I don't know if those without a true understanding of the subject should comment, so I shouldn't - although I would ask a few things...

It seems that many in the medical profession against cloning have a religious background. I think this makes it hard for them to see past their upbringing to.

I don't see a human being when I see sperm, eggs, or cells - I don't see any consciousness at that point.

I don't think one can ignore the politics of the issue.

Think about where this field could lead us, we may be able to experiment with genetics to form some kind of super-soldier with see through vision, unbelievable strength and the like.

I see a future where China, with it's morals, experimenting on live people let alone stem cells.

I see the ingenuity of the western world, which is what allowed us to develop the technology around us, with our superior morality, and then I see backward third world cultures with vile values attaining that knowledge.

Think Iran with a nuclear weapon, with their barbaric mindset.

Think China with their appalling human rights record with sophisticated weaponry.

India, China, and Pakistan for crying out loud already have the heigh of western science and this infuriates me. Such barbaric animals wouldn't even have electricity if not for the west giving it to them.

So, one can't afford to be moral in this world of ours, not until everyone is western and shares our civilised values.

We need to do research in such areas no matter the moral implications, for other cultures will.

It's a race, and while we are way, way, way out in front in every department, they are catching up.

If you understand this, I don't see how you could be against experimenting on clones, or even people. I personally have absolutely no problem with doing experiments on those convicted, repeat, convicted, of Islamic terrorist attacks.

What they want us to live under means they are not fit to be called human beings and therefore should be used to better mankind.

Enjoy your coffee...

What a wonderful technology, it shows great promise. But the argument that now we can ban embryonic stem cell research is stupid. Just plain stupid. It's like saying, now we have electricity, why do we need gas? Lets ban gas.

The author makes the argument on the basis that they are as good as embryonic stem cells, but if we didn't have embryonic stem cells (in his ideal world), then how would we know? We still don't know how useful these cells are, exactly how similar they are to embryonic stem cells or even how good or not they will be for therapies. We don't even know exactly how good embryonic cells will be yet and they've been working on them for far far longer. Thats why we need research, the job isn't over yet and the scientists need all options available to assess the effectiveness of all technologies and methods.

It is hard to find common ground from which to develope argument on this article.
Maybe from the question: was it right for God to mercilessly smite Onan for "spilling his seed upon the ground"?
Can we derive some point, between wanking and undeveloped human eggs as the sacred point for human existence, as a rational commencement for debating the pith of the author's issue?

To Bugsy,

You say that since human cloning is already here, like electricity, it is rediculous to think of stopping it.

Two questions:

since there has not been a single instance of successful cloning of a human embryo to date, or of successful treatment of a human using embryo stem cells, how is this like electricity, which has as you say been used successfully for decades; and

as human experimentation by the Nazis had been going on and yeilding results, how, in your world view, was it sensible to ban it?

To Bugsy again,

There's a reason I'm taking a sick day, with bleary eyes misreading what you wrote so clearly.

Yes you really said "It's like saying, now we have electricity, why do we need gas? Lets ban gas."

To take the Nazi human exprimentation theme up again, those experiments were rightly stopped, regardless of whether an ethical alternative could be found. Perhaps it would be pathetic to be trying to sell the Nazis on stopping their experiments on the basis of an ethical alternative being available. Better to have the Nazis trying to sell to us their reasons not to be executed for war crimes.

Your point about how rediculous it is to say ban gas because we have electricity actually highlights the stupidity of the pro cloning and embryo stem cell lobby. Because it has been these who have said to the public so clearly, that since there is no way to get stem cell cures except by embryo stem cell research and cloning, we must use these means.

That's like saying "since we have no way to warm houses these days, or make light, we really should be experimenting with..." even though today we have electricity and gas.

Dr van Gend was simply responding to the lying and stupidity of those that speak as if there are no stem cell treatments going on.

A year ago there was such media hype over some rats that displayed improvements in spine damage after treatment with embryo stem cells. It was hype, and misleading, since in the same week there was a largely unreported medical journal article of spinal cord damaged humans walking again after treatment by adult stem cells, and a chance for the media to meet with one of the humans who was walking again.

Furthermore, the embyro stem cell treatment on the rats actually included adult stem cells, to help the embryo stem cells to do what they should, and not burst off too quickly into deadly teratomas.

Newhouse - that's claptrap.

I see your point about electricity being proven, compared to the promise of stem cell research.

But then, comparing it to nazi expermentation shoots any credibility you may have had to pieces. Please provide the 'results' this Nazi experimentation was supposedly yielding.

If the abortion and stem cell debates have taught us anything, it is that people have very different views on whether embryos can be considered people.
The fact that some people hold the belief that embryos are people doesn't bother me - though when they approach the debate from the viewpoint that everybody must really does.

It didn't take long for the Nazi comparisons to start did it?

Newhouse, you really know how to torture an analogy. The similarities I was alluding to in my gas analogy is that this is not an either/or situation. We should have both, as today we have both electricity and gas because they are useful in their own right for different reasons and different situations. Saying one is superior over the other depends on the context you are going to use them in.

To suggest banning embryonic stem cell research before we have the full results is just jumping the gun a bit don't you think? And the reason it takes so long to get results and do this research is because we have so many controls in place to ensure that it's done ethically and with full knowledge, especially where their use as therapies are concerned. The modern medical researcher is nothing like a Nazi, except if you are continually late for work.

Looking around at other articles on this topic a couple of points came up

- The technique has the advantage of not requiring egg to make it work. That appears to be a significant advantage to this approach.
- Don't toss the alternatives out just yet http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1370 "cloning strategies that work in mice do not always work in humans" and "But applying the technique to humans is not problem-free. For one thing, stem cells produced this way are prone to turn cancerous because one of the four genes transferred is the cancer-causing gene c-Myc."

My guess is that if the equivalent results can be achieved from a simpler technique that does not require access to egg's then not many will be real interested in doing the more complex approach for no gain.

R0bert

As a medical doctor I would have thought that David van Gend could put aside his religous beliefs in favour of a truly critical analysis of stem cell and cloning technologies. The Yamanaka work is good but in very early stages. It may eventually be a replacement for somatic cell nuclear transfer but has only been done in mice and may not work in humans. It will not replace important research into human embryonic stem cell research. To be very clear, human embryonic stem cell research only uses embryos that are excess to the IVF process, with permissions and under license, and that will be destroyed anyway by being thrown out. Hundreds of excess IVF embryos are thrown away every year as they are no longer required or were not suitable for implantation.

I would like to see some perspective here, not irrational thoughts based on religous dogma.