possible to do research on many embryonic stem cell lines that weren't available when President Bush signed his Executive Order in 2001.

We allow the production of embryos, for in vitro fertilization, in the US. (Not everyone believes that we should allow this.) A great many such embryos are never used for this purpose, and are either discarded, or frozen. Many people believe that, since these embryos are never going to be implanted, and allowed to develop, that there is nothing immoral in using them in research that will potentially help others. Many other people believe that using such embryos is immoral, and equivalent to murder. The Bible does not speak directly to this issue, although there are many people who are convinced that the Bible makes embryos the moral equivalent of adults. (There are a few other Bible-believing Christians who are not so convinced*, or who believe that use of embryos that are not going to be implanted is a moral act.) The Catholic Church, as a whole, is opposed to abortion, and to embryonic stem cell research, as I understand it.
*Exodus 21 may support the idea that an embryo is not morally equivalent to a baby, or an adult, but that interpretation is controversial. See footnote to verse 22.

There are persons who believe that research should be conducted on no humans but adults not under coercion, who can give informed consent to the use of their body in research, and that even medical research on children, unless it is designed to help a condition that a particular child has, and that could lead to treatment that could help that child, is immoral. These thinkers are not necessarily against abortion. Such persons would be against any research on human embryos, unless designed to help that particular embryo. Not everyone agrees.

Thanks for reading.

Stem Cell breakthrough - iPS cells from adult skin cells

Wired reports that Science will publish an article on a breakthrough in stem cell research.

iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells can be made from adult mouse cells, using viruses to insert genes that are characteristic of embryonic cells. The breakthrough is that the virus carriers do not persist, which would be a serious potential danger.

Here is an abstract of the forthcoming paper, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science web site.

Science is the most important scientific journal published in the US. All of the authors of the article are affiliated with Harvard. These facts, and the fact that this research builds on previous cutting-edge research by scientists at prominent institutions, should put to rest any complaints that stem cell research is ignoring the possibility of using cells which do not come from embryos. Stem cell researchers have been exploring that possibility, but, understandably, research with embryo-derived cells is further along.

Note that it is possible that this technique won't work in human cells, for some reason.

Thanks for reading.

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.