Sperm

[Chinahand]

What is life?

 

Is there a moral difference between a sperm and an egg; and a normal cell.

 

People with a certain religious persuasion view every sperm to be sacred - though seem not to mind about the monthly bleeding away of eggs. While other religions see the loss of both sperm and egg as "unclean".

 

I've known for quite a while that given the chemistry existing in every cell in our body the simple break down between germ line and somatic cells was a lot blurrier than most theologians wish it to be.

 

And now here's the proof - sperm cells created from stem cells.

 

This is very early days, but stem cells exist throughout the body, in the bone marrow, the blood, the liver, the brain, the skin, the teeth.

 

Have no doubt the current research on the most pluri-potent stem cells, embryonic ones, will move into adult stem cell research.

 

Some will concentrate on claims that men are now obsolete and obsess about lesbian couples independently concieving.

 

Others will see the benefits for the childless using science to replace one cell with another to allow a child to be born.

 

Me, I see it as confirming the amazing utility of life - every cell in our body harbours coiled in its nucleus the code for life and in the right circumstances it will out.

 

There are important ethical issues as knowledge expands - but relgions are actively campaigning we abandon and ring fence off parts of the Tree of Knowledge.

 

That to me is the theology of the dark and bronze ages. It is only by understanding and learning to deal with the consequences of knowledge that humanity can advance. That's a long and difficult process, but with the advances in Chemistry our understanding of life is bound to change in the next few years.

 

An exciting time - and one Britain is at the forefront of. I will encourage my kids to study bio-chemistry.

 

How about you?

[Terse]

I just see it as incredible that there are scientists in Newcastle!

[Vulgarian]

The idea that 'every sperm is sacred' (maintained only by catholics i think) is ridiculous. A sperm is a cell like any other in our body except that its function is to carry genetic material to the egg. It's like believing that dandruff is sacred.

 

It is time we unburdened ourselves of these dark-age superstitions.

[Sebrof]

There are important ethical issues as knowledge expands - but relgions are actively campaigning we abandon and ring fence off parts of the Tree of Knowledge.

 

That to me is the theology of the dark and bronze ages. It is only by understanding and learning to deal with the consequences of knowledge that humanity can advance. That's a long and difficult process, but with the advances in Chemistry our understanding of life is bound to change in the next few years.

 

You sound like Slim and electric motorbikes. Excitement interfering with rational thought.

 

There are enormous issues concerning man's ability to modify genetic material, and I for one am glad that the religious sector is trying to slow things down. Whatever their motives, it is good that they should inspire debate before we rush into something so momentous.

 

Think what Hitler would have done with this technology.

 

S

[Jimcalagon]

The idea that 'every sperm is sacred' (maintained only by catholics i think) is ridiculous.

Not just Catholics - anyone who takes the Old Testament passages about "spilling seed on the ground" seriously would go along with this idea and I think this includes many Jews and Muslims.

 

It is time we unburdened ourselves of these dark-age superstitions.

 

Agreed.

[Bombay Bad Boy]

The idea that 'every sperm is sacred' (maintained only by catholics i think) is ridiculous.

Not just ridiculous,

[Jimcalagon]

You sound like Slim and electric motorbikes. Excitement interfering with rational thought.

 

There are enormous issues concerning man's ability to modify genetic material, and I for one am glad that the religious sector is trying to slow things down. Whatever their motives, it is good that they should inspire debate before we rush into something so momentous.

 

Think what Hitler would have done with this technology.

 

S

 

Technology is just a tool. People like Hitler can twist anything to their own ends. He didn't need any knowledge of DNA to start his programme of genetic modification of the peoples of Europe.

 

I imagine that people like you would have opposed the development of flint knapping, because of the fear that "someone bad" might use it.

 

You are allowing your kneejerk reactions to interfere with rational thought. Your mindset belongs in the settings of a medieval monastery - any progress, innovation or invention seems to be a danger to you and to be opposed implacably.

