If Neanderthals ever walk the earth again, the primordial ooze from which they will rise is an emulsion of oil, water, and DNA capture beads engineered in the laboratory of 454 Life Sciences in Branford, Connecticut. Over the past 4 years those beads have been gathering tiny fragments of DNA from samples of dissolved organic materials, including pieces of Neanderthal bone. Genetic sequences have given paleoanthropologists a new line of evidence for testing ideas about the biology of our closest extinct relative.
The first studies of Neanderthal DNA focused on the genetic sequences of mitochondria, the microscopic organelles that convert food to energy within cells. In 2005, however, 454 began a collaborative project with the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, to sequence the full genetic code of a Neanderthal woman who died in Croatia's Vindija cave 30,000 years ago. As the Neanderthal genome is painstakingly sequenced, the archaeologists and biologists who study it will be faced with an opportunity that seemed like science fiction just 10 years ago. They will be able to look at the genetic blueprint of humankind's nearest relative and understand its biology as intimately as our own.
In addition to giving scientists the ability to answer questions about Neanderthals' relationship to our own species--did we interbreed, are we separate species, who was smarter--the Neanderthal genome may be useful in researching medical treatments. Newly developed techniques could make cloning Neanderthal cells or body parts a reality within a few years. The ability to use the genes of extinct hominins is going to force the field of paleoanthropology into some unfamiliar ethical territory. There are still technical obstacles, but soon it could be possible to use that long-extinct genome to safely create a healthy, living Neanderthal clone. Should it be done?
At the 454 Life Sciences offices, Gerald Irzyk, Jason Affourtit, and Thomas Jarvie explain the process they use to read the chemicals that made up Neanderthal DNA and the genes that determined a large part of their biology. DNA has a shape, called a double helix, that makes it look like a twisted ladder. Each rung on the ladder is called a base-pair. The rungs are made up of a pair of chemicals called nucleotides--adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which are usually referred to by their first initials. The sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA determines what genes an organism has and how they function.
Although most of the Neanderthal genome sequencing is now being done by the San Diego-based company Illumina, the Max Planck Institute initially chose 454 because it had come up with a way to read hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences at a time. Genome-sequencing technology is advancing at a rate comparable to computer processing power. "Six years ago if you wanted to sequence E. coli [a species of bacteria], which is about 4 million base-pairs in length, it would have taken one or maybe two million dollars, and it would have taken a year and 150 people," says Jarvie. "Nowadays, one person can do it in two days and it would cost a few hundred dollars."
Putting the fragments themselves in order can be a little tricky. "At first glance, it's just this completely random assemblage of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs," says Irzyk. "But it turns out there are patterns and motifs, and sometimes these are very specific to a group of organisms." For the Neanderthal sample, the human and chimpanzee genomes were used as references for checking the sequence.
Working with ancient DNA can be much more problematic than sequencing genetic material from living species. Within hours of death, cells begin to break down in a process called apoptosis. The dying cells release enzymes that chop up DNA into tiny pieces. In a human cell, this means that the entire three-billion-base-pair genome is reduced to fragments a few hundred base-pairs long or shorter. The DNA also goes through chemical changes that alter the nucleotides as it ages--C changes into T, and G turns into A--which can cause the gene sequence to be interpreted incorrectly. In the case of the Neanderthal sample, somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of the DNA came from bacteria and other contaminants that had found their way into the bone as it sat in the ground and in storage. The contaminant DNA has to be identified and eliminated. Given the similarity between Neanderthal and modern human DNA, this can be especially difficult when the contamination comes from the people who excavated or analyzed the bone.
Monday, May 3, 2010
South Dakota Senate Rejects Effort to Undermine Embryonic
South Dakota Senate Rejects Effort to Undermine Embryonic Stem Cell Ban
PIERRE, South Dakota, February 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The South Dakota Senate voted down a bill Tuesday that would have sabotaged the state’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research.
The Senate rejected S.B. 74 by a 21 - 12 margin, after the bill was substantially revised to permit South Dakotans to access embryonic stem cell treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The original bill intended to throw out South Dakota’s ban on embryonic stem cell research and treatments entirely and replace it with a set of “ethical guidelines” by which research and treatments could be carried out.
