[mike777]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nembryo217.xml

UK may ok 99.9% only human embryos and get rid of the "needs a father" rule.


Not sure what the moral point is that does not allow only 99% human embryos but ok's 99.9%. If it can help save lives or further science, why not do it?

If we get rid of the "needs a father" rule, why have a "needs a mother" rule?

[barmar]

I don't see anything in the article that says that 99% would be prohibited. The only distinction the article describes is between cybrids, which are mostly human because the host cell's nuclear DNA has been totally replaced with human DNA, and hybrids, which are 50/50 because they involve inter-species mating of sperm and egg.

[mike777]

barmar, on May 18 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

I don't see anything in the article that says that 99% would be prohibited. The only distinction the article describes is between cybrids, which are mostly human because the host cell's nuclear DNA has been totally replaced with human DNA, and hybrids, which are 50/50 because they involve inter-species mating of sperm and egg.

I agree.

[Gerben42]

It is useful, no strike that, ESSENTIAL research and the huge advantage is that you don't need human eggs with this technique. Everyone who is suggesting to bar this reseach has to explain the whole generation of my father why they have to suffer from Alzheimer and Parkinson in 20 years time.

Quote

If we get rid of the "needs a father" rule, why have a "needs a mother" rule?

Such rules are made to pacify the groups who want to ban all this research and which unfortunately still represents a large number of voters, which is probably why these rules are there.

[Al_U_Card]

WINSTON! Get in here and tell us about the sneaky use of GMO's and how they are conspiring to breed the "conscience" out of man so that they can use us for their evil purposes....

You ever listen to David Icke? When he is not going on about shape-shifting reptilian humanoids, his presentation of current societal trends can be pretty interesting....

[helene_t]

Agree with Gerben (except that I have no clue if this research will actually lead to anything, but that's a different discussion).

I can see some potential problems with xenotransplants (might work as a troyan horses for animal diseases becoming human diseases) and with crossing an animal (probably a chimp) with a human (would the poor child seek playmates among humans or chimps?) but the research described here should not be controversial.

[mike777]

helene_t, on May 19 2007, 02:30 AM, said:

Agree with Gerben (except that I have no clue if this research will actually lead to anything, but that's a different discussion).

I can see some potential problems with xenotransplants (might work as a troyan horses for animal diseases becoming human diseases) and with crossing an animal (probably a chimp) with a human (would the poor child seek playmates among humans or chimps?) but the research described here should not be controversial.

helene,why should any ..repeat any research not be in discussion?
This seems to be a very silly point for anyone to ever make.

Do you understand the word....contrary..or )....versial

if you want to make 99% or90% humans ok....why should that mean anything