# lab made sperm?



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 13, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5166462.stm

lab made sperm


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2006)

Fascinating stuff, but this is going to cause a real stink, I can already tell....


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 13, 2006)

why?!?!?!


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2006)

There are still plenty of people who object to Dolly. And they're LOUD. The ones who are more reasonable don't say much. Who do you think is likely to get heard? In the eyes of many, we are seriously playing God here. I think that's a crock. In fact, I'm damn' sure it's a crock. But that same objection was levelled against penicillin when it first began to be used; it still is, in some places. And, since these people have the same political rights as anyone else, they push for legislation to prevent what they see as a moral evil. Whether they're right or wrong, they will be heard, and it will have an effect. In the end, it probably won't be much of one, but it can certainly throw roadblocks in along the way....


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 13, 2006)

please tell me i wont get much of that on this forum...im getting fed up of justifying myself... i thought this story was 'safe'


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2006)

CarlottaVonUberwald said:
			
		

> please tell me i wont get much of that on this forum...im getting fed up of justifying myself... i thought this story was 'safe'


Hmmm. I don't see why you should. This is an interesting science story, not (here, anyway, I think) a controversial political one. In the big world, yes. Here, I expect what you'll get are people fascinated with the possibilities.

Oh, and incidentally, CVU, I applaud you for bringing the stories in this branch of science up. You're right. Most of what does end up here is in other fields, but it's all fascinating stuff, and this should be looked at as well. Thanks.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 13, 2006)

lol ill admit i do it becasue genetics is what i love its what i have greatest undertanding of its what i do lol... in fact i think im going to do a series of presentations on biological issues aimed at A-level students to try and te4ach them things by looking at cases it could be used YAY...


anyway back on topic


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jul 13, 2006)

There's so many childish and obvious jokes to make! Must resist...


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jul 13, 2006)

I think my biggest worry with artificial sperm is not so much taht they are playing "god' but--what about our inherited DNA memories? 

Instincts, our biology---for example, our diet has changed drastically since humans have evolved (and we are evolving still). 

Now, as for them playing God, I believe that God gave us the ability to manipulate our environment, of all His amazing creatures, we were created for that purpose. We, as humans, were told to go forth and populate the earth. That is what they are learning to do, and if they can make better ways for humans who want children to have them, why not? It says nothing in the bible about humans creating humans, in fact, my understanding of the bible is that it encourages us to be like Him, and it encourages us to be parents.

PS Markey: It was terribly hard to resist those un-eloquent comments!!!

PPS: Carlotta: There has never been anything "Safe" about science.


----------



## weaveworld (Jul 13, 2006)

*Hey....

If you are getting a kid at the end of it all - I am all for it!  

Its not about playing god, its about helping people.  
*


----------



## BookStop (Jul 14, 2006)

Hmm- If I'm reading that correctly, the 'artificial sperm' was created from embryonic stem cells that had already begun to develop into sperm cells, and the scientists just encouraged them to develop. I'm wondering why they would call them artificial cells, when they were already on there way to that end anyway.  Nothing really artificial about it. And if men have always had the ability to have stem cells retrieved via testicular biopsy, why hasn't someone researched this before(as far as human men go, I'm betting lack of volunteers)although, maybe they have. I always thought stem cells were an embryonic/umbilical thing, thus part of the ethical argument. If they are something that can be given willingly, then viva la research.  I'm just glad these researchers are taking a slow and cautious approach.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

to be honest at the contiuned slow and cautioyus approach there wont be enough money to make use of research like this to those who need it


( im on a one wqoman FOP crusade im afraid)


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 14, 2006)

CarlottaVonUberwald said:
			
		

> to be honest at the contiuned slow and cautioyus approach there wont be enough money to make use of research like this to those who need it
> 
> 
> ( im on a one wqoman FOP crusade im afraid)


 
Good for you! Keep the flags flying!


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

you dont even know FOP is do you?


----------



## star.torturer (Jul 14, 2006)

i have to say, theres no pleasure in this toppic, if you get what im hintiin at


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

yes....i think your a crude idiot...


----------



## weaveworld (Jul 14, 2006)

*On a serious note...

This is a great topic, you have certainly made good points CVU!

The fertility game or should I say, infertility game is some game, and if you are lucky you get a prize at the end of it.

*


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

uhuh- fertitlity isnt the test of a good parent i always say

i mena some poeple who are fertiel have 10 kids but couldnt raise one right

meanwhile thre perfect parents just cant have children because there infertile


----------



## star.torturer (Jul 14, 2006)

like gambling i guess


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

star.torturer said:
			
		

> like gambling i guess


 
no not like gambling..though i can see where you get that from..