The proposed legal restrictions included a ban on human cloning, but defined “human cloning” mainly in reproductive terms, leaving some ambiguity over whether scientists could perform human cloning for therapeutic purposes.
The bill also forbade the purchase or sale of “human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures,” prohibited the creation of human embryos “by fertilization” for the sole purpose of ESCR, and required documented written informed consent.
However, the penalties for violating the law were criticized for being exceptionally light, especially considering the millions of dollars researchers have at their disposal. The bill stated that violators of the law would be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In South Dakota, a Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of “one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both.”
The original bill also erroneously defined “stem-cell research” to apply only to stem-cell research derived from human embryos, to the exclusion of adult stem-cells or stem-cells derived from umbilical cord blood. The latter two forms of stem-cell research are considered free of the ethical problems that dog ESCR, and unlike ESCR have delivered a host of scientifically proven therapies and cures.
But after enduring blistering testimony on the failure of ESCR to provide any practical results, especially in comparison to proven therapies that do not have ESCR’s ethical baggage, the Senate Health and Human services gutted the bill.
Bob Ellis, a writer for the conservative Dakota Voice explained that "the original bill had been a direct assault on the ban on ESCR. However, it became apparent from the damning scientific testimony before the Health and Human Services Committee against embryonic stem cell research and for adult stem cell research that the bill was about to go down in total flames."
"The prime sponsor Senator Ben Nesslhuff then offered to gut the bill and replace the outright attack on the ban with a much weaker measure which might serve as a 'foot in the door' to get the results of ESCR into the state,” he explained.
The amended bill instead read only that “nothing in this chapter prohibits the use of any Food and Drug Administration approved treatments derived from or involving human embryonic stem cells."
The committee then approved the bill 4-2 before handing it off to the South Dakota legislature where it was handily rejected.
The Associated Press reports that former state Treasurer David Volk of Sioux Falls had suspended a petition drive to put the state ban on the November ballot for public vote, while the legislature debated the issue. However, he may now revive those efforts.
But South Dakota appears likely to benefit from steering clear of ESCR, if the experience of the near-bankrupt State of California offers any lesson. Back in 2004, California’s government pumped $3 billion into research at California's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, seeking some medical use for stem cells harvested from human embryos, which are killed in the process.
However after years of fruitless work and facing the prospect of total failure, the Institute has now quietly diverted funds away from ESCR to adult stem cell research – which has already produced at least 73 documented therapies and cures for maladies ranging from spinal cord injury, to Alzheimer's, to Type I diabetes.
PIERRE, South Dakota, February 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The South Dakota Senate voted down a bill Tuesday that would have sabotaged the state’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research.
The Senate rejected S.B. 74 by a 21 - 12 margin, after the bill was substantially revised to permit South Dakotans to access embryonic stem cell treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The original bill intended to throw out South Dakota’s ban on embryonic stem cell research and treatments entirely and replace it with a set of “ethical guidelines” by which research and treatments could be carried out.
The proposed legal restrictions included a ban on human cloning, but defined “human cloning” mainly in reproductive terms, leaving some ambiguity over whether scientists could perform human cloning for therapeutic purposes.
The bill also forbade the purchase or sale of “human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures,” prohibited the creation of human embryos “by fertilization” for the sole purpose of ESCR, and required documented written informed consent.
However, the penalties for violating the law were criticized for being exceptionally light, especially considering the millions of dollars researchers have at their disposal. The bill stated that violators of the law would be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In South Dakota, a Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of “one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both.”
The original bill also erroneously defined “stem-cell research” to apply only to stem-cell research derived from human embryos, to the exclusion of adult stem-cells or stem-cells derived from umbilical cord blood. The latter two forms of stem-cell research are considered free of the ethical problems that dog ESCR, and unlike ESCR have delivered a host of scientifically proven therapies and cures.
But after enduring blistering testimony on the failure of ESCR to provide any practical results, especially in comparison to proven therapies that do not have ESCR’s ethical baggage, the Senate Health and Human services gutted the bill.
