New Stem-cell Trick: NO EMBRYOS!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Yahoo News

Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer 2 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Laboratory teams on two continents report success in a pair of landmark papers released Tuesday. It's a neck-and-neck finish to a race that made headlines five months ago, when scientists announced that the feat had been accomplished in mice.

The "direct reprogramming" technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem cells by cloning embryos.

Scientists familiar with the work said scientific questions remain and that it's still important to pursue the cloning strategy, but that the new work is a major coup.

"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone — the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advanced Cell Technology, which has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.

"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.

"It's a huge deal," agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "You have the proof of principle that you can do it."

The White House lauded the papers, saying such research is what President Bush was advocating when he twice vetoed legislation to pave the way for taxpayer-funded embryo research.

There is a catch with the new technique. At this point, it requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for the most touted use of embryonic cells: creating transplant tissue that in theory could be used to treat diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injury.

But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.

The new work is being published online by two journals, Cell and Science. The Cell paper is from a team led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University; the Science paper is from a team led by Junying Yu, working in the lab of in stem-cell pioneer James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Both reported creating cells that behaved like stem cells in a series of lab tests.

Thomson, 48, made headlines in 1998 when he announced that his team had isolated human embryonic stem cells.

Yamanaka gained scientific notice in 2006 by reporting that direct reprogramming in mice had produced cells resembling embryonic stem cells, although with significant differences. In June, his group and two others announced they'd created mouse cells that were virtually indistinguishable from stem cells.

For the new work, the two men chose different cell types from a tissue supplier. Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the face of an unidentified 36-year-old woman, and Thomson's team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn. Thomson, who was working his way from embryonic to fetal to adult cells, said he's still analyzing his results with adult cells.

Both labs did basically the same thing. Each used viruses to ferry four genes into the skin cells. These particular genes were known to turn other genes on and off, but just how they produced cells that mimic embryonic stem cells is a mystery.

"People didn't know it would be this easy," Thomson said. "Thousands of labs in the United States can do this, basically tomorrow."

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which holds three patents for Thomson's work, is applying for patents involving his new research, a spokeswoman said. Two of the four genes he used were different from Yamanaka's recipe.

Scientists prize embryonic stem cells because they can turn into virtually any kind of cell in the body. The cloning approach — which has worked so far only in mice and monkeys — should be able to produce stem cells that genetically match the person who donates body cells for cloning.

That means tissue made from the cells should be transplantable into that person without fear of rejection. Scientists emphasize that any such payoff would be well in the future, and that the more immediate medical benefits would come from basic research in the lab.

In fact, many scientists say the cloning technique has proven too expensive and cumbersome in its current form to produce stem cells routinely for transplants.

The new work shows that the direct reprogramming technique can also produce versatile cells that are genetically matched to a person. But it avoids several problems that have bedeviled the cloning approach.

For one thing, it doesn't require a supply of unfertilized human eggs, which are hard to obtain for research and subjects the women donating them to a surgical procedure. Using eggs also raises the ethical questions of whether women should be paid for them.

In cloning, those eggs are used to make embryos from which stem cells are harvested. But that destroys the embryos, which has led to political opposition from President Bush, the Roman Catholic church and others.

Those were "show-stopping ethical problems," said Laurie Zoloth, director of Northwestern University's Center for Bioethics, Science and Society.

The new work, she said, "redefines the ethical terrain."

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the new work "a very significant breakthrough in finding morally unproblematic alternatives to cloning. ... I think this is something that would be readily acceptable to Catholics."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the new method does not cross what Bush considers an "ethical line." And Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a staunch opponent of publicly funded embryonic stem cell research, said it should nullify the debate.

Another advantage of direct reprogramming is that it would qualify for federal research funding, unlike projects that seek to extract stem cells from human embryos, noted Doug Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

Still, scientific questions remain about the cells produced by direct reprogramming, called "iPS" cells. One is how the cells compare to embryonic stem cells in their behavior and potential. Yamanaka said his work detected differences in gene activity.

