It's been almost four years since the sheep Dolly was copied. -
Considering the slow progress of science, the time is not long.
Still, cloning now seems to be an old and tired topic, appearing regularly in the media, it's a runof-the-mill hot-
The button topic has become part of the vocabulary of controversial issues in the United States, such as gay rights or abortion.
It's not a coincidence that every question has an inherent connection to another one: all of these issues involve life choices around sex, which is the obsession of our country.
Of course, human attention to sex is only a coat of its true obsession with reproduction or, more precisely, immortality.
Most evolutionary biologists will tell you that all creatures are obsessed with copying and transmitting DNA;
However, I suspect that other sentient beings in the universe may have their way of giving birth, regardless of their complexity or culture, are filled with condoms, sex toys, birth control pills, the test tubes, child support and abortion clinics are our own.
For today's humanity, reproductive rituals, not to mention reproductive rights, are more complex and controversial than ever before.
But to a large extent, creating a child still requires a woman and a man, or more specifically, the DNA of an egg and the DNA of sperm.
However, when Dolly was cloned, there was a link between cloning and reproduction and, predictably, the controversy that followed.
On the edge of it is someone like Richard Seed, a physicist who wants to set up a cloning clinic to provide babies to infertility couples.
Then there is Raelians, a Canadian religious group dedicated to believing that alien scientists have planted the planet by cloning it.
(They recently announced plans to clone a dead child.
At the same time, Randolfe Wicker, an unofficial human cloning spokesperson who established the United Front for human rights, combined science with gay rights activities.
Currently, wicker, director of the human cloning Foundation, advocated human cloning as a means to replicate itself in the name of replication, and strongly believe that cloning should be used by anyone and everyone who wishes to do so.
Obviously, with Dolly, the path to immortality has diverged, creating reproductive options that transcend or bypass the "man and wife" route and focus on mixing DNA.
A plausible reproductive option involving DNA manipulation is a laboratory technique called egg nuclear transfer.
It has been suggested that this method of manipulating human egg DNA is now applicable to infertility cases in the mitochondrial (the basic structure found in each human cell) a woman's egg is damaged
When used for infertility, the DNA of the damaged egg will need to be removed and placed in the denuclear egg-
An egg that has been cleaned with its own DNA and contains a healthy mitochondrial.
Because under the current laws of many countries, it involves human cloning, nuclear transfer of eggs and any further research including it is illegal.
But legislation allowing nuclear transfer research for infertility treatment to be passed into law by the British Parliament in late last month has sparked a debate on how to expand the use of the technology to includeDr.
The bioethologist Calum MacKellar, associated with the University of Edinburgh, has been speaking bluntly about egg nuclear transfer, expressing concern that it can be used to "mate" genetic material from two sperm cells, create a biological child from two men.
In theory, the technique can be used to import sperm DNA into an egg that has been denuclear, to fertilize the "male egg" with another sperm, and to conceive the final embryo in a surrogate mother.
(Of course, this can also be done with the DNA of two female eggs.
) Although it sounds simple, the situation is still a bit far away, as the creation and fertilization of male eggs requires researchers to overcome certain biological obstacles, not just legislative and psychological ones.
One such obstacle is the automatic response that the mating DNA of mammals seems to show, in which it recognizes DNA of the opposite sex, also known as imprint.
Still, MacKellar is concerned that loopholes in UK legislation allow research to lead to male eggs.
In a draft of a recent article, he exaggerated his question: "Will Society, biologically speaking, accept such a child without a mother ? " The nuclear transfer of eggs used for homosexual reproduction will essentially, if there is no idealized twoparent home.
This method does not duplicate the exact copy of human beings, but rather allows all the necessary opportunities and the standard DNA in the mixed heterosexual reproduction, although the mixed DNA is the origin of sperm or the origin of eggs.
When I told one of my gay friends about the idea of male eggs, his answer was "It's so creepy ".
But he went on to say that he did not object because he supported reproductive freedom of any kind.
Would he use it himself if it wasn't expensive?
Still, he is not too enthusiastic about the concept, as "I don't feel liberated by it.
"Probably because he is not determined to have a child of his own genetic makeup, he thinks adoption or surrogacy is a very suitable option. Felicia Park-
Rogers, director of lesbian children across San Francisco, agrees with my gay friends.
She acknowledged the human desire for their flesh-and-blood children and advocated "as many moral choices as possible" to create a family.
Despite her strong opposition to cloning humans for breeding-
She thinks it's a pure form of narcissism. -
Having children through egg nuclear transfers is "a completely ethical choice" for gay and straight parents, she said ".
Because most people have knee reactions.
When used at close range, jerk's aversion to the words "cloning" and "breeding", egg nuclear transfer for breeding purposes will be a difficult thing to sell. A gut-
At least as far as evolution is concerned, there may be some instincts about the degree of aversion to replication cloning: Human cloning techniques performed in the name of medical research are expected to remain outside the reproductive process;
Cloning enters the natural order of the species as a way of breeding muscles.
Nevertheless, it is clear that many of the uneasiness of human cloning for reproductive purposes will be caused by homophobia.
Protests against male eggs involve not only cloning but also the rights of gay and gay men and women to have their own children.
It is difficult to imagine that many people will adversely affect the purpose of the newly authorized egg nuclear transfer, which is to give infertility couples a chance to form a family.
But are we prepared to treat gay couples as clinically infertility? Will we define basic human rights as accessible to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation during our communications, it is clear that MacKellar opposes the use of egg nuclear transfer by gay couples to create genetic offspring-
For theological reasons" Park-
On the other hand, Rogers asserted, "Whenever we look for new ways of breeding, we need to look at what is [morally] best for families and children.
So I don't want to see homophobic discrimination involved in any way to stop this.
"The scientific community has spent millions of dollars on infertility research;
Couples spend millions on infertility treatment.
Infertility couples everywhere have moral, ethical, and legislative support in their efforts to produce offspring.
How do we justify the limitations of this expense and support for heterosexual people who should have genetic offspring. Those who question the privilege of a infertility couple to have children often suggest concerns about overpopulation, unnatural or large numbers of orphans copied through the laboratory environment for adoption.
But as MacKellar points out, most of us are driven to have offspring who look and behave like us.
Whether this is due to our quest for immortality, or the hypothetical Selfish Gene (DNA has designed a way to continue itself, regardless of the organism that holds it), this is an existence, the drive cannot be denied.
Some may argue that the government-
Any government-
There is no jurisdiction over a person's right to have a child, and it is not appropriate to manage a person's DNA by law.
But whether you like it or not, the legislation will determine the direction we will eventually take on this issue.
(Even when I was writing this, MacKellar informed me that scientists have come up with another way for men to have children on their own ---
By reprogramming cells from cloned embryos to change the process of sperm becoming an egg.
) In the end, if not progressive thinking, legislators will have to succumb to the pressure of scientific progress.
However, even if researchers are allowed to put these technologies into practice, it may take another four years ---
Maybe less, but probably more. -
Until anyone, even a straight couple, can benefit from it.
It is hoped that at that time the principle of fairness will prevail and the law will become clear, and therefore the use of reproductive technology will not be centred on discriminatory theories, it is centered on the basic right of freedom and choice.