Scientist clones girls dna to bring her back from the dead

by Jillian @ http://blueshelled.com . June 11, 2009 . 2:53PM

After careful consideration, I have decided to write this post. It’s been sitting in my queue for a long time, believe it or not, and I had to debate with myself as to whether or not I could write it in a way that would benefit anyone reading it. I had to debate whether or not I could write it in a way that wouldn’t be soul-destroying for myself. There are no easy answers in regards to what I’m about to talk about, but it’s news and it is what it is.

A fertility doctor, located in the Middle East, by the name of Panayiotis Zavros, took the blood from a dead child and claims that he created cloned embryos of her and implanted them in the wombs of four different women. The Daily Mail article notes that Zavros has made these claims before and has said that the first human clone could be conceived within the next year. You can read the article to get more information on his process and procedure. In essence, Cady, the girl’s mother, gave the doctor the blood in order to give Cady a “biological presence” in the world.

Ok, deep breath here.

As a mom, there are many things I know. The first being that if anything ever happened to my child, I would be crushed beyond belief and that I would do just about anything to get him back. Likely, I wouldn’t be thinking rationally and I might have the same irrational thought that by cloning my child and having his physical DNA in the world, my son would be “back.” However, here’s the other thing I know: we are products of both our genetics and our experiences. Whatever child came into this word would be genetically Cady, but experientially, she would not be the same child. She wouldn’t. And that child would not be born to Cady’s “real mom” and therefore, that biological presence wouldn’t be hers either. She would lose the very things that make motherhood what it is: That sense of possessiveness and joy as that individual goes out into the world with what you have helped give them to grow and learn.

Would I want him back? Of course I would. Would I want someone else to have my A.J.? Not a chance. Would he really be my A.J.? No. He really wouldn’t.

The ethical questions swirl: Should human cloning be allowed? Should human embryos be used? Should children be “resurrected” by use of their blood or adult skin cells at the whims of their grieving parents? Should doctors be allowed to perform these procedures? Is this particular doctor taking advantage of parents who are not yet done mourning the loss of their daughter? There are some that believe Zavros should be jailed for his tampering with human DNA.

What do you believe?

Animal experimentation on dogs leads to fluorescent puppies

by Jillian @ http://blueshelled.com . June 6, 2009 . 5:50PM

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there was a Poky Little Puppy. This was a very mischievous puppy and he couldn’t seem to stay in his yard. Every day, his mother would call for him and tell him that dinner was ready and that he needed to come in, and every day, that little puppy would be out wandering the world. He would dawdle into the house whenever his poky little legs felt like it and would be very, very sad that he was so slow to come home because his little tummy would rumble. There’s a moral to that story. But that’s not this story.

In this story, the poky little puppy wandered to another land, far, far away. A place where puppies aren’t safe. A place called South Korea. And in this place, the Poky little puppy had his DNA cloned and merged with genes similar to those of a sea anemone, which is an underwater creature. This was done by a scientist who said that he was was doing it to produce a puppy that, because of a long lifespan, might help cure human illness. However, what this merging did was TURN THE PUPPY INTO A GLOWSTICK!!!!

For comparison: The glowstick

The puppy:

Byeong-Chun Lee, the South Korean researcher, is not the first to make animals glow. The question here is why? What is the purpose of making them light up like a Christmas tree? Besides wasting money and time on other efforts, you know like those pesky things such as cancer and AIDS. Instead, some of our top researchers are focusing on making animals glow. It can’t be good for the animals and I fail to see how it’s worth our time and money.

Please, enlighten me?

Lifegem jewelry: Because your loved ones can still give even when they’re dead

by Jillian @ http://blueshelled.com . June 1, 2009 . 12:13PM

Ok, despite my flippant title, I’m intrigued by the idea I’m about to present to you. Many of my friends and family are aware that I enjoy finding new and different gifts for the various gift-giving occasions. What this means is that I’m always finding websites and resources that I think are worthy of sharing with them. Because of this, I often become overly eager in my sharing and this results in them getting multiple emails about websites that they might not be as eager to peruse.

Recently, there was a fantastic discussion on my blog about what happens to cadavers when they are donated to science. Many ethical questions were explored and I’m still bouncing the final thoughts around in my mind. I enjoy well-presented debates a great deal and have had this one on my mind. Because of it, I was googling around (googling around sounds much naughtier than it is) and found the Lifegem website.

Initially, I was as repelled by the idea brought forth in this website as I would be by the thought of wearing 6 inch heels and running a marathon. My initial take on Lifegem is that it is a website that offers to take the carbon from the cremated ashes of your loved one and make it in to a sparkling diamond that you can then wear in jewelry. This allows you both closure and the ability to wear your loved one and keep them with you until you die and then, HEY! Maybe your next of kin will make you into a sparkler!

Look, I never said my empathy extended into what I consider hairbrained ideas.

And yet, the further I read into the website, the more this seems like a decent, feasible idea to me. When people are grieving, memories are so terribly important and if they can afford this, why should it bother me? As I continued to read, the key aspect that changed my opinion was that, in order to create the diamond, they don’t have to use ashes, rather they can use hair from your loved one. Heck, your loved one doesn’t even have to be dead! If you are a stalker and have your “loved one’s” hairbrush, as long as you have the equivilent of 8oz worth of hair (a typical men’s haircut worth), you’ve got enough to create a piece of jewelry.

Personally, the more I think about this, the more I think that it isn’t any different than getting a tattoo or a painting to memorialize a lost loved one. The ashes part creeped me out because the idea of someone possibly cremating someone they love against that person’s wishes just to create jewelry from their remains is a little abnormal for me, however, I think that is an extreme thought as opposed to the “norm” for this situation.

What do you think? Beautiful memory keeper or creepy sparkly no-no?