Creation of cloned human embryos announced
The announcement by Worcester, Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology that its researchers had created cloned human embryos has set of a new round in the debates over cloning technology. ACT claims its work, reported in the 25 November 2001 issue of the Journal of Regenerative Medicine, is not aimed a producing fully-developed cloned humans, but at producing stem cells that can be used for generating individualized new tissues for therapeutic use. However, ACT also announced in a report in the 22 November 2001 issue of Science that its proprietary cloning technology has been used to produce healthy and normal adult animals (in this case, cattle).
Some additional background may be found in these articles from Reuters News Service on ACTís announcement, the renewed debate, and the companyís goals for therapeutic cloning.
November 26th, 2001 at 8:22 AM
Finally, a plausible Transhumanist hero
Michael D. West, Ph.D. is definitely made of sterner stuff than all these "Extropian" poseurs with their tedious fantasies about singularities, friendly AI's, utopian libertarian societies, how to behave in simulations and such. With a few hundred more guys like him out there, we'll finally start to see some progress in the right direction.
If his company, Advanced Cell Technology, is publicly traded, I'll probably be buying some shares presently. I wish there were some other tangible ways I could support his company's research.
November 26th, 2001 at 9:56 AM
Re:Finally, a plausible Transhumanist hero
I can point to dozens of people who have previously or who currently are "walking their talk" (including myself). The problem with pushing the technology envelope is that it requires technical skill base that not everyone who reads Engines of Creation is likely to have.
Here is a list of companies that I feel are pursuing "Extropian" goals, most of whom are traded publicly. Those that cannot actively participate in pushing the envelope can support the effort by purchasing their stock.
And for the record, the ACT "breakthrough" wasn't particularly signifcant from a scientific perspective. Most likely because the source of the cells used for the cloning process was a skin punch. Almost all of the cells thus obtained are likely to be fairly differentiated and therefore poor genetic material for the development of stem cells.
November 27th, 2001 at 7:20 AM
Maybe people are afraid of the competition
I noticed from listening to Art Bell's radio talkshow last night that a lot of people are caught up on the question of whether clones have "souls" or not.
Of course, these people assume that having a "soul" is desirable. They haven't considered the idea in the context of their belief system that humans without souls might somehow be better than ones with!
November 27th, 2001 at 1:30 PM
Re:Finally, a plausible Transhumanist hero
Just my 0.02c on ACT. I read the research paper and I'm a little concerned. Firstly publishing in 'fast track' e-journals is not the best way to publicise 'breakthroughs'. I think ACT are aware of the low impact of their work, and have just got the spin doctors into gear on this one. Secondly, what they're claiming to have done is akin to 'Dolly', product of the Roslin Institute. Except they claim its not for reproductive purposes – so all those studies that were essential to prove that Dolly was a real clone will never be done. All they've demonstrated is that they can take DNA from one cell, put it into another and make it divide. And to be honest – they haven't even done that well. Thirdly, they refuse to elaborate on whether they derived stem cells from these 'embryos' or not. This smacks very much to me that they haven't, nor are likely to. Thats where the *real* financial gains lie. Don't make ACT another British Biotech. Robert points out "Almost all of the cells thus obtained are likely to be fairly differentiated and therefore poor genetic material for the development of stem cells". However this is the entire point of this kind of research – taking adult cells back to a quiescent state in order to produce cell clones. Roslin researches would love to argue this point I'm sure. But then again – they've yet to really prove they used a differentiated cell in their studies. As a geneticist, molecular biologist, and someone who dealt with stem cells in mice for many years you'll excuse me if I maintain a healthy sense of scepticism on this matter. We had stem cells from primates mooted before – and transgenic monkeys. Show me where that research is now…..
November 27th, 2001 at 10:07 PM
Re:Maybe people are afraid of the competition
Can you expand on that? It hadn't occured to me that – cloned or not – a person could NOT have a soul. Silly me for not paying closer attention to theologians (grin).
Wonder what C.S. Lewis would make of cloning?
November 28th, 2001 at 5:36 AM
Re:Maybe people are afraid of the competition
Wow, I find the implied semantic values in that last statement quite interesting.
What, precisely, do you mean by 'soul'? The word has many meanings, depending on who you make the mistake of talking to about it. For some people it means a spirit, in the alchemical sense of a sublime fraction, a miraculous vitae that is mixed in with coarse matter. For others it is the breath of God; an abstract animating principle; a person's memories; or a synergistic emergent phenomena, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. For many, it equate to the ego. Which did you mean?
