iPS Cells: Mapping the policy issues

This article was interesting, it was talking all about the politics involved with iPS cells. I would have never thought that all this debate would be involved, but I guess this can be a big deal. Much of the debate is around peoples right when they give cells. Should they be able to know where their cells are going, and what they are being turned into? really this is their DNA( But has been changed to perform info a body part) that is being passed around to another person and they don't know where their DNA actually ended up. I think that if someone is willing to donate their skin cells, they should be doing it to help others who needed them, no matter what reason, so it shouldn't matter what their cells turn into and where they go. I guess if that the case then there needed to be better policy formed to make it clear that either the donor will or will not know whats going on once they have donated. Clearer boundaries and guidelines need to be addressed with cell donation, so that their is no ambiguity.
The article covered many of these issues, but I'm curious what has been done? Have these issues been dealt with, is anyone working on improving the politics?
The articel talks about reach through - after you donate, should the donor have reach through? should they know whats going on with the cells they donated? I say no! Once you donate you shouldn't have any contact with where your cells are going, or what they may be used for. For one reason you may not want to know whats going on, and for another if you do, and you don't like it, to late the damage is done, you already donated and there is nothing that can be done now.If you are going to donate make sure you don't care what will happen with your cells. Donate and move on. Or if you do care go through a doctor or company that is willing to work with you and is willing to keep you in the loop as far as what is going on with your donated cells.

Different note- iPS cells are better ethically and morally than embryos, right? I'm confused why such the debate over iPS cells? If research has found a better way to obtain stem cells, why can't we be happy and accepts this new research?
Can iPS cells be used the same as embryo cells?
Good article to read, interesting topic, enjoy learning about the politics and what the debates are about research.

Human embryos as boundary objects

I really enjoyed reading this article. I think what PGD has to offer is very valuable and needed. Its important for people to be able to have these tests offered to them, so they can have the opportunity to check the well being of their future offspring. Especially now that our culture is seeing more and more older adult becoming parents, it would be helpful if they wanted this test to have it done to assure there will not be an genetic issues. The problem may be that this test is so expensive that only certain people can afford it so it is not available to the wider public, so even if someone wanted to have this test they may not be able to afford it. Either way I think its important to have this available to us and I think that it will help families make better decisions about having a family(that is if they are able to afford these services).
The idea of using waste embryos for therapeutic reasons is also a brilliant idea, First- no embryo is wasted so moral issues would not be a problem, Two- if embryos can be used for therapeutic uses why not. People that suffer from pain want help and for many of them nothing works, if embryos are the answer then they need to be used. And like I mentioned if they are the left over embryos that were going to be tossed anyway, then they are going to a better use than the garbage can.
like I have mentioned before I support the use of embryos for research and as you can see scientist are finding incredible discoveries that are desperately needed and is just so happens to be the human embryo that holds these findings, so we are going to have to use them if we want to improve mental, medical, disease and whatever related issues.
Fortune Chapter 12
This chapter was entertaining to me for whatever reason. It was hard to understand but oddly enough I liked reading it. Although I don't know, but I think this chapter was talking about promises how they are made and hard to keep, or maybe more like the idea that events interpret promises- like when he was talking about the fishing in Iceland. I'm not to sure but that's how I started to interpret the chapter. Fortune still strikes me with they way he writes his book and how he bounces around in his chapters. Everyone is completely different, but has value to genomics and his part in the whole business and of course Iceland and the events that unroll during his research.

The ambiguity of the embryo

So I think this article is relevant to the article we read last week, by Flower. Basically when does live begin? We all have our own opinion on that question. I have a few questions though about this article that left me confused.

One. I don't see the problem with IVF. If I have an understanding doesn't the procedure consist of taking an egg and sperm, fertilizing it out side the body, then placing the fertilized egg in the female? Why is this such a crime? I mean I guess the crime would be that the left over eggs that are not used are thrown away and to some people those eggs are considered humans. I can understand their view, but I think that its more important that a family is able to have children by IVF than it is to worry about the eggs that do not get used. That being said I obviously don't consider the eggs to be humans.

