It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SCI/TECH: Approval given to create human clone using only female sex cells

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:40 AM
Scientists and Newcastle University have been given permision to create a cloned embryo using two egg cells to attempt to prevent children inheriting a parents genic diseases.
UK scientists have won permission to clone a human embryo that will have genetic material from two mothers.
The Newcastle University team will transfer the nucleus of a human embryo made by one man and woman into an unfertilized egg from another woman.

The groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Not really sure what to think of this, on the one hand it may be the start of a process that could save thousands from crippling diseases. On the other hand it could mark the beggining of the end for men!

On the whole i hope the team succeed because it could end a great deal of suffering.

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Uncle Joe]

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Uncle Joe]

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:49 AM
I'm not sure either.

On the one hand, yes, it can eradicate certain genetic conditions.


Where would that stop?

Does interfering to that degree contravene one of the basic laws of nature?

Are we headed down a slippery slope?

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:27 AM
Tinkleflower, I think we went down that slope long ago.

Once we started creating medicine from man-made chemicals [non-natural] we started are skiing trip and by the looks of it right now we won't ever stop till we fly right off of the edge.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:31 AM
The genie, as they say, is out of the bottle.
But rest assured, with the wisdom and humanity of mankind being so apparent in current events all over our fragile planet, cloning will never be used in a bad way!

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:32 AM
Not so sure about the similarities there...but I think I see your point.

Most medicines aren't directly affecting the genetic cause of disease, or anything even close to that....if it weren't for synthetic medicines, most of us wouldn't be here now. We've a lot to be thankful for from antibiotics alone, you know?

I suppose I do see a vast different between synthetic drugs and cloning embryos.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:41 AM
We survived without the drugs and in fact places like the United Kingdom where these drugs are used the most [America, etc] have a lower life expectency than many other places in the World. Including several third world nations.

Also when I was 15, I was diagnosed with hereditary. I spent 18months on drugs [tons of types] from the doctors and I was only getting worse. For nearly two months I was in hospital. My oldesr sister suggested I looked elsewhere for more alternative natural medication and changing my life style.

This so called genetic/hereditary illness is no more at 19. In fact just through changing my life-style, I have had two colds in about two years. I get the odd bit of food poisoning but that's through my lack of waiting for the food to be done and I have never been better.

The medication I was taking for other things [including muscle related problems] I no longer take and in fact I no longer have the problems.

The policy of one-pill fixes all doesn't work and ATSNN has had reports in the passed by Medi-care groups saying such things and backing up that life-style changes can result in the removal of many of these illness that we claim are hereditary. [Heart disease being another common one.]

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:51 AM
I think that the ability to utilise some form of genetic manipulation to prevent herditary diseases should be allowed in a legal sense. But when it comes to the decision whether or not to actually employ the technology, surely this is an individual decision? I cannot even imagine how a parent must feel when they are told that their child may have a hereditary illness or medical condition. I personally feel that if parents wish to use genetic manipulation technology, then the ethical and moral decisions are theirs and theirs alone.

Of course legislation should be introduced to prevent gross misuse of the technology, but when all is said and done, I am confident that many parents would take advantage of the technology and I think they should be allowed to do so. This type of technology, and other types more advanced which have not yet been discovered, are going to change the way we live and potentially the way we are brought into life. This is unavoidable. But we can at least decide how to best use this technology in an ethical sense and I think that for this particular piece of technology the final decision rests not with governments but with individual parents.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:59 AM

We survived without the drugs and in fact places like the United Kingdom where these drugs are used the most [America, etc] have a lower life expectency than many other places in the World. Including several third world nations.

I'm not sure where you're getting that info.

World life expectancy rates

I don't think any in the top 20 - which would all be considered industrialized, and have high rates of medicinal drug use - would class as being third world

I'm not even going to begin to comment on your personal situation...except to say that as with any personal condition, it's not indicative of the state of medicine at large.

The policy of one-pill fixes all doesn't work and ATSNN has had reports in the passed by Medi-care groups saying such things and backing up that life-style changes can result in the removal of many of these illness that we claim are hereditary. [Heart disease being another common one.]

