Add Comment

[quote] If the nomenclature is scientifically wrong, will any vote be therefore invalid?[/quote] -Stewart Birks, Invergordon Mr Birks who, presumably has a degree in biology, himself neglects to give the entity a name. Would the following be a grotesque product of the imagination: chimæra?

What about hippogrif or centaur, Cynicus?

Well said Stewart Birks - as I have pointed out in previous postings, the religous bigots and other antagonists who want to obstruct scientific advances which would alleviate human pain and suffering have fundamentally flawed competence with the English language. As a result their utterances amount to no more than nonsense.

On the one side of this debate we have rational, cold scientific analysis. On the other we have a group with little specialist knowledge resorting to the use of terms such as 'Frankenstein', 'Chimera', 'Grotesque', 'Centaur' or 'Hippogrif'. Guess who wins? Also, I love the arrogance of the suggestion that simply because a bunch of trough-snorting parliamentarians, subject to intense lobbying by special interest groups such as those espousing religiosity or pharmaceutical companies expressing 'humane concerns' ([italic]ie, a massive decline in profits once this great leap has been made[/italic] ), make the practise of this science illegal that the knowledge will simply die. Wrong. This is the next great step to be made in human development and whether politicians or pulpit ayatollahs like it or not this knowledge will be thoroughly researched, funded and perfected, be it here in the UK or abroad. Think on this: Ten or fifteen years from now your loved one could be struck down with a horrific ailment for which there is no available cure on the NHS because of your high handed pontificating a decade earlier. Treatment is available however, for the cost of a house, and you have to go to Ukraine or Switzerland or China or Brunei or Singapore or some other more enlightened place. Will you sell your house to ease their suffering, or will you simply tell your child/spouse/parent/ sibling that to cure them would offend your ill-informed moral sensibility and as such their daily, hourly, permanent agony must continue? Good for you if you say yes. There's nothing like other people's suffering to reassure the righteous.

Well said Mr Birks. I'm glad that someone is bringing some facts into the debate!

[quote][bold]Alistair[/bold] wrote: What about hippogrif or centaur, Cynicus? [/quote] I think they are the sort of fictional creature that lead to the rhetorical definition of Chimæra: a grotesque product of the imagination. But it also has a long established medical use which pre-dates this controversy. [quote]Chimera: In medicine, a person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing when it was found that some people had more than one blood type[/quote]-Webster's New World Medical Dictionary. In genetics, a Chimera is typically defined as "an organism with genetically different tissues: an organism, or part of one, with at least two genetically different tissues resulting from mutation, the grafting of plants, or the insertion of foreign cells into an embryo" If this term, routinely used by geneticists, is unacceptable to Alistair or Mr Birks' cheerleaders here, perhaps they will propose an alternative?

Hey Cynacus - Webster's New World Medical Dictionary is FAR too advanced for you - just stick with a simple English dictionary - lots for you to learn there!

I don't think it is a hybrid or a chimera. As the nucleus is removed from the cow's egg and in the process removes the genetic and species identity, the egg is essentially an empty shell - it is inter species, but not cross species.

[quote][bold]Alistair[/bold] wrote: What about hippogrif or centaur, Cynicus? [/quote] Minotaurs is more accurate. The alternative is to name them after Dr Minger. Let's stick to minotaurs.

[quote][bold]Oskar Matzerath[/bold] wrote: On the one side of this debate we have rational, cold scientific analysis. On the other we have a group with little specialist knowledge resorting to the use of terms such as 'Frankenstein', 'Chimera', 'Grotesque', 'Centaur' or 'Hippogrif'. Guess who wins? Also, I love the arrogance of the suggestion that simply because a bunch of trough-snorting parliamentarians, subject to intense lobbying by special interest groups such as those espousing religiosity or pharmaceutical companies expressing 'humane concerns' ([italic]ie, a massive decline in profits once this great leap has been made[/italic] ), make the practise of this science illegal that the knowledge will simply die. Wrong. This is the next great step to be made in human development and whether politicians or pulpit ayatollahs like it or not this knowledge will be thoroughly researched, funded and perfected, be it here in the UK or abroad. Think on this: Ten or fifteen years from now your loved one could be struck down with a horrific ailment for which there is no available cure on the NHS because of your high handed pontificating a decade earlier. Treatment is available however, for the cost of a house, and you have to go to Ukraine or Switzerland or China or Brunei or Singapore or some other more enlightened place. Will you sell your house to ease their suffering, or will you simply tell your child/spouse/parent/ sibling that to cure them would offend your ill-informed moral sensibility and as such their daily, hourly, permanent agony must continue? Good for you if you say yes. There's nothing like other people's suffering to reassure the righteous.[/quote] Well said.

The strictly scientifically correct term for an embryo that is less than 14 days old is 'blastocyst'. I would not attribute any sinister motive to the use of the word 'embryo' however; those on both sides of this argument have used it and it is the term employed in the bill. The over-arching term used for all types of human-nonhuman combinations in the bill is 'ad-mixed embryo'. It's worth pointing out that this bill does permit the creation of hybrid embryos as understood by Stewart; that is a 50:50 human/animal combination, although the ones being used for the moment are the de-nucleated egg ones. I've put a list of terms that I found on the Cambridge Network Bio Science page; I don't know if they will help or hinder, but so much does depend on good definition in law and debate, that I think it's worth getting right. As for the rest of the argument, i'm bowing out; I've had my say on other posts on this subject. i'm against this bill if anyone wants to know, and I say that as someone who is looking after an Alzheimers sufferer. I've watched this debate for several months and it's clear to me that the only interest that anyone has in us is to use us as an excuse for their own commercial ends. Perhaps the most vital difference between adult stem cell treatments and embryonic stem cell treatments is that you can patent embryonic ones, but you can't patent adult ones and I think that is what lies at the bottom of this. Here are the definitions for anyone that's interested. Cytoplasmic hybrids (also known as “cybrids”) are created by removing the nucleus of an animal egg cell (which stops it becoming an animal) and replacing it with one from a human (which helps it to become human). True hybrids are created by combining human gametes (i.e. egg or sperm) with animal gametes. Human transgenic embryos are created by introducing animal DNA into one or more cells of a human embryo. This encompasses both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Human animal chimeras are created by adding animal cells to a human embryo. A chimera is an organism comprised of cells from two or more genetically different organisms. A mouse-mouse chimera might, for example, be made by adding stem cells from a sandy-coloured mouse to the developing embryo of a black mouse. The resulting mouse is perfectly normal, but remarkable in having two genomes. In this example, the chimeric mouse might have black and sandy fur.

ColinE, Dundee: [quote]Hey Cynacus - Webster's New World Medical Dictionary is FAR too advanced for you - just stick with a simple English dictionary - lots for you to learn there[/quote] At least Cynicus can spell 'chimera' - and give evidence of knowing what it means. You can't even spell 'Cynicus'. Perhaps you should stick with the paper of record in Dundee (by which I mean the [italic]Beano[/italic] ).

Thank you julie. Your posts are most informative - if a little challenging for some of the Beano readers above.

Thank you julie. Your posts are most informative - if a little challenging for some of the Beano readers above.