Bob Ellis, a writer for the conservative Dakota Voice explained that "the original bill had been a direct assault on the ban on ESCR. However, it became apparent from the damning scientific testimony before the Health and Human Services Committee against embryonic stem cell research and for adult stem cell research that the bill was about to go down in total flames."
"The prime sponsor Senator Ben Nesslhuff then offered to gut the bill and replace the outright attack on the ban with a much weaker measure which might serve as a 'foot in the door' to get the results of ESCR into the state,” he explained.
The amended bill instead read only that “nothing in this chapter prohibits the use of any Food and Drug Administration approved treatments derived from or involving human embryonic stem cells."
The committee then approved the bill 4-2 before handing it off to the South Dakota legislature where it was handily rejected.
The Associated Press reports that former state Treasurer David Volk of Sioux Falls had suspended a petition drive to put the state ban on the November ballot for public vote, while the legislature debated the issue. However, he may now revive those efforts.
But South Dakota appears likely to benefit from steering clear of ESCR, if the experience of the near-bankrupt State of California offers any lesson. Back in 2004, California’s government pumped $3 billion into research at California's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, seeking some medical use for stem cells harvested from human embryos, which are killed in the process.
However after years of fruitless work and facing the prospect of total failure, the Institute has now quietly diverted funds away from ESCR to adult stem cell research – which has already produced at least 73 documented therapies and cures for maladies ranging from spinal cord injury, to Alzheimer's, to Type I diabetes.
Guv adds embryonic stem-cell research to agenda
Gov. Bill Richardson has added embryonic stem cell research to an already-packed agenda for this year’s 30-day legislative session.
The governor’s message came down last week, and Richardson told lawmakers that he wanted legislation to permit “biomedical research on limited categories of human embryonic stem cells” while prohibiting human cloning.
Rep. Al Park, D-Albuquerque, has introduced such legislation, but it hasn’t gone before a committee yet, judging by the Legislature’s bill locator and House committee schedules.
With little more than two weeks to go in the session, that would lead some to believe the bill’s chances aren’t great–especially in a 30-day session that’s supposed to be focused on the budget.
The governor’s message came down last week, and Richardson told lawmakers that he wanted legislation to permit “biomedical research on limited categories of human embryonic stem cells” while prohibiting human cloning.
Rep. Al Park, D-Albuquerque, has introduced such legislation, but it hasn’t gone before a committee yet, judging by the Legislature’s bill locator and House committee schedules.
With little more than two weeks to go in the session, that would lead some to believe the bill’s chances aren’t great–especially in a 30-day session that’s supposed to be focused on the budget.
Mississippi Pro-Lifers File Lawsuit to Get Personhood Amendm
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A Mississippi pro-life group has filed a lawsuit against state officials in order to be able to get a personhood amendment on the state ballot. Such an amendment would declare that unborn children are persons starting at conception and could overturn laws allowing abortion or human cloning.
Personhood Mississippi filed suit against Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann in their official capacities.
The group has been working since February of last year to collect signatures for a ballot access initiative that would put an amendment before state voters in 2011.
The amendment states: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The lawsuit, which will be filed by attorney Stephen Crampton today, attempts to clarify the intent of the amendment and give volunteers the full twelve months to circulate petitions as outlined by statutes and the County Clerk the time needed to correctly validate the signatures.
"We are confident that we are well on our way to putting Personhood on the ballot," Personhood Mississippi sponsor Les Riley told LifeNews.com today. "This lawsuit is simply to ensure that the valid signatures are recognized by the state. Our volunteers have worked hard to submit so many valid signatures, and we want to ensure that every voice is heard."
Riley said the need for a lawsuit arose when a large portion of valid signatures were wrongly discounted by some County Circuit Clerk's offices.
"I noticed that my father's signature was marked as invalid, yet he is a registered voter and his information was correct," amendment supporter Buddy Hariston told LifeNews.com.