If they're different, iPS cells might prove better for some scientific uses and cloned stem cells preferable for other uses. Scientists want to study the roots of genetic disease and screen potential drug treatments in their laboratories, for example.

Scottish researcher Ian Wilmut, famous for his role in cloning Dolly the sheep a decade ago, told London's Daily Telegraph that he is giving up the cloning approach to produce stem cells and plans to pursue direct reprogramming instead.

Other scientists said it's too early for the field to follow Wilmut's lead. Cloning embryos to produce stem cells remains too valuable as a research tool, Jaenisch said.

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute, who said his own lab has also achieved direct reprogramming of human cells, said it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem. Nor is it clear just how direct reprogramming works, or whether that approach mimics what happens in cloning, he noted.

So the cloning approach still has much to offer, he said.

Daley, who's president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, said his lab is pursuing both strategies.

"We'll see, ultimately, which one works and which one is more practical."

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report from Washington.

I still think Fundies will demand this be banned and that Wonder Chimp's gonna use his Veto Crayon to scribble all over any funding of this new methodology.

[Drowsong]

We've already been using Adult Stem Cell research with results and successes in over 70 different areas.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm a Catholic, and the CC has no problem with Adult Stem Cell research, in general.

"Unlike embryonic stem cells, the use of adult stem cells in research and therapy is not controversial because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo."
From Wikipedia

"Adult stem cell research has produced 72 cures and treatments. Embryonic stem cell research and human cloning has produced “0” cures and treatments."
From here

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm a Catholic, and the CC has no problem with Adult Stem Cell research, in general.

It's not the RCC I'm really afraid of, it's these whackass extremist asstard fundies America's so good at growing here. They'll see the words 'stem cell' and read 'snowflake babies' as seen in 'WE MUST PROTECT THE SNOWFLAKE BABIES! LET'S BOMB THE NEAREST RESEARCH FACILITY!'

Yes, that's how they think. No, they won't bother to find out if it's ESC, ASC, or some random other biotech building they drop a Timothy McVeigh Truck Bomb™ on.

"Unlike embryonic stem cells, the use of adult stem cells in research and therapy is not controversial because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo."
From Wikipedia

LOL Wikipedia.

I'll let someone else handle this *runs off giggling*

"Adult stem cell research has produced 72 cures and treatments. Embryonic stem cell research and human cloning has produced “0” cures and treatments."
From here

I see weirdness. Yeah it's a 'godless liberal' blog, but look at SDN...

[Drowsong]

It's not the RCC I'm really afraid of, it's these whackass extremist asstard fundies America's so good at growing here. They'll see the words 'stem cell' and read 'snowflake babies' as seen in 'WE MUST PROTECT THE SNOWFLAKE BABIES! LET'S BOMB THE NEAREST RESEARCH FACILITY!'

Yes, that's how they think. No, they won't bother to find out if it's ESC, ASC, or some random other biotech building they drop a Timothy McVeigh Truck Bomb™ on.

True, the fundies have a different way of thinking than the RCC. For example, I'm a "fake" Christian because I believe in [theistic] evolution. I'm probably a secret agent of the devil, right?

So your original post in reference to fundies (and not Christians as a whole, or Catholics) probably makes my post unnecessary. Oh well.

LOL Wikipedia.

I'll let someone else handle this *runs off giggling*

Yeah, I'm still mostly new here, so I don't know the feeling of this forum in relation to Wikipedia. However, the main statement I quoted from it still has some minor merit in relation to this discussion. (Though, like we agree upon, it's probably not universally true. See: fundies.)

I see weirdness. Yeah it's a 'godless liberal' blog, but look at SDN...

Oh, I'm sure that the site I gave is somehow associated with Christianity (in saying that embryonic stem cell research is immoral), but my point was: We are already making progress with Adult Stem Cells, and many pro-lifers have no problem with that.