[Slim]

There are enormous issues concerning man's ability to modify genetic material, and I for one am glad that the religious sector is trying to slow things down. Whatever their motives, it is good that they should inspire debate before we rush into something so momentous.

 

Mans been modifying genetically for centuries, well before we even knew what genetics is. Like China says, there are important implications, but they shouldn't be allowed to restrict the advancement of this research especially not when the objections come from belief in religious nonsense.

 

As usual, your glass is half empty. You ask what Hitler would have done with this. I'd rather know what medical science will do with it.

[VinnieK]

There are important ethical issues as knowledge expands - but relgions are actively campaigning we abandon and ring fence off parts of the Tree of Knowledge.

 

C'mon China, scientists create freaking sperm from stem cells, and the main cut and thrust of your post is to have a pop at the religious, doesn't that seem even just a little bit petty? Sure it's a relevant point given the opposition to such research, but this is big science here and the main thing you seem excited about is an opportunity to gloat.

 

Anyway, this is certainly big news, though not quite as out of the blue as the media are making out, and perhaps not quite of the same level as the question "what is life?". Similar research, although not on human cells, was carried out both in the U.S. and in Germany (I think by the same researcher) in previous years. It also has to be remembered that although what's been produced here looks like and carries the same information as sperm, it's not yet clear that they can actually function the same at all, i.e. they may be incapable of fertilizing an egg. If I recall correctly, this kind of research is intended more as being proof of the versatility of stem cells, rather than an attempt to develop an entirely new alternative to knackers, which might turn out to be essential to the development of fully functioning sperm.

[Chinahand]

Not sure VinnieK - you start your post with its a "freaking sperm" - wow, and end it going "its just repeating research and is aimed at versatility not reproduction".

 

I think I am more in agreement with your second paragraph than your first.

 

I've known for a long time that the "every sperm is sacred" lot are going to have to start saying "every liver cell is sacred" etc as we find ways of making cells pluri-potent.

 

There will be lots of announcements, some incremental, others reasonably big (and ok I may be more in agreement with your 2nd paragraph, but will admit a "freaking sperm" is pretty important!) but basically we are a chemical reaction. We've got to accept that, live with it and work out its implications.

 

Sebrof, I've not underplayed the issues - they are complex - individualized medicine, genetic enhancement etc etc [don't have time to find the link but the Reith lectures on Radio 4 recently touched on this]. Most especially we are going to have the ability to "create" life without parental germ line cells.

 

Its going to make for great jokes - what do you get if you cross President Obama, Vladamir Putin and Michael Jackson etc - but dealing with this reality is going to be more complex.

 

This does need a real ethical debate - the point is I have great problem seeing how Christian theology is going to help that debate - they can't even get on the same page and are more concerned with non-existent souls etc.

 

I am honestly more interested in hearing what a Buddist, a Confucian or a Daoist, what the heck a Hindu too, have to say on the complexities of this debate than a Christian theologian. But far more than that - secular ethicists have to be vocal in providing an alternate view based on evidence and rationality.

 

In the Reith lectures one medical practicioner worried that good science was at risk of being banned due to the outrage generated by implausable science fiction scenarios involving Frankinsteins etc - I feel its vital this debate is based on rational grounds - hence my pop at religons.

 

For me its a fact we are chemicals, we've got to live with the consequences of that - the theological seem to want us still to be angels - we're not and claiming we are just clouds the debate.

[VinnieK]

Not sure VinnieK - you start your post with its a "freaking sperm" - wow, and end it going "its just repeating research and is aimed at versatility not reproduction".

 

I think I am more in agreement with your second paragraph than your first.

 

I didn't say that it's just repeating research. I said research of a similar theme has been conducted previously, which it has. That doesn't detract from the significance of human cells being involved in this case (hence my exclamation at the beginning of my post). There's really no contradiction there if you actually think about it: yes this is big news, certainly big enough to deserve more than being used to bang another drum, but we should also be realistic and steer clear of getting too carried away with ourselves when discussing the implications of this research.