"This prompted me to obtain my county's voter database, and I was shocked to see that about three out of every four discounted signatures were actually legitimate. It seems that the County Circuit Clerk's office has too short a timeframe to complete the verification process with precision," he added.
Personhood Mississippi has until February 12, 2010 to get 89,285 valid signatures.
But not every pro-life advocate is on board with the strategy and one attorney worries the entire effort will be struck down in courts.
Paul Linton, a prominent pro-life attorney, tells LifeNews.com he doesn't think the amendment will ever get before Mississippi voters.
He explains that the under the express terms of the Mississippi Constitution, the Bill of Rights cannot be amended by the initiative mechanism.
"Thus, even if the necessary signatures are obtained by the February 12th deadline, which is doubtful, Measure 26 will never appear on the ballot," he says.
As such, Linton predicts that "even if the proponents of Measure 26 gather enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, it will be struck from the ballot by the Mississippi Supreme Court because the subject of the initiative lies outside the scope of the permitted uses of the initiative mechanism."
Linton says it 'would be exceptionally embarrassing to the pro-life movement in Mississippi to continue with the signature gathering process. What is the point in collecting signatures for an initiative that cannot ever appear on the ballot?"
The court may even strike down the amendment process under the lawsuit Personhood Mississippi filed, using Linton's logic.
"It could happen after the signatures have been gathered and before it is placed on the ballot. Or it could happen after it is voted on," he writes. "But one thing is certain–Initiative Measure No. 26 will never become part of the Mississippi Constitution. The Bill of Rights cannot be amended via the initiative process."
Personhood Mississippi filed suit against Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann in their official capacities.
The group has been working since February of last year to collect signatures for a ballot access initiative that would put an amendment before state voters in 2011.
The amendment states: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The lawsuit, which will be filed by attorney Stephen Crampton today, attempts to clarify the intent of the amendment and give volunteers the full twelve months to circulate petitions as outlined by statutes and the County Clerk the time needed to correctly validate the signatures.
"We are confident that we are well on our way to putting Personhood on the ballot," Personhood Mississippi sponsor Les Riley told LifeNews.com today. "This lawsuit is simply to ensure that the valid signatures are recognized by the state. Our volunteers have worked hard to submit so many valid signatures, and we want to ensure that every voice is heard."
Riley said the need for a lawsuit arose when a large portion of valid signatures were wrongly discounted by some County Circuit Clerk's offices.
"I noticed that my father's signature was marked as invalid, yet he is a registered voter and his information was correct," amendment supporter Buddy Hariston told LifeNews.com.
"This prompted me to obtain my county's voter database, and I was shocked to see that about three out of every four discounted signatures were actually legitimate. It seems that the County Circuit Clerk's office has too short a timeframe to complete the verification process with precision," he added.
Personhood Mississippi has until February 12, 2010 to get 89,285 valid signatures.
But not every pro-life advocate is on board with the strategy and one attorney worries the entire effort will be struck down in courts.
Paul Linton, a prominent pro-life attorney, tells LifeNews.com he doesn't think the amendment will ever get before Mississippi voters.
He explains that the under the express terms of the Mississippi Constitution, the Bill of Rights cannot be amended by the initiative mechanism.
"Thus, even if the necessary signatures are obtained by the February 12th deadline, which is doubtful, Measure 26 will never appear on the ballot," he says.
As such, Linton predicts that "even if the proponents of Measure 26 gather enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, it will be struck from the ballot by the Mississippi Supreme Court because the subject of the initiative lies outside the scope of the permitted uses of the initiative mechanism."
Linton says it 'would be exceptionally embarrassing to the pro-life movement in Mississippi to continue with the signature gathering process. What is the point in collecting signatures for an initiative that cannot ever appear on the ballot?"
The court may even strike down the amendment process under the lawsuit Personhood Mississippi filed, using Linton's logic.
"It could happen after the signatures have been gathered and before it is placed on the ballot. Or it could happen after it is voted on," he writes. "But one thing is certain–Initiative Measure No. 26 will never become part of the Mississippi Constitution. The Bill of Rights cannot be amended via the initiative process."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Physician Steps into Stupidity on Human Cloning Issue
"As a physician, I gave an oath when I was a young man in training to preserve life. We really think experimenting with human cloning and with stem cell research is really not the direction to go in as a state," said Rapid City family physician Sam Huot.