From your source: "It sure sounds like it ought to be an advocacy group for stem cell research, doesn't it? When you look more closely at their agenda, though, what you discover is that its purpose is to stop stem cell research."
I admit they [stemcellresearch.org] are out to stop embryonic stem cell research. Blanketing adult and embryonic stem cell research into one category is part of the problem.

----
Pro-choice individual: You're against stem cell research, even though it's helped us make medical advances!
Pro-lifer who hasn't looked into it fully: You're darn right I am!
Pro-lifer who has looked it to more: I'm not against adult stem cell research, which is the cause of all those medical advances.
----

The site you quoted blankets all stem cell research into one category, which is misleading.

I have not scanned through all of stemcellresearch.org, so I may have shot myself in the foot for quoting it. However, from what I can tell, they are associated positively with stem cell research, so long as it's adult stem cells.

In order to investigate the "weirdness" of the very specific link I have, we'd have to comb through their references, which I certainly don't feel like doing just for a casual internet discussion
Sorry

[Darth RyanKCR]

I guess I'm know around here as one of those fundi's and I support adult stem cell. I supported it for a long time and have been told I'm an idot because there was not success in adult stem cells. Now I may be benefiting from it as in the UK they are attempting to grow a whole heart from it. Since I'm now facing a transplant within the next 10 years which may not work because of my strong immune system that all the drugs in the world may not stop me from rejecting a heart I'll need a heart grown from my own cells.

I find this line of reseach interesting and wish for it's success. And since it does not involve destroying a life most Christians I know that oppose embryonic stem cell research support adult stem cell research.

[Alex Moon]

I still think Fundies will demand this be banned and that Wonder Chimp's gonna use his Veto Crayon to scribble all over any funding of this new methodology.

"President Bush is very pleased to see the important advances in ethical stem cell research reported in scientific journals today. By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries."

From a White House press release today. The issue has never been with stem cells, it's been with the use and destruction of embryos.

[hongi]

That's awesome news. It gets past the religious objections and if it has the scientific merit, we're all set.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That's awesome news. It gets past the religious objections and if it has the scientific merit, we're all set.

There are people who would object for the sake of it.

Not doing so diminishes their standing among their fellow "men" and at the same time, cuts back on funds.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I still think Fundies will demand this be banned and that Wonder Chimp's gonna use his Veto Crayon to scribble all over any funding of this new methodology.

"President Bush is very pleased to see the important advances in ethical stem cell research reported in scientific journals today. By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries."

From a White House press release today. The issue has never been with stem cells, it's been with the use and destruction of embryos.

Well that's good. I'm glad to be proven wrong like that, Alex.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We've already been using Adult Stem Cell research with results and successes in over 70 different areas.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm a Catholic, and the CC has no problem with Adult Stem Cell research, in general.

"Unlike embryonic stem cells, the use of adult stem cells in research and therapy is not controversial because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo."
From Wikipedia

"Adult stem cell research has produced 72 cures and treatments. Embryonic stem cell research and human cloning has produced “0” cures and treatments."
From here

\

That is disingenuous. Embryonic stem cell research has not produced any treatment because it is not funded and getting good lines is a lot harder. In the US for example federal funds can only be used with 11 existing lines, but they are almost useless now due a combination of age and conatmination

The catholic church does not get to create conditions which suppress research, and then use the failure of the research they suppress to prove the science's effectiveness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

or rather, ineffectiveness.

In fact, looking through this, I highly doubt that this will work in the end. We cannot avoid cancer in living tissues, or treat it very successfully.

Think about what they are doing. They are doing a brute force reprogramming of a cell's pattern of gene expression. They already admitted that this causes cancer Moreover the cells they use are adult cells, which means that they have already undergone a crapload of divisions, which means they have accumulated mutations. More cancer. Then there is the question of whether or not they really behave like stem cells when they are being worked with. And that will have to be seen via direct comparison.

[[R_H]]

From a White House press release today. The issue has never been with stem cells, it's been with the use and destruction of embryos.

