US company BioArts International has teamed up with disgraced South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk to offer dog cloning services to the public. Five dog owners will be given the opportunity to have their pet cloned in a worldwide auction on 18 June this year, where bidding will start at $100,000. BioArts chief executive, Lou Hawthorne, had previously attempted to
commercially exploit cloning technology by offering customers the chance to clone their pet cats for $50,000, through a company named Genetic Savings. The project failed and Genetic Savings ceased operations in 2006, but Hawthorne says the technology for the dog cloning project - named 'Best Friends Again' - has since improved. BioArts claims it is the only company with the legal rights to clone dogs, using a technique pioneered by researchers at the Roslin Institute in the UK, used to create Dolly the sheep. To do this, it has enlisted the help of the SooAm Biotech Research Foundation, headed by Hwang.
The decision is controversial, however, as Hwang is currently on trial in South Korea for fraud and embezzlement, after his claim to have created the world's first cloned human embryonic stem cell line was revealed to be fraudulent. It is also alleged that he used eggs obtained from a junior researcher working on his team, breaching international ethical codes of practice. 'I know the association with Dr. Hwang is going to be controversial,' said Hawthorne, adding 'one of the contradictions of Dr
Hwang is that he made mistakes on his human stem-cell research, and he's the first to admit that.'
Of the discredited research carried out by Hwang at Seoul National University (SNU) only the creation of a cloned dog named Snuppy, a male Afghan hound, was found to be genuine. Since then Hwang has successfully cloned three female Afghan hounds, and the cloning of grey wolves by his team at the SNU has also been upheld as genuine. 'Our main concern is simply
he's the best when it comes to dog cloning,' said Hawthorne, 'and for that reason it behooves us to work with him'. Although the dogs will be genetically identical, the cloned animals will not behave in the same way as their twin, and bioethicist Arthur Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania, said owners should not expect to get their old dog back. 'People believe they're going to get their pet back through cloning, but the new cloned dog won't know the old pet's tricks', he said. 'It's a false promise to say you can get your pet back', he warned.
It is likely that the successful bidders will be refunded if the cloning process is unsuccessful or if the cloned animal does not meet their expectations. BioArts has said it will not spend the money unless the dog has been 'signed off'. All the dogs will be examined by a veterinarian prior to delivery and come with one year's health warranty.
'
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Trash Art
Tim Nobel and Sue Webster take piles of trash and make art with them... but sometimes the art isn't apparent until you see it in a different light.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Don't copy if you can't paste!
A popular motivational speaker was entertaining his audience.
Said he: "The best years of my life were spent in the arms of a woman who wasn't my wife!"
The audience was in silence and shock.
The speaker added: "And that woman was my mother!"
Laughter and applause........
A week later, a top manager trained by the motivational speaker tried to crack this very effective joke at home. He was a bit foggy after a drink.
He said loudly, "The greatest years of my life were spent in the arms of a woman who was not my wife!"
The wife went mad with shock and rage.
Standing there for 20 seconds trying to recall the second half of the joke, the manager finally blurted out "....... and I can't remember who she was !"
Moral of the story: Don't copy if you can't paste!
Said he: "The best years of my life were spent in the arms of a woman who wasn't my wife!"
The audience was in silence and shock.
The speaker added: "And that woman was my mother!"
Laughter and applause........
A week later, a top manager trained by the motivational speaker tried to crack this very effective joke at home. He was a bit foggy after a drink.
He said loudly, "The greatest years of my life were spent in the arms of a woman who was not my wife!"
The wife went mad with shock and rage.
Standing there for 20 seconds trying to recall the second half of the joke, the manager finally blurted out "....... and I can't remember who she was !"
Moral of the story: Don't copy if you can't paste!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Widow fights for right to use sperm taken from dead husband
A legal fight by a UK woman to have a child using sperm taken from her husband after his death is underway. The case highlights the need for regulatory clarity on the issue, which first came to prominence in 1995 when Diane Blood won the right to conceive using sperm from her comatose spouse.
Doctors were allowed to harvest the sperm as the unnamed 42-year old woman and her husband, from Twickenham. London, had just begun fertility treatment, a judge ruled. However, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) are questioning the legality of the sperm extraction process. The law currently requires the man's written consent, although a
gynaecologist has confirmed that the couple were seeking fertility treatment before the man's death. 'Had the husband had the opportunity to give consent in writing, it is clear from the overwhelming evidence that he would have
done so', said David Josiah-Lake, the solicitor representing the woman. In Diane Blood's case, she was eventually permitted to undergo treatment abroad when the HFEA lifted its ban on the export of human gametes. She now has two children. She supports the current applicant, saying: 'If the couple were engaged on a joint venture to have a child and there is evidence from a conversation that the deceased would have wished the surviving partner to continue with that notwithstanding his death, then I see no need for that consent to be in writing. I cannot imagine life without my children. They bring joy to a great many people including my late husband's family'.
Vincent Cable, the widow's local Liberal Democrat MP, submitted an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently passing through parliament, which would allow the use of sperm in such cases in the UK, removing complications surrounding cross-border fertility treatments. He additionally proposed that a consultant's confirmation of the deceased's intention to have children should be sufficient evidence of consent. 'This amendment is quite narrowly drawn but would deal with a small number of specific cases where it is a woman's right to have a child by her partner. In this case the couple were already embarking on fertility treatment and it was clear her husband had it in mind to support her having
a child in this way, so she could have a stronger case than Mrs Blood', said Cable.
The widow hopes that the HFEA will allow her to use her late husband's sperm to conceive a brother or sister for their only daughter. The HFEA said that they could not comment on the case as it was before court.
Doctors were allowed to harvest the sperm as the unnamed 42-year old woman and her husband, from Twickenham. London, had just begun fertility treatment, a judge ruled. However, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) are questioning the legality of the sperm extraction process. The law currently requires the man's written consent, although a
gynaecologist has confirmed that the couple were seeking fertility treatment before the man's death. 'Had the husband had the opportunity to give consent in writing, it is clear from the overwhelming evidence that he would have
done so', said David Josiah-Lake, the solicitor representing the woman. In Diane Blood's case, she was eventually permitted to undergo treatment abroad when the HFEA lifted its ban on the export of human gametes. She now has two children. She supports the current applicant, saying: 'If the couple were engaged on a joint venture to have a child and there is evidence from a conversation that the deceased would have wished the surviving partner to continue with that notwithstanding his death, then I see no need for that consent to be in writing. I cannot imagine life without my children. They bring joy to a great many people including my late husband's family'.
Vincent Cable, the widow's local Liberal Democrat MP, submitted an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently passing through parliament, which would allow the use of sperm in such cases in the UK, removing complications surrounding cross-border fertility treatments. He additionally proposed that a consultant's confirmation of the deceased's intention to have children should be sufficient evidence of consent. 'This amendment is quite narrowly drawn but would deal with a small number of specific cases where it is a woman's right to have a child by her partner. In this case the couple were already embarking on fertility treatment and it was clear her husband had it in mind to support her having
a child in this way, so she could have a stronger case than Mrs Blood', said Cable.
The widow hopes that the HFEA will allow her to use her late husband's sperm to conceive a brother or sister for their only daughter. The HFEA said that they could not comment on the case as it was before court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)