Human/animal embryos

Originally Posted by Ed

See, Kate didn't know what was going on, either - the scientists simply haven't explained what they're up to, so everyone thinks that we'll be seeing Frankenstein walking down the street. About time they came clean, I think.

yes, I am very clever and I didn't understand so it's obviously not very clear!

Originally Posted by mrs24_7

yes, I am very clever and I didn't understand so it's obviously not very clear!

Di you read aallll of the article though?

Genuinely don't want to mock anyone's religion, but was wondering if anyone could inform me, either through research or because they're practicing members, of the Catholic Church's position on a couple of other things thrown up by this?

Animal-human organ transplants? We can and do already make use of heart valves from pigs to treat human defects, and we've had a lot of research, tho limited success in transplanting entire organs from animals to humans to save the life of the affected human. In my mind this results in *far* more of a human/animal hybrid than a couple of cells in a test tube. Is this similarly "monstrous". And if the practice is considered an abomination, what of the result, the human with the pig heart - is that human an abomination in the eyes of the Church, are they no longer human? What happens to them when the reach the pearly gates?

On a similar vein, what of human/machine hybrids. Isn't a "cyborg" every bit as much "playing with God" when we insert pacemakers, titanium bone plates etc?

The sanctity of life, I'm aware of the position that life begins at conception, hence the trouble the Church has with abortion, but what of these human/animal cells? Are they considered to have been "conceived", are they not alive in the eyes of the Church? What I'm asking I guess, is whilst the practice of their creation may be considered an abomination, what of the result - is the resulting collection of cells considered by the Church (and by implication, by the Lord) to be human, animal, or both?

Oh, and thanks for clearing up the whole Atlantis thing, I wondered what had happened to that (damn, and there was me saying I wasn't going to mock, I'm sorry, I really am)

Im in full support aswell. I envisae a rather large amount of information could be obtained about how DNA replicates, and other information on DNA mis-replication etc which could give more informaiton about cancers, and subsequent cancer treatment.

Matt

Of course, there are a large amount of poeple in scientific research who do research just for the sake of research and making themselves look better. There's alot of science that is going on, and has gone on, that isnt really usefull for improving our lives. Maybe our understanding of the world, and some stuff shows lots of novel things...scientific party tricks if you like, but nothing really usefull.

My freind was saying about his final year project that he dosnt know what the compound he is making is for; he asked what it might be for, but his supervisor said "its just a novel compound"

Which is nice, but whats the point?

Matt

I suppose at some point teflon was just a novel compound (compound? erm, polymer based thingy). Knowledge for knowledge sake is a good thing and often (though not always) leads to good things in the future.

That's not to say that we should experiment on anything and everything just for the sake of it, we do need oversight and regulation and ethics. I personally believe that we have those presently, animal testing, human cell testing etc is all very tightly regulated with considerable thought and debate before it is allowed to proceed.

No problem with using animal bits to treat humans but the scientists need to say what they're doing and why, otherwise people always spread conspiracy theories.