I thought all the embryos used were left over from fertility treatments, and would have been destroyed anyways.

[The Spartan]

From a White House press release today. The issue has never been with stem cells, it's been with the use and destruction of embryos.

I thought all the embryos used were left over from fertility treatments, and would have been destroyed anyways.

They were, but that doesn't stop the neocons from howling about baby-murder and calling them all "snowflake babies."

[SilverWingedSeraph]

From a White House press release today. The issue has never been with stem cells, it's been with the use and destruction of embryos.

I thought all the embryos used were left over from fertility treatments, and would have been destroyed anyways.

They were, but that doesn't stop the neocons from howling about baby-murder and calling them all "snowflake babies."

Ah, yes. Heaven forbid that some good should come from the inevitable destruction of them. That would be horrible.

[Shogoki]

I thought all the embryos used were left over from fertility treatments, and would have been destroyed anyways.

They were, but that doesn't stop the neocons from howling about baby-murder and calling them all "snowflake babies."

Ah, yes. Heaven forbid that some good should come from the inevitable destruction of them. That would be horrible.

All this talk reminded me of this golden South Park moment.

[Drowsong]

\

That is disingenuous. Embryonic stem cell research has not produced any treatment because it is not funded and getting good lines is a lot harder. In the US for example federal funds can only be used with 11 existing lines, but they are almost useless now due a combination of age and conatmination

The catholic church does not get to create conditions which suppress research, and then use the failure of the research they suppress to prove the science's effectiveness.

That's true, and I hadn't quite thought of it that way.

I do have a few questions though (not as educated on every aspect of this issue as others here may be):

Are there medical advances that we think we can make with embryonic stem cells that we know with certainty would be impossible with adult stem cells? (I'm guessing the answer is yes, there is, or we could close the debate now.)

How long did they research embryonic stem cells before the cut in federal funds, and what medical advances have we received from it?

If science is still undecided about whether or not embryonic stem cell research destroys human life, shouldn't it halt until we know conclusively that it doesn't?

Is there embryonic stem cell research occurring in other countries besides United States that has a similar capable scientific background?

I tried Google searching for some of this stuff, but I'm not sure what exactly to use as my search terms. Most sites seem to be very narrow-sighted (for both sides of the issue).

[Gil Hamilton]

If science is still undecided about whether or not embryonic stem cell research destroys human life, shouldn't it halt until we know conclusively that it doesn't?

I'd like to focus in on this question, because it is at the crux of the matter. The issue is not science deciding this issue. The science of stem cells doesn't comment at all on it.

The debate on what constitutes human life isn't a question of science. Science described. It can certainly generate facts that support a supposition (such as when complex neural activity starts, for instance), but it can't answer the question in a way that could objectively satisfy everyone within reason, because the only answer that many people will accept is the one that agrees with their pre-supposed position, which they have accepted on faith, particularly on the folks who think that something is a fully fledged person from the moment the sperm worms itself inside the ovum.

Let me ask you this, is there any condition under which the people against the use of embryonic stem cells will accept that it isn't destroying a fully fledge human being? If not, then the answer to your question is that by putting it on hold until "science" gives an answer is effectively a permanent ban simply because the answer will never adequately come.

Is there embryonic stem cell research occurring in other countries besides United States that has a similar capable scientific background?

I believe South Korea is still working with embryonic stem cells, though they recently had a scandal where one of their scientists fibbed on the data about the 11 stem cell lines his group had cloned and the egg donation process, which was a major set back for them. Note that this doesn't have to do with the science, but that researcher. I know they have other cloned embryos which are legit and patient matched.

[Drowsong]

I'd like to focus in on this question, because it is at the crux of the matter. The issue is not science deciding this issue. The science of stem cells doesn't comment at all on it.

