Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 10th May 2008 Change Date

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Cloning expert calls on MPs to back hybrid embryos work



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 March 2008
A LEADING stem-cell researcher yesterday joined calls for MPs to support potentially life-saving work using animal-human hybrid embryos.
Sir Ian Wilmut, who led the team which created the clone Dolly the sheep, said he respected the views of religious figures such as Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, who has condemned the use of animal-human emb
ryos in research.

But he said such embryos were nothing more than a tiny bundle of cells and, as such, were far from being a living human.

Sir Ian also said some of the discussion around the work had described it "very badly" and incorrectly suggested human and animal DNA would be mixed.

His comments came after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, agreed to give Labour MPs a free vote on the most controversial sections of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, including that covering hybrid research.

Sir Ian, director of the Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh, had, at one stage, considered applying for a licence to conduct hybrid embryo research. But his team is now exploring other ways of creating stem cells to study serious conditions such as motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis.

Despite this, Sir Ian said that scientists should have the opportunity to use hybrid embryos for research on inherited diseases, and called on MPs to back the Bill.

He added: "I respect completely (Cardinal O'Brien's] right to a difference of opinion and I understand he finds these suggestions deeply offensive.

"But to me, the key thing about humans is our consciousness and our ability to communicate and so on.

"The human embryos people are working with are smaller than a grain of sand. You need a microscope to see them. They are weeks from the stage where there would be a nervous system and the ability to be aware.

"To me, and I suspect the majority of people in 21st century Britain, a human being is someone who is aware.

The fundamental thing is that (the hybrid embryo] is not a human being."

However, a spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Church said: "At one point, we were all just a small bundle of cells.

"At that stage, while not recognisably human, these cells are still human life."

HARVESTING STEM CELLS
SCIENTISTS say hybrid embryos are needed to tackle a major shortage of human eggs to create stem cells for research.

They point out that in hybrid embryos, genetic material is removed from animal eggs and replaced with human DNA, making them 99.9 per cent human.

However, pro-life campaigners and the Catholic Church have condemned such research.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Catholics, said the experiments were of "Frankenstein proportion".

Despite this, two teams of scientists – in London and Newcastle – have already been awarded special licences to conduct hybrid research.

It is hoped that a ready supply of stem cells will speed up new treatments for serious diseases.





The full article contains 502 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2008 10:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 00:28:07
Gosh its funny how names come back to haunt us,
My ex used to work beside, Sir Ian Wilmut, but at that time he was known as, Dr Ian Wilmut.

He has done some amazing work though, to which, while driving back home, with my ex from her work, I got all the, 'Goss' on the pioneering work that Ian Wilmut, was researching, it was very interesting.

So I do have respect for the Man.

This Topic is very complex though, one to which, on the..
'Face-of-it'
I would dissagree, then on deeper thought, may see the sense of the research.

What can one say,?

Listen to the arguments, with an open mind, and let your 'moral values' decide,?

Or stay confused,?
2

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 27/03/2008 01:23:35
If we stay confused we wil never progress. Let's move on with it!!!!
3

An Beal Bacht,

27/03/2008 05:02:26
In The Sunday Herald Dr. Minger writes:

"There are cow versions of proteins and some mitochondria (which provide the cells with energy), but as the cell lines expand over time, those proteins will be exclusively replaced with human proteins and the mitochondria will become predominantly human."

Cai-Xia Yang et. al., in: Quantitative analysis of mitochondrial DNAs in macaque embryos reprogrammed by rabbit oocytes, write:

"Quantification using a real-time PCR method showed that both macaque and rabbit mtDNAs coexist in NT embryos at all preimplantation stages, with maternal mtDNA being dominant. Single NT embryos at the 1-cell stage immediately after fusion contained 2.6 x 104 copies of macaque mtDNA and 1.3 x 106 copies of rabbit mtDNA. Copy numbers of both mtDNA species did not change significantly from the 1-cell to the morula stages. In the single blastocyst, however, the number of rabbit mtDNA increased dramatically while macaque mtDNA decreased. The ratio of nuclear donor mtDNA to oocyte mtDNA dropped sharply from 2% at the 1-cell stage to 0.011% at the blastocyst stage."

Well - which is correct?
4

PaulineG,

Surrey 27/03/2008 08:57:48
As Professor Jones pointed out in the letters column yesterday, the mixed species work described above, morally problematic as it is, is not the only type of mixed species work permitted under the Bill. It also permits the creation of true hybrids by mixing human and animal gametes.

That no scientists are apparently currently interested in doing this type of work is beside the point. The Bill sanctions it so it is, surely, only a matter of time before some scientist will seek to do it. The persistent silence on this aspect of the Bill is inexplicable.

The issue of mitochondrial DNA is real and pertinent. But it is bizarre that the debate centres on this as though the merits of the Bill's mixed species proposals hinged on it.

When destructive embryo research was first sanctioned under regulation in 1990 it was on the clear understanding that it would only be permitted if there was no alternative means of achieving the same end. This was in recognition of the very real ethical concerns held by so many. Those concerns remain and the breakthroughs by Professor Yamanaka and others have pointed the way to ethical alternatives. It is understandable that those who regard the early embryo as "just a bunch of cells" should condone all avenues of research, however speculative. But that is not the commitment on which the law was established and that commitment must not be forgotten.

And it is this propensity to forget commitment once the breach of principle has become established in law and practice that leads the assurances of "tight regulation" under this Bill to ring hollow in the ears of many.
5

Boy Wonder,

27/03/2008 09:00:09
Oh, just ignore the superstitious religionists and let's get on with it!

They'll all be thankful enough when it's their relatives are cured from their various illnesses and conditions from the fruits of stem-cell research!
6

Himself,

Aberdeenshire 27/03/2008 09:17:59
Can we rely on the opinions of Ian Wilmut after his loss of credability admitting he was not involved with Dolly. See MartinFrost.ws (Blog) Wilmut:Charlatan not Genius
7

Karl Green,

Celtic fringe 27/03/2008 12:43:16
1984.

Here is a an earlier report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/08/ndolly08.xml

I think that wilmut has forgotten what he said.
8

John82,

London 27/03/2008 19:21:06
Well apparently there are some things.

Here are some arguments highlighting the pros and cons of such an activity. Detailing the spiritual needs of such creations and preserves these living organisms rights and dignity.
While arguing the importance of the research to better the lives of already-existing human beings.

http://debateclub.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2036563%3ATopic%3A241
9

claire,

28/03/2008 18:06:55
I am sure HMG have cross-species hybrids within their ranks already - think about it...........
10

David Scharl,

Central Europe 30/03/2008 09:26:53
Daily Telegraph science editor states Keith Campbell brains behind Dolly the sheep.

From: Roger Highfield
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Subject: wilmut


Dear Vladimir,
The one thing I know after more than two decades in science reporting is that newspaper and web reports are not a very reliable source of information. If you read the literature, or even After Dolly, coauthored by myself and Wilmut, you would see that Willadsen is giving due credit along with Campbell and many others, though note that the Roslin team was the first to clone a sheep from an adult cell, not Willadsen. Half the problem was caused by Wilmut being the head of a big team and labelled by the media in the year of her birth as the "father of Dolly" without making clear that around 20 people were involved at the Roslin, Campbell was the brains behind the feat, and that much great work had been done before by many teams around the world in the decades running up to the birth of Dolly. Willadsen was an important player but only one of many. Why do you feel a need to point this out now? All the best, Roger


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.