• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm

Laila

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm from human stem cells | Mail Online

In a world first, British scientists have grown human sperm in the laboratory.

The breakthrough in stem cell science offers a potential cure for male infertility and could be used in IVF clinics in as little as five years.

It would allow thousands of men to father children that are genetically their own, possibly from just a sliver of their skin.

But the cutting-edge work is fraught with medical and ethical problems.
Click to expand...

MICHAEL HANLON: Are we on the brink of a society without any need for men? | Mail Online

For the first time, the possibility of 'parthenogenesis' - or 'virgin reproduction' - has come within scientific reach.

Put at its crudest, we now face the possibility of a world where women do not need men to make babies - with all of the immense moral, ethical and philosophical questions that raises.
Click to expand...

Good news or bad?
Are we going too far across that line?
As the law stands right now, creating any form of life or fertility treatment through cloning or atificial sperm is illegal and will stay that way, it will need a primary legislation to change it but seeing women can have IVF. Shouldn't men also be able to eventually get access to the same treatment? Infertility of men has been slowly increasing.

I think the law should be amended if needed for the scientists to research and more power given to the independent body to regulate and enforce the rules.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm from human ste

OxymoronP said:
Well Feminists and Lesbians will be thrilled I suppose.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for them.
But those against this have been out in force on BBC and SKY saying we are going down a no go zone and playing God
 
Re: Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm from human ste

Laila said:
I can't speak for them.
But those against this have been out in force on BBC and SKY saying we are going down a no go zone and playing God
Click to expand...

Well this could also lead to the extinction of man, or at least the enslavement of man.

*Starts to pack bags*

Been a nice ride while it lasted.
 
Re: Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm from human ste

OxymoronP said:
Well this could also lead to the extinction of man, or at least the enslavement of man.

*Starts to pack bags*

Been a nice ride while it lasted.
Click to expand...

Relax, men will always be needed
Men will not go extinct calm down and i doubt there will ever be a society where men do not play a key role in it
 
I can see how this would look diffferent to somebody who sees a fertilized egg as a human being.

In my system of ethics, it's more a matter of them not letting an embryo created with this artificial sperm get into the realm of consciousness unless they are sure the risk of genetic defects is not significantly higher than natural reproduction. I am sure they could do both of those things eventually, but not yet. The other ethical concerns were pretty much invalid, IMO.
 
As a scientist I am thrilled about these breakthroughs. As a person, I am worried how far we as humans are willing to go in the name of science. Such knowledge requires giant responsibility. Can we prevent tyrants from cloning themselves or governments from growing "super-soldiers." What about the effects from such work on people's psyche? There are numerous ethical questions to this work. However, if it is maintained and used for medical good, then science has performed it's job. We are racing forward at the speed of light in our gaining of scientific knowledge, I only hope we do not crash and fragment into nothingness.
 
tlmorg02 said:
As a scientist I am thrilled about these breakthroughs.
Click to expand...

What kind of scientist?

As a person, I am worried how far we as humans are willing to go in the name of science. Such knowledge requires giant responsibility.
Click to expand...

How far is too far?

Can we prevent tyrants from cloning themselves or governments from growing "super-soldiers."
Click to expand...

No not really. The only point of a tyrant cloning himself would be either to have a "son," or to have a source of organs. On the source of organs part, it would probably be just as viable, and obviously more ethical, just to make autograft organs.

I don't get people who question whether clones would be given rights or not. People aren't given rights based upon having unique DNA that they own, but rather by the fact that they are beings. A more serious question is whether unforseen defects will be present.

And I'd be less concerned about supersoldiers than nukes, quite frankly.
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited said:
What kind of scientist?
Click to expand...

A microbiologist. I work as a peptide chemist currently.


How far is too far?
Click to expand...

Where you begin to devalue life based on furthering technology.



No not really. The only point of a tyrant cloning himself would be either to have a "son," or to have a source of organs. On the source of organs part, it would probably be just as viable, and obviously more ethical, just to make autograft organs.
Click to expand...

This would not work either really, as the clone would have the same genetic predisposition to disease as the clonee.

EDIT: Also, due to the shortening of the poly-A tail of the m-RNA, the clones age very rapidly, thus the organs would reach failure point quickly.

I don't get people who question whether clones would be given rights or not. People aren't given rights based upon having unique DNA that they own, but rather by the fact that they are beings. A more serious question is whether unforseen defects will be present.
Click to expand...