 

I suppose I just don't get it. You're a man with an interest in and love of science, but all too often your enthusiasm seems to extend little further than for the use of snippets of science as a cut n' paste cudgel with which to bludgeon an argument to death, or as a stick with which to beat the old religion drum. Cut that away, and what's actually ever being said, bar the odd bit of hyperbole about the wonder and glory of science? Anyway, this is off topic, and veering into the territory of a personal attack so I'll end with this one question: where's the love for the actual science here?

[Chinahand]

where's the love for the actual science here?

 

VinnieK this seems to be the love of science with 95% of the theology cut away.

I've known for quite a while that given the chemistry existing in every cell in our body the simple break down between germ line and somatic cells was a lot blurrier than most theologians wish it to be.

 

And now here's the proof - sperm cells created from stem cells.

 

I see [this] as confirming the amazing utility of life - every cell in our body harbours coiled in its nucleus the code for life and in the right circumstances it will out.

 

An exciting time - and one Britain is at the forefront of. I will encourage my kids to study bio-chemistry.

 

How about you?

 

Sebrof is there saying I'm letting my exitement get in the way of my rationality, though I acknowledge the need for a debate [just not a bronze age one], while you are getting at me for ignoring the science and religion bashing!

 

Can't win!

[Vulgarian]

I don't see why the scientific community should engage in any theological debate on this issue. Scientific discoveries have gradually been pulling apart ancient religious beliefs once used to explain the nature of life and the universe in a time when there was no better explanation. All the time the religious quarter has been weighing down progress with theological objections. They fear that their belief systems are no longer relevant, and their deities will be relegated to 'gods of the gaps'. I think we've heard enough from them.

[VinnieK]

VinnieK that seems to be the love of science with 95% of the theology cut away.

 

But that just kind of confirms my point about there not being much of any substance beyond theology. Really all you've said is:

 

1. "I always thought it was more complicated than those stupid jebus fiends think it is", which, apart from falling into the theology category, is pretty redundant in its obviousness; and

 

2. Telling us what you want your kids to grow up to be.

 

The only bit of science in there is

 

"every cell in our body harbours coiled in its nucleus the code for life and in the right circumstances it will out"

 

but that's not even that much to do with the story, never mind a point of discussion. We've known for decades that the code for life is contained in every cell in the form of DNA. These results certainly rely on this fact, but it's hard to get excited about them on the megre basis that it applies knowledge we already possess in a novel fashion.

 

Really, the significance of this experiment is in showing that it's possible to manipulate stem cells to produce sperm, something which only a theoretic possibility for humans (and already done in the case of mice) until now. As far as I can tell, it's primary value is in understanding the mechanics of human stem cells and their development, with perhaps the potential for producing some kind of therapeutic technique with regards to infertility. Having said that, I've already mentioned that it's still not clear that sperm produced in such a fashion are capable of fertilizing an egg - which in itself poses some interesting questions that could shed further light on the mechanics of human reproduction. Now this is pretty deep stuff, and I'd say pretty interesting in its own right, but the furthest we've delved so far is to jump on the "Sperm? Wowsers! Don't they usually live in balls?" media bandwagon that's currently engaged in smothering this story into irrelevancy, bang on about how christians are a bit rubbish, and wave our hands in the vague direction of the ethical argument (which, despite not even reaching a page in length, already features both Jesus and Hitler!).

 

Sebrof is there saying I'm letting my exitement get in the way of my rationality, though I acknowledge the need for a debate [just not a bronze age one], while you are getting at me for ignoring the science and religion bashing!

 

The two criticisms aren't incompatible. A person can be so excited about the science that they neglect the ethical arguments whilst also ignoring the actual science itself. In some cases, the two are complimentary. Take nuclear power for instance. Decades ago people in some quarters were getting so excited about the possibilities that they ignored both the ethical/political arguments, whilst simultaneously being ignorant of the actual science, both its potential and its limitations.

[Chinahand]

Well go on then VinnieK - stop saying how poor I am at dealing with this subject and start giving us some science and some ethics then.