The debate on what constitutes human life isn't a question of science. Science described. It can certainly generate facts that support a supposition (such as when complex neural activity starts, for instance), but it can't answer the question in a way that could objectively satisfy everyone within reason, because the only answer that many people will accept is the one that agrees with their pre-supposed position, which they have accepted on faith, particularly on the folks who think that something is a fully fledged person from the moment the sperm worms itself inside the ovum.

Let me ask you this, is there any condition under which the people against the use of embryonic stem cells will accept that it isn't destroying a fully fledge human being? If not, then the answer to your question is that by putting it on hold until "science" gives an answer is effectively a permanent ban simply because the answer will never adequately come.

Understood. However, we still cannot reach a consensus. How do we proceed in such a situation?

Simply allowing it to continue when many people (including scientists) object seems odd to me. This is not like the Evolution versus Intelligent Design situation where the vast majority of scientists agree that Evolution is an excellent explanation of the diversity of life.

I guess I should ask the question like this: When the population is split 50/50 on an issue…and science can’t define a sure answer either way…how do we proceed in accordance with morality?

As a side note, what of the Human Embryology college text books that define human personhood as starting at [the conclusion of] fertilization? Are they allowing their pro-life bias into their textbooks? I’ve read what they have to say, and I’m heavily biased pro-life, so when I read it, it makes a lot of sense, and even seems scientific as a conclusion. To say that some mechanism later on can make an organism go from a non-person to a person seems odd to me. (I will admit my bias, but I was pro-life even when I wasn’t Catholic…some atheists are “hard-core” pro-life as well.)

I believe South Korea is still working with embryonic stem cells, though they recently had a scandal where one of their scientists fibbed on the data about the 11 stem cell lines his group had cloned and the egg donation process, which was a major set back for them. Note that this doesn't have to do with the science, but that researcher. I know they have other cloned embryos which are legit and patient matched.

Understood. If I ever hear of such a thing again, I will make sure not to jump to a false conclusion that all embryonic stem cell research is flawed just because it is having human induced difficulties in other countries.

[Junghalli]

Simply allowing it to continue when many people (including scientists) object seems odd to me. This is not like the Evolution versus Intelligent Design situation where the vast majority of scientists agree that Evolution is an excellent explanation of the diversity of life.

Well, we know that unless you suppose a mystical soul of some sort there's basically no way you can have human consciousness before the brain exists. Embryonic stem cells are taken when the embryo is still a clump of 100 cells or so (yeah, I'll admit that's from it's from Wikipedia), so unless there's a spirit of some kind responsible for human consciousness rather than it just being a function of the brain anybody who has ever squished a cockroach has probably killed something with more cognitive function than a human embryo at that stage.

[Drowsong]

Well, we know that unless you suppose a mystical soul of some sort there's basically no way you can have human consciousness before the brain exists. Embryonic stem cells are taken when the embryo is still a clump of 100 cells or so (yeah, I'll admit that's from it's from Wikipedia), so unless there's a spirit of some kind responsible for human consciousness rather than it just being a function of the brain anybody who has ever squished a cockroach has probably killed something with more cognitive function than a human embryo at that stage.

Well...people are arguing about it being a human starting at the completion of fertilization without talking about souls or spirits at all. Like I said, some atheists are "hard core" pro-life, and agree that human person-hood starts at the completion of fertilization for purely secular reasons.

During the time of my life where I was confused if I was even a Christian (and even told my parents that I wasn't one), I was still very pro-life because of what is said in those Human Embryology textbooks.

Essentially, defining person-hood does not depend on consciousness. It depends on biology, and whether or not an organism can change from non-person to person. (Even an non-conscious person has would have right, if you can definitively say that they are a person.)

[Cycloneman]

It depends on biology, and whether or not an organism can change from non-person to person.

Sperm have the capacity to change into people, so is it wrong for a male to masturbate?

Eggs have the capacity to change into people, so is menstruation immoral?

[Drowsong]

Sperm have the capacity to change into people, so is it wrong for a male to masturbate?

Eggs have the capacity to change into people, so is menstruation immoral?

