Thank you for visiting nature. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Research into cloned human cells has left the spectre of past scientific fraud behind. But reaction to the earlier work still holds worthwhile lessons. When, in , Woo Suk Hwang claimed to have produced a stem-cell line derived from an embryonic human clone, his research, done at Seoul University, sparked intense interest and hype. Even though Hwang's work later proved to be fraudulent, all advances in the field risk being measured against it. At the same time, researchers seek to distance themselves from the episode to the extent that its ethical implications for current work are rarely discussed.
This week, scientists have come the closest of any so far in emulating Hwang's claimed results: on page 70 , researchers from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory report using cloning technology to reprogram human DNA taken from an adult and create embryonic stem cells. But they do not use the term cloning to describe their results. That is one of many contrasts between the research landscape now and in Hwang's claims received worldwide attention. Patient groups jumped for joy; scientists around the world used the results to gather more funds for stem-cell research; and bioethicists emerged to justify or condemn the work.
Reaction this week is likely to be more muted. Discussion of the ethical concerns raised by such work have calmed, and the research group behind the latest study dealt with one of the most divisive issues — the retrieval of human eggs from donors — in a transparent and considered way.
Hwang, by contrast, had procured eggs unethically and illegally, a problem first brought to public attention in Nature see Nature , 3; Whereas discussion of Hwang's results featured the phrase 'therapeutic cloning' and so invited sometimes wilful confusion with reproductive cloning and the spectre of technology misuse, the latest paper refers only to the reprogramming of cells to a pluripotent state.
A final issue — that embryos are destroyed in the process of the research — does still apply. The ultimate goal of such research is to create patient-specific stem cells for drug screening and the growth of genetically identical tissue for transplantation. Yet cloning, whether called that or not, is no longer the only means to this end, as it seemed in Hwang's time. Keep me logged in. Not a member? Sign up here! What's Your Gender? What's Your Age? Set Your Username. Log In Sign Up. Global Chat.
Ready to let go? Edit participants. View Profile. People who like this. New to PeerAnswer? You must login or sign up to do this - it takes 5 seconds! For instance, within the th Congress, a bill to ban human cloning was introduced [10]. The bill stated that it would be unlawful for any public or private entity to perform human cloning and included fines up to 1,, dollars.
However, despite numerous attempts, there have been no bills passed banning human cloning. The letter stated that under federal law, the FDA has jurisdiction over cloning-to-produce children. Further, the FDA asserted that in order to produce cloned children, permission must be granted due to safety issues. However, it is uncertain what penalty, if any, would be involved. With regards to intellectual property, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO is forbidden under congressional measures from issuing patents "directed to or encompassing" human organisms including embryos [12].
Nevertheless, human embryonic stem cell lines have been patented. Additionally, methods to clone humans are also potentially patentable. A question arises to the patentability of cloned mammals. In , the Federal. Circuit held, that "Dolly's genetic identity to her donor parents renders her unpatentable" [13]. This is because the cloned sheep is not "markedly different" from a product of nature.
0コメント