Source: http://www.kotatv.com/global/story.asp?s=11496142
Human cloning and stem cell technology will preserve and extend life. Some physicians are not scientific enough to separate fact from fiction.
Source: http://www.kotatv.com/global/story.asp?s=11496142
Human cloning and stem cell technology will preserve and extend life. Some physicians are not scientific enough to separate fact from fiction.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Embryonic Stem Cells one Step Closer to Curing Infertility
New research may help solve the puzzle of infertility.
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Contact:
Robert Bock or Marianne Glass Miller
301-496-5133
NIH-Funded Researchers Transform Embryonic Stem Cells Into Human Germ Cells
Advance Provides Potential Tool to Find Causes of Unexplained Infertility, Birth Defects
Researchers funded in part by the National Institutes of Health have discovered how to transform human embryonic stem cells into germ cells, the embryonic cells that ultimately give rise to sperm and eggs. The advance will allow researchers to observe human germ cells — previously inaccessible — in laboratory dishes.
"This achievement opens a new window into what was only recently a hidden stage of human development," said Susan B. Shurin, M.D., acting director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the NIH Institute that provided funding for the study. "Laboratory observation of human germ cells has the potential to yield important clues to the origins of unexplained infertility and to the genesis of many birth defects and chromosomal disorders."
The results were published online in Nature on Oct. 28.
The study was conducted by Kehkooi Kee, Vanessa T. Angeles, Martha Flores, Ha Nam Nguyen and Renee A. Reijo Pera, all of Stanford University School of Medicine.
Researchers have long sought to understand the process by which cells in the early human embryo mature into germ cells, explained Dr. Reijo Pera, the study’s senior author. But studying this process in human beings has been impossible in the past, because it takes place so early in development — before the embryo is two weeks old.
Dr. Reijo Pera explained that the ability to observe germ cells in laboratory cultures opens up several promising new avenues of research. Although infertility is apparent only after sexual maturity, she said, many forms of unexplained infertility are thought to have their origins in errors that occur in the cells of the early embryo. The ability to observe embryonic germ cells as they develop may allow researchers to pinpoint potential genetic changes underlying infertility. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infertility is a major health problem that costs the United States more than $5 billion annually.
The researchers began with human embryonic stem cells, to which they added a gene that makes a protein which flashes green when a gene found only in germ cells is turned on. After the embryonic stem cells grew and changed for two weeks, the researchers isolated the cells that flashed green.
The researchers next conducted a variety of tests to confirm that the green fluorescing cells behaved like germ cells. Once convinced that their cells were in fact germ cells, the researchers turned on and off several candidate genes to see if those genes played a role in the development of stem cells into immature germ cells. The three genes they tested are named DAZ, DAZL and BOULE, and all come from the same family of genes. Dr. Reijo Pera discovered the first of them, DAZ (Deleted in AZoospermia), in the mid-1990s, when she showed that infertile men who lack germ cells often lack the gene.
In the new study, she and her colleagues showed that DAZL was necessary to transform embryonic stem cells into germ cells. When DAZL was turned off, just half as many germ cells formed. DAZ and BOULE, by contrast, acted later in the germ cells' maturation, nudging the cells into a phase called meiosis, during which cells reduce their number of chromosomes by half.
The researchers even observed that some male germ cells went all the way through the process of meiosis, to the point where they had half as much genetic material as they had begun with. They did not stimulate female germ cells to progress through meiosis because female human germ cells pause partway through meiosis and remain in that state for many years, through sexual maturity.
Dr. Reijo Pera next plans to try the same techniques with so-called induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent cells are adult cells that have been reprogrammed to behave like embryonic cells. If it works, she hopes to take cells from an adult with infertility, transform them into germ cells and study them for clues to the cause of the adult's infertility.