I don't think any one-pill-fixes-all policy would work. I don't think anyone seriously believes it would work.

I also don't think heart disease is truly classed as hereditary yet, though there are one or two genetic mutations which do indeed signify a much higher rate; but there is a familial tendency which has been shown to exist, over and over again. Having said that, even if both your parents and all your siblings have it though, you can still make lifestyle changes to reduce your chances of succumbing. Hereditary doesn't necessarily mean you will absolutely get the disease.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:41 PM
My mistake, I was sure there were at least two Third World Nation's above us. [Although I though Saint Pierre and Miquelon was borderline third? [Economic strength].]

However, the point still stands about one-pill policy, which is what is used. The pills they make are mass-produced not produced per-person to fix their illness.

Where as places like Sweden, where their health care system incorpurates your diet, exercise, etc, plan into it as well where as in the U.K. you don't. In fact they don't even suggest you go to see a specialised about that here. [Or at least, I've never found anyone that has or the four doctors that treated me never suggested it.]

Switzerland is another example of a Nation which does the above. They both tend to stick clear of drugs, unless they have to be used. This is why places like Sweden have such a quick "turn around" time on patiants and such a good health care system.

In fact if I do remember, Sweden is one of the first to send everyone with depression to speak to someone [specialised] prior to any medication. Where as in the U.K. doctors hand them out, left, right and center.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:46 PM
I feel this is one step closer to human beings ultimate goal - Immortality. Mind you a very small step, but at step none the less.

I welcome this new science with open arms and hope one day we can look back at this a see this right now is the start of a new eara of human beings.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:52 PM
Odium...there's a reason why pills are mass produced like that... cost.

Usually there'll be several different strengths of the same medicine available, and a doctor is free to prescribe a combination to find the right dosage for a particular patient. This happens very, very frequently - the doctor can try out different dosages of the same drug, and usually does so, to find the best fit for the patient. Most of us do respond in predictable ways; this is just one reason why it's not actually a bad idea.

If we expect every pill to be manufactured to order, do you realise the expense this would entail?
It's just not feasible. (not to mention it would present a paradox: how do you know which dosage is correct for your patient, unless you have pre-made dosages to try out first?)

I misunderstood your posts; when you said "one pill fixes all", I thought you were referring to the idea that one drug would fix a selection of diseases in one patient. My bad, sorry.

I was born and raised in the UK; I suffered a breakdown in my early 20s, and was referred to three specialists, none of whom suggested medication as a first option. The same thing happened with an earlier medical condition; both doctors wanted to try the least invasive ways possible before resorting to drug therapy etc.

Obviously, different folk have different experiences; this is why I'm hesitant to generalise like this.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:06 PM
I'll hunt down the reports once I get a chance but recently they have published articles on doctors [over the U.K.] and the fact they are now giving out anti-depresents for anyone with just one symptom of it.

Also earlier on this year, ATSNN had a report made by a company about being able to produce drugs per patient and the report outlined the cost would not be that much higher and from the case studies they have used it would cure the illness quicker. [So in fact, instead of paying $50 for 4months you pay $65 for three. Resulting in a slightly higher cost but in turn it could save so much more. [People that spends decades on medication not doing anything for them.]]

It also made out that with recent genetic understanding, DNA, etc, this is all now possible and much easier. And as we know New Technology is always expensive in the early stages of its life. Eventually [especailly with Government plans for DNA databases, etc.] it could be made to cost less.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:08 PM
By circumventing the human body's natural system of combating illness, isn't cloning taking away from evolution? Creating man-made evolution to stave off genetic defects might be doing more harm than good. Over hundreds of generations we have evolved to combat all sorts of illness, is it possible we could move backwards?

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:24 PM
I don't like this.

What is the purpose of this? I'm all for scientific research, yes, but ETHICAL research. I'm also against eugenics--for one thing, if you were to off anyone who had a defective gene, the earth would be pretty empty.

Not to troll...but I can see the feminists and lesbian couples drooling over this. They won't need a man around.

And we do need men. They're not so bad--I'm married to one!

top topics


log in