I got this argument from an atheist website. I’m not sure which, because I didn’t bookmark it. It’s also reworded by me, so it’s technically a paraphrase.

----
Lets say you have 4 special containment units (the website uses 5 Petri dishes, but I need something better), that are capable of giving all the nourishment and “tender love and care” that an organism needs to survive for, say 9 months.

You put a sperm into one.
You put an egg into another.
You put the scraping of someone’s cheek cells into another.
You put a fertilized egg into the last.

What happens to each?

To the best of my knowledge:
The sperm survives for awhile. It never grows. It eventually dies.
The egg does the same.
The scraping from someone’s inner check grows into a blob of tissue, and eventually dies.
The fertilized egg grows into a baby similar to what you see at the end of a 9 month pregnancy.

You see the difference?


----
A sperm is part of a man, containing only his DNA.
Same for a woman and her oocyte.
A fertilized egg is what? A genetic individual, containing DNA that matches neither its mother or father. (It can have a DNA match with an identical twin, but that doesn’t refute anything I’ve said so far.) It is also definitively a new organism altogether.

So to answer your question, a sperm CANNOT simply become a human being. Neither can an egg. When they join they fundamentally change, as is taught in any 100 level biology course. This is something most pro-choice people even agree on.

[Gil Hamilton]

Understood. However, we still cannot reach a consensus. How do we proceed in such a situation?

That's the sticky wicket isn't it? However, my point is that the science of stem cell research doesn't address the debate.

Simply allowing it to continue when many people (including scientists) object seems odd to me. This is not like the Evolution versus Intelligent Design situation where the vast majority of scientists agree that Evolution is an excellent explanation of the diversity of life.

Which scientists are these and do their objections have anything to do with science? That said, by your logic, we SHOULD stop teaching evolution because a significant amount of people as to constitute at the very least a large minority object to it and haven't reached a concensus. Or stop selling contraception because there exist people (some of them pharmacists) who object to it and refuse to sell it, and not sell contraception until those people are satisfied. You see the problem in your logic?

I guess I should ask the question like this: When the population is split 50/50 on an issue…and science can’t define a sure answer either way…how do we proceed in accordance with morality?

Let me frame it this way. Come up with a set objective definition of personhood and the morality of the situation, without appealing to religion. If you are sitting at your computer typing sentences and deleting them, you've encounter the problem that anyone who has actually given the subject any amount of thought has.

I personally think that morally objectively lies with the living. I can't give you an exact answer when an embryo or fetus becomes a person (though the embryos we are talking about certainly are not, given they are in this case blastocysts), but I DO know for certain that a man with a spinal injury or Parkinson's Disease is definitely a human being. Morality, therefore, lies with helping our sick and injured, not a frozen clump of cells that will be destroyed anyway.

As a side note, what of the Human Embryology college text books that define human personhood as starting at [the conclusion of] fertilization? Are they allowing their pro-life bias into their textbooks? I’ve read what they have to say, and I’m heavily biased pro-life, so when I read it, it makes a lot of sense, and even seems scientific as a conclusion. To say that some mechanism later on can make an organism go from a non-person to a person seems odd to me. (I will admit my bias, but I was pro-life even when I wasn’t Catholic…some atheists are “hard-core” pro-life as well.)

Which textbook is that and which universities are they being used at? I can point to college textbooks used in universities that openly support creationism, but many of those universities happen to be places like Liberty University.

I've never heard of a Human Embryology book that addresses "personhood" at all, because no one has ever been able to define what that is, let alone in a systematic manner.

[Gil Hamilton]

A sperm is part of a man, containing only his DNA.
Same for a woman and her oocyte.
A fertilized egg is what? A genetic individual, containing DNA that matches neither its mother or father. (It can have a DNA match with an identical twin, but that doesn’t refute anything I’ve said so far.) It is also definitively a new organism altogether.

So to answer your question, a sperm CANNOT simply become a human being. Neither can an egg. When they join they fundamentally change, as is taught in any 100 level biology course. This is something most pro-choice people even agree on.