I, while not being a Buddhist or any other formal faith, agree with them that it is pointless to talk about the (illusory anyway) sense of self as existing separate from the body. As Hume said, "What we call the mind is nothing but a heap or bundle of different perceptions united together by certain relations." Or, as Buddha himself put it, the word "chariot" does not "indicate a simple, single reality; it is merely a descriptive term applied to a number of constituent parts placed in a certain relation to one another; and just as no part of this aggregate can be separated off and called a 'chariot,' so no part of the human creature can be set apart and called 'I.'" (How's that, Mr Dunbar? I have been listening to the 'theologians'
So it is with the soul. What I found interesting about your pronouncement was the implied valuation of the word. Are you saying that a 'soul' merely consists of a belief in one, and people would be better off without that belief? If so, I generally agree with you. But if you are the sort of transhuman that believes in uploading, then you are guilty of the same error.
My personal definition of a 'soul' is exactly what would be lost upon becoming a machine: The essence of being human. I do not think that apotheosis would ultimately make existence any sweeter than the human condition. I value our weakness and ephemerality, because it means that my achievements can mean something in relative terms. I think that uploading is just a very elaborate form of suicide, akin to arranging matters so that my death would set in motion a beautiful kinetic sculpture. I value my nonexistent soul far too much to sell it for the power of 'immortality.'
November 28th, 2001 at 6:46 PM
Re:Maybe people are afraid of the competition
Not trolling here, but …
Soul is just a made up thing. Find this soul and I'll think about believing it exists.
If one doesn't really mean soul but uses it to mean something else, please be more specific. If one means ego (e.g. Ayn Rand), say ego, not soul.
Finally, if we're forced to define soul, it's your mind. There's no mystery there: just the algorithm running on the brain (i.e. hardware). Pretty simple, ehh? Isn't cognitive science a wonderful thing.
November 28th, 2001 at 6:56 PM
Re:Finally, a plausible Transhumanist hero
IIRC, Bush passed an effective band on stem cell research, so they probably can't come out and say they have stem cells for fear of government action. Doesn't help their research look better, but it does offer at least some positive (or is that apologist
) explination.
November 28th, 2001 at 8:29 PM
Re:Finally, a plausible Transhumanist hero
I think the general take on Charlie Rose by Lee Silver (a Princeton researcher) was that the report was interesting "technical progress". I'm a little less cynical than some who suspect it was done to promote funding opportunties and am more of the opinion that the timing was directed at pushing the debate into the public consciousness (and demonstrate its usefullness) when the Senate has its plate full (and so cannot respond with some knee jerk reaction outlawing therapeutic cloning entirely). Stem cell research (of the type allowed by President Bush) is largely irrelevant without also allowing cloning technologies that would produce self-compatible stem cells. The only possible exception to this is if we develop robust methods to (a) isolate stem cells from adult bodies; or (b) find reliable methods to revert differentiated cells to stem cells.
As Dan points out, "taking adult cells back to a quiescent state in order to produce cell clones" is the point of, and question of interest in, the research. I strongly suspect that the successful cases of cloning are occurring when the cells used for source material are significantly less differentiated cells (pseudo-stem-cells). The cells obtained from a skin punch rarely meet these criteria (there may rarely be a few epithelial pseudo-stem cells) and may explain why the ACT clones stopped dividing after a few divisions and could not produce true stem cells. The idea that the molecular environment in an egg can cause de-differentiation seems highly implausible because (at least as I've been taught) the genetic material in the ovarian cells that produce eggs is sequestered very early in the development process of females so it is naturally less differentiated than mature adult cells. There is no evolutionary selection pressure on ovarian cells (or eggs) to produce the ability to de-program cellular differentiation. So to discover that ability in such cells seems to me to be an extraordinary claim, that as Carl suggested, should require extraordinary proof.
November 28th, 2001 at 8:58 PM
Re:Maybe people are afraid of the competition
Did you actually read a word I wrote?
You tell me to be more specific in my use of the word, when one of the major points of my post was to show how widely variant concepts of the soul are. Then you help out by giving the one true definition, thus missing the thrust of my post entirely. My definition of 'soul' is just as personal and idiosyncratic as my notion of 'integrity,' or 'justice,' or any other abstract thing born of human delusion. So is everybody else's.
I never claimed that there was any mystery to the brain's functioning (although it is currently mysterious, as we do not completely know how it works). Neither did the Buddha. I was using the metaphor (I am rather fond of them!) of the soul to describe why I think anyone who would kill themselves to create an intelligent machine in their image would be losing something as intangible as the 'soul': Their criminally undervalued humanity. I was also attempting to show that uploaders are just as deluded about the nature of consciousness as any ectoplasm-wielding spiritualist. You proved me 100% correct.
Do try to keep up
November 29th, 2001 at 7:00 AM
Re:Finally, a plausible Transhumanist hero
Just an FYI..
Opinions at: New Scientist are quite well thought out.