I think that I agree with the idea that is said in this article and I also think Flower introduced in his article as well. That is the cell goes through stages before there is a trace of DNA and any idea what parts in cell division are going to be what, meaning basically(at least to me) that this is not much of a human at this stage. But after those first few hours of cell division then more recognizable parts are starting to form. That is when I think more ambiguity starts to appear, but obviously not for everyone.

In this article it talks about splitting embryos- so what they say is you can split 8 cells into 4 which would make two different human beings? But if you put the cells back together soon enough it would just create one person?

Something else that caught my eye in this article was when they talked about human embryo loss in normal reproduction- what does this mean? That we are killing potential embryos? Even when we are taking precautions to avoid pregnancy?

On another note, I'm still struggling with Fortunes book, I am able to understand a few paragraphs but then I feel lost again..........we will see how the rest of the book goes, I think I will always struggle with his book.
I will say I did enjoy the chapter x about promises. my understanding was that promises can be made that you truly tend to keep, but you never know what might happen between the time you make the promise and the time that the promise comes true. Certain things can come up to interrupt a promise that you made. Basically its hard to keep a promise even with every intention to do so. Not having a full understanding of Fortunes book makes it difficult for me to blog my opinion on his views.
Side note: I was watching a television show that was talking about IVF and a couple that was going to utilize these resource. I found it very cool that I was able to understand what was going on and what was being said, I felt as if I was just following right along.. Because of this class I now how an understanding, of not only what IVF is and how it works, but also the political side as well.

Coming into being

This was a great article to read. I was able for the most part to follow along and understand Flowers argument. And secondly I have much more interest in stem cell research than Fortunes book on DeCode genetics.
I guess the question thought is what do you consider life? Everyone has different answers to that question, some are moral, some are personal experiences, and some are through our education that form an opinion on what is human life, an some people really just don't care. As we know people with moral or religious backgrounds believe that as soon as the egg and sperm meet life is formed. I think if I understood Flowers article or the way I did understand it, his point was to tell us the process to what happens when the egg and sperm meet and then for us to decide on our own what is considered life. One argument is that genes are not expressed for a couple of hour after fertilization,(which to some people then might mean that this is not considered a human life) meaning that the eggs not unique to anything else. After those couple of house genes are beginning to be expresses and more is going on inside the egg, which then maybe that would be considered life. Of course this is all a personal opinion, but I support stem cell research and I feel that at disease progress we need to progress in our research, and if that means using embryos then so be it, just use them in the most moral way possible. Which brings up another issue, is what does one consider moral? This is a big topic to tackle and whatever is done and said will never make every human being happy.
The one thing that I guess I would argue about what Flower said was that he considered babies not to have reflexes until after birth, that them suck their thumb and kicking around in the mothers stomach was just a natural way of being and that these were not the baby actually deciding to make these action(if I'm understanding his take on this) I will disagree, I have not had a baby myself but I know enough about what the baby does in the belly to have an opinion about reflexes. I think the baby does decided to do these things and yes it may be part naturally embedded into them, but I also think that they know what is comfortable to them, and what they like to do in the stomach. Am I understanding this? I maybe completely off topic here, or not correct about Flowers point he made in class.