The argument can be dismissed by analogy.

I am making a cheesecake. I've got cream cheese, sour cream, some sugar, butter, and graham crackers. Individually, these ingredients aren't a cheesecake. However, if I mix the first three and combine the second two, pour one into another in the appropriate tin, I certainly have the makings of a cheesecake.

But is it a cheesecake? Well, no, not yet. I haven't refrigerated it. It's not a dessert even if its distinct from the ingredients that made it. Only after I've let it set in a cold environment for an appropriate length of time can it be called a confection. Otherwise, it's a runny mess.

This is analogous to a fertilized cell. It's certainly distinct from the sperm and ovum, what with having a complete set of mixed and matched chromosomes with shuffled genes rather than a half set. But it is not a person. Under appropriate conditions it might become a human being, but it hasn't arrived there yet. Hence, the argument is flawed because it assumes that distinction implies humanity/personhood.

In order for that argument to fly, you are going to have to come up with some definitions of personhood and demonstrate that a fertilized egg meets them. And not make an appeal to authority by citing an unnamed textbook or give a "just because" argument from faith. However, frankly, if you had one, you probably would have given it already.

[Drowsong]

That's the sticky wicket isn't it? However, my point is that the science of stem cell research doesn't address the debate.

Which scientists are these and do their objections have anything to do with science? That said, by your logic, we SHOULD stop teaching evolution because a significant amount of people as to constitute at the very least a large minority object to it and haven't reached a concensus. Or stop selling contraception because there exist people (some of them pharmacists) who object to it and refuse to sell it, and not sell contraception until those people are satisfied. You see the problem in your logic?

Yes, I see the problem with my logic. I should not have included those paragraphs, and kept it simple with my question you address below.

Let me frame it this way. Come up with a set objective definition of personhood and the morality of the situation, without appealing to religion. If you are sitting at your computer typing sentences and deleting them, you've encounter the problem that anyone who has actually given the subject any amount of thought has.

I personally think that morally objectively lies with the living. I can't give you an exact answer when an embryo or fetus becomes a person (though the embryos we are talking about certainly are not, given they are in this case blastocysts), but I DO know for certain that a man with a spinal injury or Parkinson's Disease is definitely a human being. Morality, therefore, lies with helping our sick and injured, not a frozen clump of cells that will be destroyed anyway.

As a side note, what of the Human Embryology college text books that define human personhood as starting at [the conclusion of] fertilization? Are they allowing their pro-life bias into their textbooks? I’ve read what they have to say, and I’m heavily biased pro-life, so when I read it, it makes a lot of sense, and even seems scientific as a conclusion. To say that some mechanism later on can make an organism go from a non-person to a person seems odd to me. (I will admit my bias, but I was pro-life even when I wasn’t Catholic…some atheists are “hard-core” pro-life as well.)

Which textbook is that and which universities are they being used at? I can point to college textbooks used in universities that openly support creationism, but many of those universities happen to be places like Liberty University.

I've never heard of a Human Embryology book that addresses "personhood" at all, because no one has ever been able to define what that is, let alone in a systematic manner.

The books in question would be:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. which states:
"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
I know it's not much but this source says that this book is now its 7th edition, and that it is a best selling resource.

Human Embryology & Teratology which states:
"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book.""
This basically debunks the idea of a "pre-embryo" which was a term coined not by human embryologists. (Some have said that if an embryo is a person, then no worries about embryonic stem cell research, because it's actually a pre-embryo! Or something to that effect.)

There is also Essentials of Human Embryology which states:
"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

Fertilization is also defined as the "fusion of gametes to form a new organism of the same species." Although that is according Wikipedia.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know which schools the above mentioned books are taught at. I'm not a biology major, and have not studied from them. It is possible they are used in a similar fashion to creationism text books.

I haven't read this in awhile, but it is where I got a lot of my information from. (It also quotes the sources I have used.)
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html