The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. For more information, visit the Institute's Web site at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Contact:
Robert Bock or Marianne Glass Miller
301-496-5133
NIH-Funded Researchers Transform Embryonic Stem Cells Into Human Germ Cells
Advance Provides Potential Tool to Find Causes of Unexplained Infertility, Birth Defects
Researchers funded in part by the National Institutes of Health have discovered how to transform human embryonic stem cells into germ cells, the embryonic cells that ultimately give rise to sperm and eggs. The advance will allow researchers to observe human germ cells — previously inaccessible — in laboratory dishes.
"This achievement opens a new window into what was only recently a hidden stage of human development," said Susan B. Shurin, M.D., acting director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the NIH Institute that provided funding for the study. "Laboratory observation of human germ cells has the potential to yield important clues to the origins of unexplained infertility and to the genesis of many birth defects and chromosomal disorders."
The results were published online in Nature on Oct. 28.
The study was conducted by Kehkooi Kee, Vanessa T. Angeles, Martha Flores, Ha Nam Nguyen and Renee A. Reijo Pera, all of Stanford University School of Medicine.
Researchers have long sought to understand the process by which cells in the early human embryo mature into germ cells, explained Dr. Reijo Pera, the study’s senior author. But studying this process in human beings has been impossible in the past, because it takes place so early in development — before the embryo is two weeks old.
Dr. Reijo Pera explained that the ability to observe germ cells in laboratory cultures opens up several promising new avenues of research. Although infertility is apparent only after sexual maturity, she said, many forms of unexplained infertility are thought to have their origins in errors that occur in the cells of the early embryo. The ability to observe embryonic germ cells as they develop may allow researchers to pinpoint potential genetic changes underlying infertility. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infertility is a major health problem that costs the United States more than $5 billion annually.
The researchers began with human embryonic stem cells, to which they added a gene that makes a protein which flashes green when a gene found only in germ cells is turned on. After the embryonic stem cells grew and changed for two weeks, the researchers isolated the cells that flashed green.
The researchers next conducted a variety of tests to confirm that the green fluorescing cells behaved like germ cells. Once convinced that their cells were in fact germ cells, the researchers turned on and off several candidate genes to see if those genes played a role in the development of stem cells into immature germ cells. The three genes they tested are named DAZ, DAZL and BOULE, and all come from the same family of genes. Dr. Reijo Pera discovered the first of them, DAZ (Deleted in AZoospermia), in the mid-1990s, when she showed that infertile men who lack germ cells often lack the gene.
In the new study, she and her colleagues showed that DAZL was necessary to transform embryonic stem cells into germ cells. When DAZL was turned off, just half as many germ cells formed. DAZ and BOULE, by contrast, acted later in the germ cells' maturation, nudging the cells into a phase called meiosis, during which cells reduce their number of chromosomes by half.
The researchers even observed that some male germ cells went all the way through the process of meiosis, to the point where they had half as much genetic material as they had begun with. They did not stimulate female germ cells to progress through meiosis because female human germ cells pause partway through meiosis and remain in that state for many years, through sexual maturity.
Dr. Reijo Pera next plans to try the same techniques with so-called induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent cells are adult cells that have been reprogrammed to behave like embryonic cells. If it works, she hopes to take cells from an adult with infertility, transform them into germ cells and study them for clues to the cause of the adult's infertility.
The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. For more information, visit the Institute's Web site at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Human Cloning Questions
Hello, I am a high school student whom is doing a multi genre paper on human cloning. For one of my genres, I have to interview someone. I was hoping I could ask a few questions and receive answers ASAP.
1) What is your view on human cloning?
2) Why do you believe that it will/won't benefit the United States?
3) In replacement cloning, (lets say to clone a liver), roughly how long would it take?
4) Where would this cloning take place?
5) Would human cloning advance our country in any ways? If so, how?
Please help the Human Cloning Foundation answer these questions.
1) What is your view on human cloning?
2) Why do you believe that it will/won't benefit the United States?
3) In replacement cloning, (lets say to clone a liver), roughly how long would it take?
4) Where would this cloning take place?
5) Would human cloning advance our country in any ways? If so, how?
Please help the Human Cloning Foundation answer these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