----------



## weaveworld (Jul 14, 2006)

CarlottaVonUberwald said:
			
		

> uhuh- fertitlity isnt the test of a good parent i always say
> 
> i mena some poeple who are fertiel have 10 kids but couldnt raise one right
> 
> meanwhile thre perfect parents just cant have children because there infertile



*That unfortunately is the way of the world, you just have to go with the good and the bad.  And no fertility is not the test of a good parent, but getting past fertility problems that is a test.

*


----------



## star.torturer (Jul 14, 2006)

guessing is like gabling i guess

though thats off toppic

it is , fertility is compleatly random


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

no what im saying is...if we can give one good parent hope to have a child i nthe best possible way and at the same time get closer to understanding techniques that could later be used to sure a disease we are onto a winner


although the RSPCA check out your home and background checkyo u before giving you a dog im sure something similar could be a pplaied to expensive fertility i dont see how someone who wants children to that extent would disagree to it.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

star.torturer said:
			
		

> guessing is like gabling i guess
> 
> though thats off toppic
> 
> it is , fertility is compleatly random


 
betting and gambling isnt random thoguh

usually weighted..whichi suppose fertility is in a way.. but still no ST


----------



## weaveworld (Jul 14, 2006)

star.torturer said:
			
		

> guessing is like gabling i guess
> 
> though thats off toppic
> 
> it is , fertility is compleatly random



*You just have to go with the flow.....and be patient*


----------



## kyektulu (Jul 14, 2006)

weaveworld said:
			
		

> *Hey....
> 
> If you are getting a kid at the end of it all - I am all for it!
> 
> ...



*If it helps people then im sure this can be great, however, I worry about the long term implications of such measures, as with all new areas of research there are reactions and side effects that only become apparent later on.
On the web page it stated that six of the seven mice lived untill adulthood and the ones that did survive all had abnormal patterns of growth, such as difficulty breathing.
This is just a reaction which affected the mice, our genetics are different who knows what will be a side effect on a person, are they willing to go ahead with such a procedure regaurdless?
No matter how much testing on animals they do, safetly cannot be a certainty untill people are used as subjects, this became apparent in March this year when 6 men were taken seriously ill after the first clinical trail on humans for the drug TBN1412.

In  this situation it would involve creating a baby purely as a test subject to see if it can be done, to me that is not a morally justifiable action.
*
*Dont get me wrong I am all for medical advancements but I feel that we shouldnt be so hasty in seeking out such means to an end.
Stem cells are such an exciting area of science and im personally holding out hope of a cure one day for my ailment..*.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

i think that before any government les it get to human stage wed be fairly safe and i think we have to take a risk somewhere...


----------



## kyektulu (Jul 14, 2006)

CarlottaVonUberwald said:
			
		

> i think that before any government les it get to human stage wed be fairly safe and i think we have to take a risk somewhere...


*

Is taking such a risk with a human life justifiable? 

In this case, it would only be bringing a life into the world for an experiment.
I doubt that it would be allowed to be put in to practice in many countrys, especially not in the UK, with the European Court Of Human Rights, this act would certainly be viewed as inhumane.

Yet imagine if a baby was produced and the same effects happened to it that happened to the mice, growth defects etc...

Is the deprived life of this child worth truely worth it?

What if this techique cannot be perfected, how many disabled children need to be born for us to learn this?

Is experimenting on people truely for the greater good?

Even so, can we really live with the fact that babys suffered so to bring further life into the world, can that truely be an act of a civilised society?

These are the questions people should ask thierselves before taking the next step and progressing this experiment on people.*


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 14, 2006)

yes... in general ( obviously i expect a level of testing first a programme suprort and knowledge of specific cases)


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 14, 2006)

While I agree that all reasonable testing should be done, there comes a time in any new medical advance when human testing is inevitable; and there is always the risk of lost lives, including those procedures which are still experimental (where humans are concerned) that are intended to improve the chances of life in children. We cannot, unfortunately, eliminate all risk with this. What we can do, is to run as much testing as possible beforehand to work out as many of the problems as possible; there's also the fact that information sharing from other branches of genetic science can come into play here, to help understand why certain things happened here, and how to avoid them in future, if they can be avoided. There are many, many safety precautions to heed, and this is only now being discovered, really. So we've a long way to go before human testing will come about. But remember that in vitro fertilization, in its early days, often ended up disastrously. Various medications have produced terrible birth defects. But, because the nature of the universe is as it is, this is the way we learn, by painful trial and error -- sometimes horrendously painful. Take all the precautions we can, learn as much as we can, then when the time comes, do the best we can ... and pray.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Jul 21, 2006)

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to generate eggs? They are, after all, finite and not that numerous to begin with, whereas male gametes number in the hundreds of millions and are produced constantly from puberty on. And while couples may want children with their own DNA, wouldn't it be far easier to collect from a sperm bank for couples in which the male is infertile than it would be for an infertile woman to secure a donor egg, assuming she could carry it to term?


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jul 31, 2006)

because some people couldnt handle having what they see as anothers child..

also recently legal issues about sperm donation are being raised again.


----------