Most likely defects would occur. Usually in the transcription phase of the DNA. Of course gene splicing and using recombinant DNA techniques could resolve these issues.

The super-soldier part would be a misinvestment, unless there were otherwise equal technology involved and that parity could not be overcome in an easier way (unlikely), of which nobody is even close to America. Though it would be no more unethical than enslaving young childern to fight genocidal wars in Africa, so it wouldn't make a big difference in how terrible the world is.
Click to expand...

This idea can be debunked also, all that would be required would be to use a biological weapon or someother disease that the soldier would be vulnerable to. As the weakness of one is the same for all.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Woohoo!!! To all you men out there:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaG2Acg8n60"]YouTube - Steam - na na hey hey kiss him goodbye[/ame]

:2razz:
 
tlmorg02 said:
A microbiologist. I work as a peptide chemist currently.
Click to expand...

That's good. I believe in technocracy, so I would value your opinion more assuming that's true, though obviously I can't verify it.

You don't work for the medical school, do you? If so, tell them they have too many essays on their secondary. :2razz:

Where you begin to devalue life based on furthering technology.
Click to expand...

We don't, nor should we, value "life." We should value beings.

This would not work either really, as the clone would have the same genetic predisposition to disease as the clonee.
Click to expand...

If the problem is a genetic defect then you would "simply" have to repair the DNA, perhaps with viral delivery. If that isn't possible, you can repair it in a new pluripotent cell, and grow the organ. I know we can't do these things effectively yet, but I'm not sure why it would be impossible.

Most likely defects would occur. Usually in the transcription phase of the DNA. Of course gene splicing and using recombinant DNA techniques could resolve these issues.
Click to expand...

My point is defects are the main reason it's unethical to take a clone to full development right now. Once technology overcomes that issue, cloning per se would no longer be unethical.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
You don't work for the medical school, do you? If so, tell them they have too many essays on their secondary. :2razz:
Click to expand...

No, I work for Peptides International curently. But I have worked for various laboratories at the University of Louisville.:)



We don't, nor should we, value "life." We should value beings.
Click to expand...

I do not see a difference, unless you are refering to what would give credence to stem-cell research and abortion. I view these as outside of what I was referring to.


If the problem is a genetic defect then you would "simply" have to repair the DNA, perhaps with viral delivery. If that isn't possible, you can repair it in a new pluripotent cell, and grow the organ. I know we can't do these things effectively yet, but I'm not sure why it would be impossible.
Click to expand...

Manipulation of genome tends to create new mutations, as one has no idea how simple gene deletion or insertion will effect phenotype, or environmental sensitivity.


My point is defects are the main reason it's unethical to take a clone to full development right now. Once technology overcomes that issue, cloning per se would no longer be unethical.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this to a point. Though, one would be removing the human element from procreation, and turning life into an industry.
 
Laila said:
Ethical storm flares as British scientists create artificial sperm from human stem cells | Mail Online



MICHAEL HANLON: Are we on the brink of a society without any need for men? | Mail Online



Good news or bad?
Are we going too far across that line?
As the law stands right now, creating any form of life or fertility treatment through cloning or atificial sperm is illegal and will stay that way, it will need a primary legislation to change it but seeing women can have IVF. Shouldn't men also be able to eventually get access to the same treatment? Infertility of men has been slowly increasing.

I think the law should be amended if needed for the scientists to research and more power given to the independent body to regulate and enforce the rules.
Click to expand...

My problem with this is that we are allowing inferior genetics to continue to exist.

A man who uses science to father children, because he can't naturally, will most likely produce male children that will have problems fathering children naturally.

I don't agree with things like that.
 
It's ridiculous to even doubt this as a risk to mankind.(Yes, mankind, not womankind. :2razz:)
 
tlmorg02 said:
I do not see a difference, unless you are refering to what would give credence to stem-cell research and abortion. I view these as outside of what I was referring to.
Click to expand...

This issue draws upon the same battleground, as experiments would require the destruction of embryos, which pro-lifers believe deserve protection.

The difference is that their criteria of "human life" is simply being a living organism with human DNA. Well sure the cells and tissues are alive, but until they work together in such a way that the brain can experience something, there is no being and nothing deserving of protection. My only prima facie assumption here is that ethics requires the minimization of suffering, so if no suffering is even potentially inflicted there is no ethical dilema. Thus destroying embryos would never be unethical, and not using them for research that could help actual human beings is unethical.

