Well, two interesting stem cell articles today - be interesting to see which one garners more support.

To this one, I can only say, refer to Cannold's piece. The idea of women as 'raw material' does women a disservice and implies they are incapable of exercising choice.

By the same logic, all male sperm donors are 'raw material' clearly unable to make a rational choice. Blood donors, organ donors, bone marrow donors... all these people. Are they merely 'raw material?' should their right to give 'raw material' be stripped?

In a free society, people should always have the right to make their own choices, provided it harms no one else, and does not have a negative impact upon society.

Well said TurnRightThenLeft. I think you sum up the issue nicely.

The vote should be put to Women in an Australian referendum.

It should be this outcome, to make the decision whether medical science and mankind should be privileged to take this next step in an idea for curing disease.

Instead our vote was syphoned on the cheap through our store blind parliamentarians, one of whom confused the name of a popular identity who weeks ago lost his wife to bone cancer.

A referendum among just half the population? Not likely.
And the Rove gaff? It's a non-starter, let it go.

Turnright has pretty much summed up where the issue will likely end, debated among the churches and feminist groups, while the scientists and politicians do their thing regardless.

Dr Hawthorn writes that "The sub-clause (f) of the same excised Subsection 20(1) that refers to "creation of embryos by the fertilisation of an animal egg by a human sperm" was left in. So hybrids can still be made. The chimera survives and neither Senator Bartlett nor anyone else seems to have noticed."

This is a difficult issue and I have no problem with people not suuporting my position or my amendment. But I wish they wouldn't accuse me of being completely stupid.

I drafted the amendment to prevent the use of animal eggs in SCNT embryonic stem cell research. I quite consciously left in the subclause referred to by Dr Hawthorn, because it deals with the area of testing sperm quality for IVF purposes, not for creating embryos for stem cell research.

The full text of sub-clause (f) allows the issuing of a licence for the following:

"the creation of hybrid embryos by the fertilisation of an animal egg by a human sperm, and use of such embryos up to, but not including, the first mitotic division, if:

(i) the creation or use is for the purposes of testing sperm quality; and
(ii) the creation or use will occur in an accredited ART centre."

Animal eggs have already been used to test sperm quality. It would have been more honest to point out that taking out this section of the legislation (or opposing the legislation in toto) would impact on future research into IVF, but most opponents of the Bill don't because they know most people support IVF.

I feel there are valid arguments for either position against and in favour of the legislation. I would have been much more likely to vote against (and as it turned out, caused the defeat of the Bill) if more of the opponents of the legislation had been more honest in their assertions and the consequences of further applying the logic of their argmuents. I don't deny some of the proponents of the Bill were also less than complete and accurate in some of their assertions too.

I would really appreciate a rational and sober analysis of the position put forward here. As it stands, any facts are carefully obscured behind a veil of emotion.

I personally would like to understand more about the "suffering and potential long-term health risks to women whose ovaries are hyperstimulated in the name of science". Is this a necessary condition of collecting the raw material? Is it in fact damaging to a woman's health? If it is not, then the argument about "the integrity and health of women's bodies" tends to collapse.

The author tries hard to equate disagreement with her position as being, somehow, unethical.

>>No one mentions the biotech corporations who stand to make a healthy return on their investment from desperate people<<

Would the author's stance change, if the work were to be perfomed pro bono? Or by governments, using taxpayers' money? I somehow doubt it. So the argument is pure furphy.

>>But what of bodily integrity? What of the critical stance many of us take on interfering with plants to create GM foods? There is room here for a more ethical approach<<

"Bodily integrity" is an interesting choice of word association. In using it in conjunction with a reference to GM as "interfering with" plants, the author is clearly suggesting the donor is effectively a rape victim. This is surely scraping the bottom of the emotional barrel.

I'd still like to know more, but accompanied by far less hysteria.

If that is possible.

Pericles, if you look up the hands off our ovaries campaign you will read more about the potential harm of ovary hyperstimulation. Many women suffer through it for ivf, at least at the end of that, there is hope that she will have a baby. With cloning, there is no benefit for her, the possibility of her eggs helping someone is decades away if it is exists at all. Adult stem cells have proven more useful in treating diseases and there have already been applications for them. Why they keep flogging this unethical dead horse I don't know. That is probably why the author of this article has brought up the profit motive, although her main concern is the health of women who would be exploited by this technology. Just because some women may "choose" this, doesn't mean that they are not being exploited.

Elka

Please do not repeat the mantra of "Adult stem cells have proven more useful in treating diseases and there have already been applications for them." It is just untrue.

Hematopoietic stem cells have been used, I have had a transplant using them, other than that please tell me where "adult" stem cells have been used.

Adult stem cells make stuff related to where they come from.

Only this month, motor neurones have been created using embryonic stem cells.

From what I read from the article and your response why is IVF legal?

I also come from an academic background (formally Melbourne University). I am from a non-English speaking background and I take great exception to any feminist that professes to speak on behalf of *all* women as if they were a homogenous group, and as if they were so weak and so unthinking as to be unable to make informed decision.

This commentator speaks of bodily integrity as if it were unproblematic and not more appropriately discussed by reference to different contexts.

Furthermore, Hawthorne's objection to the commodification, ownership and control of women's bodily products (eggs) applies equally to those people (such as Susan Hawthorne) who want to speak universally for women and prescribe what women should be doing with their bodies.

I find Hawthorne's stance unfortunately paternalistic, even though I would think/hope it is borne out of a care and respect for the human life of a woman. If this is what lies behind her concern, then surely Dr Hawthorne might understand that it is that same (selfless) care for human life that may be the motivating force behind the decision of women to donate their eggs. I find such selfless sacrifice for one's fellow man to be touching and inspiring.

For the sake of intellectual consistency, it would be interesting to know of Dr Hawthorne's stance in relation to organ donations.

I too am sickened by the commercialisation of bodily products (eggs). If the commercialisation/commodification of body products is the *real* concern of Dr Hawthorne, then perhaps her attention/efforts would have been better served campaigning in favour of state funding and control of such activities. In such a campaign, she would have my support.

As her article stands, it is unclear whether her real issue is with women having the rights over their bodies (even though she may not agree with their choices) or whether her gripe is with the commercialisation of body products.

Ok, feminists have to start to stfu already. This type of bs is bordering on insanity. Here's some ethics for you: Don't murder your babies.

Dear S. Hawthorne, I would suggest that a woman has a right to choose whether or not she donates her oocytes for therapeutic cloning research. I find your position ill considered, restrictive and, in my opinion, immoral as you would both prevent women from having this choice and hold back a potentially lifesaving field of medical research.

Regards,
Roger Moorgate, PhD
Administrator, The Reproductive Cloning Network
http://www.ReproductiveCloning.net

Roger is correct. One can choose. No different than being an organ donor.

Surprised science didn't pick up more on stem / undifferientated cells as far back as the 1970s. The indicators were there.