Fortune response 3

I guess after reading chapters 3,4,and 5 of Fortune, I m still lost at times in his style of reading. I am able to keep track for a while, then all of the sudden lose it. I guess this is just his style and I will eventually grasp his ideas and concepts and get a feel for how he writes.
I do find it interesting how he feels the need to include us not only in his experiences with decode, but also with his life. He talks about his friends and the way he handles things while he is in Iceland.
I noticed how he continues to use many of the same words through out his chapters like chiasma and lava like, and of course he always brings up the "promise" and how the promise of DeCode might look like, or what it might be. He also seems to mention how things move so quickly what I think he is implying is that science is so fast pace and the study of genomics is so fast pace that the promise is continuing to change?
I think fortune is also trying to get his point across that with things moving so fast and always changing that we will not always know the outcome of situations, but that the promise is still there, we just don't know how it will look until it has been accomplished.
I will say that I am liking the personal feeling we get from him when reading his book , he lets you know his struggles along the way with DeCode. You can see that it is troublesome for him to be in Iceland at times. The guys doesn't even know the language, so many times he doesn't understand what is being said all around him. He is always sure to let us know the little detail like getting the DeCode t-shirts.
One last thing I was confused about, which I'm sure was very clear in the reading, I just wasn't able to grasp that part was who was Kari? I didn't quite understand his part in the chapter. Was he for DeCode or against it? I was confused on who he was I guess?

Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproductive Freedom

I'm choosing to blog about Robertson's paper, because 1.) it was an easier read compared to Callahan's, and 2.) i really enjoyed reading Robertson's article.
I though was Robertson had to say was very interesting. I liked reading about the different battles that have been presented in regards to assisted reproduction. There are many different views regarding assisted reproduction. Many think its is morally wrong, some thing it is a waste of embryos, while others support the idea of science expanding its knowledge on how to "change" "delete", or simply figure out what genes their children will get when they reproduce.
I think science is doing what is should be doing, we rely on scientist to find cures,and new ways to address coming ideas and concerns. Whether that be for a disease, illnesses, or the new and exciting discovery of genes, and how they are becoming able to change a persons genetic code. I think scientist have discovered something that is vary valuable and in need for certain circumstances and conditions.
I agree and approve of the idea that we can have genetic work done on our children before they are born. I think it is important for for people to have these options available to them, especially if disease and illnesses run in the family, it would be to their advantage to know what they can possibly expect their children to have, and learn how to deal with those issues. However I do not support the idea that people are wanting to spend an outrageous amount of money to have their child's DNA changes, because they want these so called"perfect" children. I don't think people should have children if they do not want the surprise of what they are capable of "naturally" producing. If you want to your child to have blue eyes, small figure, and brown hair, then you are not having children for the right reason and frankly shouldn't have kids. I think they need to draw a clear line between having these procedures done for the avoidance of disease and illnesses and having them done for the pure pleasure of wanting your child to be "perfect".
If I'm ever given the opportunity to have a deeper understanding of my genes, for the sake of my health and prevention purposes, I will take that opportunity and appreciate what science has made available.

Week 2 reading

Thus far the readings for this last week have been very eye opening, educational, informative, and no doubt some what confusing and hard to follow.
Understanding the human genome project was an easy article to read, and made me have a greater understanding of what goes on behind the scenes of scientific research.
I thought the article was very interesting to hear how scientist pursue their research at first hand experiences. Reading about the three scientist one by one was interesting because it gave you insight about how three different scientist view science and their research. Each had a different store that got them involved in the human genome project, and each have different views and experiences regarding their morals and ideas, and case of work.
Clearly in Sulstons book he not only informed the public eye about the importance of discovering the sequencing of the human genome, he also expressed his moral concerns about telling the community of the human genome project and the findings. Sulston felt that it was very important to release the findings of the human genome project to the public, so communities could educate themselves about where science is headed. Sulston struggles with a fellow scientist Ventor who had sided with companies who wanted to keep the HGP a secret. This to me was impressive because you would think that many people especially scientist who discover a novelty would have their best interest in themselves to make a much larger profit, than to release it to the public. Sulston was in the project for the right reasons.
I thought Collins being religious was an interesting twist in the project. I know everyone has different views and belief's about life, but when you bring someone of a religious back ground into a project you get very different ideas than your fellow colleagues. Religion can always be touchy and many will think that it could have a different affect on the outcome of anything. Collins ideas were definatly religious based which could or could not be a problem. I did think that I was inspiring though to hear why he was involved in the project(because it was gods will for him) Just interesting how religion can be so influential for some.
Article were a great insight to behind the scenes activities and inspirations that go on.
It was cool to read autobiographies because they are so truthful and personal.