I've understood the Chinese have been doing this for some time. So, on one level it makes sense that someone in the western world would be doing it too, even if it horrific that human embryos are being researched upon. My wife said that it isn't live embryos they are researching. I'm not sure that's true but likely it is. However, this whole thing is a slippery slope for the western world at this point.
Whoops! I'm wrong this is research on Live Embryos. This is pretty disgusting! Because this is research on little live human beings.
Oct 15, 1984 · DR. Robert Edwards, a British pioneer in the technique of in vitro fertilization that has produced almost 700 ''test tube'' babies around the world, has ...
Jan 31, 2016 · Britishresearchers get green light to genetically modify human ... The decision permits Niakan to study the embryos for 14 days for research purposes only.
A medical research institute was just given permission to edit human embryos. Last month, Dr. Kathy Niakan and her team at the Francis Crick Institute, a biomedical ...
Britain’s first genetically modified human embryos could be created
within months, after scientists were granted permission by the fertility
regulator to carry out the procedure.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulator approved a licence application by Kathy Niakan,
a stem cell scientist at the Francis Crick Institute in London, to
perform so-called genome editing – also called gene editing – on human
embryos.
The decision permits Niakan to study the embryos for 14 days for
research purposes only. It does not permit them to be implanted into
women. Niakan’s research is aimed at finding the genes at play in the
early days of human fertilisation.
The decision was greeted positively by the Francis Crick Institute
and British scientists but was met with anger and disqmay by those
concerned that rapid advances in the field of genome editing is
precluding proper consideration of the ethical implications.
Paul Nurse, director of the institute, said: “I am delighted that the
HFEA has approved Dr Niakan’s application. Dr Niakan’s proposed
research is important for understanding how a healthy human embryo
develops and will enhance our understanding of IVF success rates, by
looking at the very earliest stage of human development – one to seven
days.”
The work, using embryos donated by couples with a surplus after IVF
treatment, will look at the fertilised egg’s development from a single
cell to about 250 cells. The basic research could help scientists
understand why some women lose their babies before term and provide
better clinical treatments for infertility, using conventional medical
methods.
Niakan will use a powerful genome editing procedure called Crispr-Cas9
to switch genes on and off in early stage human embryos. She will then
look for the effects the modifications have on the development of the
cells that go on to form the placenta.
Crispr-Cas9 has revolutionised biomedical research since its
invention three years ago. It allows scientists to make precise changes
to DNA, and has the potential to transform the treatment of genetic
disorders by correcting faulty genes. Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at the Francis Crick Institute, said: “
The approval of her [Niakan’s] licence gives the exciting
prospect that we will at last begin to understand how the different cell
types are specified at these pre-implantation stages in the human
embryo.”
Lovell-Badge said it would also provide invaluable information about
the accuracy and efficiency of the technique, helping to inform the
debate about whether genome editing could be used in future to correct
faulty genes that cause devastating diseases.
That prospect remains a long way off but is already a subject of concern. Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert,
said: “This is the first step in a well mapped-out process leading to
GM babies, and a future of consumer eugenics.” He claimed the
government’s scientific advisers had already decided they were
comfortable with the prospect of so-called “designer babies”.
Anne Scanlan, from the anti-abortion organisation Life,
said: “The HFEA now has the reputation of being the first regulator in
the world to approve this uncertain and dangerous technology. It has
ignored the warnings of over 100 scientists worldwide and given
permission for a procedure that could have damaging far-reaching
implications for human beings.”
Advertisement
There are fears that changes to an embryo’s DNA could have unknown
harmful consequences throughout a person’s body and be passed on down
the generations.
Last year, leading UK funders
called for a national debate on whether editing human embryos could
ever be justified in the clinic. Some fear that a public backlash could
derail less controversial uses of genome editing, which could lead to
radical new treatments for conditions such as muscular dystrophy and
sickle cell disease.
The US National Institutes of Health will not fund any genome editing research on human embryos at present.
But supporters of the HFEA’s decision said it had arrived at the
right conclusion, balancing the benefits to research and ethical
considerations.
“The ruling by the HFEA is a triumph for common sense,” said Darren Griffin, a professor of genetics at the University of Kent. “While
it is certain that the prospect of gene editing in human embryos raised
a series of ethical issues and challenges, the problem has been dealt
with in a balanced manner. It is clear that the potential benefits of
the work proposed far outweigh the foreseen risks.”
Sarah Norcross, director of Progress Educational Trust, called it “a victory for level-headed regulation over moral panic”.
Dr Sarah Chan, chancellor’s fellow at Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics,
University of Edinburgh, said: “We should feel confident that our
regulatory system in this area is functioning well to keep science
aligned with social interests.”
end quote from:
How would you like to be one of the embryos they are doing research on?
What is the morality here? Is it that an embryo not implanted in a womb doesn't have any rights at all and is treated a lot like a miscarriage or worse yet not even that status because it never started in a womb but was inseminated outside a womb through artificial insemination?
No comments:
Post a Comment