Manipulation of genome tends to create new mutations, as one has no idea how simple gene deletion or insertion will effect phenotype, or environmental sensitivity.
Click to expand...

But again that would be a technical problem with the sheer complexity of our genetic code, that if/when overcome, would neutralize the moral problem.

I can agree with this to a point. Though, one would be removing the human element from procreation, and turning life into an industry.
Click to expand...

Fertility clinics already did that, for better or worse.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
My sperm are mounting a protest as we speak. They feel this marginalizes them.
Click to expand...
Soon we would hear about billions of sperm protesters being shot to death by the Chinese/Iranian authorities.
 
Apocalypse said:
Soon we would hear about billions of sperm protesters being shot to death by the Chinese/Iranian authorities.
Click to expand...

OH CRAP! I better get to work making sure they are no longer inside of me when that happens.

www. free porn pic .com here I come!


(pun intended)
 
LiveUninhibited said:
This issue draws upon the same battleground, as experiments would require the destruction of embryos, which pro-lifers believe deserve protection.

The difference is that their criteria of "human life" is simply being a living organism with human DNA. Well sure the cells and tissues are alive, but until they work together in such a way that the brain can experience something, there is no being and nothing deserving of protection. My only prima facie assumption here is that ethics requires the minimization of suffering, so if no suffering is even potentially inflicted there is no ethical dilema. Thus destroying embryos would never be unethical, and not using them for research that could help actual human beings is unethical.



But again that would be a technical problem with the sheer complexity of our genetic code, that if/when overcome, would neutralize the moral problem.



Fertility clinics already did that, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

I agree with just about everything here except the highlighted portion. The problem with science and especially genomics, is that it may take several years to realize there is a problem. For example, Parkison's generally does not show symptoms until a person is well-up in age. If we believe we have fixed all the problems and a mutation occurs that is not instantly expressed, then these engineered people will have married, reproduced and spread the new mutation/disorder into the wider population, making it infinitely harder to control and eliminate. That is why I argue it is something that may very well never neutralized or resolved.
 
The issue I see is that the basic science and the technology are too immature, too poorly understood for it to be ethical to be experimenting on humans at this stage.

When the issues of premature aging, birth defects, disease susceptibility, etc etc are resolved via experimentation with the appropriate animals, then and only then would it be ethical to move to experimentation with human volunteers....and the experimenting labs would have be carefully monitored because living experiments that "fail" are still humans, and that lab is responsible for the lifetime care and support of their mistakes when they begin playing with human development.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The issue I see is that the basic science and the technology are too immature, too poorly understood for it to be ethical to be experimenting on humans at this stage.

When the issues of premature aging, birth defects, disease susceptibility, etc etc are resolved via experimentation with the appropriate animals, then and only then would it be ethical to move to experimentation with human volunteers....and the experimenting labs would have be carefully monitored because living experiments that "fail" are still humans, and that lab is responsible for the lifetime care and support of their mistakes when they begin playing with human development.
Click to expand...

I think that's a great point.

Playing with science just because you can and not analyzing the long term impact of the results is a poor way to innovate.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think that's a great point.

Playing with science just because you can and not analyzing the long term impact of the results is a poor way to innovate.
Click to expand...

The god damned geeks are hunting Nobel Prizes and they don't care who they hurt to get them. Scientists are some of the most vicious people in the world.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The god damned geeks are hunting Nobel Prizes and they don't care who they hurt to get them. Scientists are some of the most vicious people in the world.
Click to expand...

I think that may be going a little extreme, but it is true that there are some that are only looking for something to market, so that they may recieve funding and recognition. But, as far as vicious, I have not met many I would describe that way. The problem is that many get fixated on the empirical questions, and do not give enough thought to the ethical implications. In fact many come to regret that to which they give life. Robert Oppenheimer is a great example. After overseeing the creation of the U.S.'s atomic bomb and witnessing the consequences, he worked the rest of his life to lobby the government to abandon the weapon.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The god damned geeks are hunting Nobel Prizes and they don't care who they hurt to get them. Scientists are some of the most vicious people in the world.
Click to expand...

I'm a science geek myself but your going to find a lot of problems with our current researchers because of federal funding grants and the like that can give money to any pie in the sky retard with an idea.

Ethics is science is important but as tlmorg has said, that kind of thinking is waning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom