backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 77 comment(s) - last by eyebeeemmpawn.. on Aug 10 at 10:14 AM


Dr. Woo Suk Hwang's cloning scandal may have accidentally unveiled a different breakthrough.
Woo Suk Hwang, discredited for falsifying stem cell research, actually made important breakthrough

Last year a team of South Korean scientists, lead by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang claimed ground breaking advances in human cloned stem cell research. Later his work was discredited as being falsified.

Dr. Woo Suk Hwang claimed to have cloned human embryos and further claimed he was able to extract stem cells from them. After his work was discredited Hwang was fired from Seoul National University.

It now seems that Dr. Hwang and his team may have made an even more remarkable breakthrough, without even realizing it. At the Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers looking at Hwang’s data found the cells were from a different type of embryo.

The genetic fingerprint of the cells tells researchers that the stem cells were from embryos produced by what is called “virgin birth” or parthenogenesis, occurring when eggs are stimulated into embryos without being fertilized by sperm. This feat has been achieved in animals, but before Hwang it had never been done in humans.

Dr. George Daley told the BBC, "Unfortunately at the time they published their work they did not know what they had done so they had mistakenly isolated these parthenogenic embryonic stem cells, and yet misrepresented them as true clones.”

Professor Azim Surani, from the University of Cambridge, says that Hwang’s unwitting discovery is potentially more important than the discovery he falsified.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

well...
By petro on 8/3/2007 10:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
produced by what is called “virgin birth” or parthenogenesis, occurring when eggs are stimulated into embryos without being fertilized by sperm. This feat has been achieved in animals, but before Hwang it had never been done in humans.

Except when Jesus was concieved. hah




RE: well...
By Gul Westfale on 8/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By GlassHouse69 on 8/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: well...
By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 1:37:59 AM , Rating: 1
To: Gul Westfale
The ignorance displayed by your posting is not seen by the fact that you would site a source as unreliable and as far from scholarly as wikipedia; that's understood. Rather it comes from your lack of maturity in the realm of understanding social interactions. Far be it from me to point out your flaw. I'll leave it to you to either determine your faux pas, or continue to live in your blissful ignorance. I suspect a wrathful reply to this post would indicate you've chosen that later.


RE: well...
By Gul Westfale on 8/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By Gul Westfale on 8/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By Rockjock51 on 8/4/2007 2:31:32 AM , Rating: 5
What he said had nothing to do with God or Jesus. Try again.


RE: well...
By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 3:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
To put it in your words: I’m not asking you to drink from my cup of tea, or anyone else’s for that matter. However, I would request that you stop spitting into other peoples cups’ of tea. Or in my country, that would be coffee.

Your initial post stated: “actually virgin birth is possible without using myths from the bible…”

By turning an entire religion into a “myth”, I would consider that to be metaphorically spitting into other peoples cups’ of tea. In fact, I might go so far as to consider a statement as such as coming from “one of those narrow-minded individuals who stubbornly believe in their own little truths” as you so eloquently stated.

However, it was the second post that made everyone else aware that you ARE one of those narrow-minded individuals. By attacking the ideas that you disagree with; i.e. God, Church, and Arab Monarchs, you have revealed your prejudices. In all honesty, this probably stems from continuously being in the minority of society throughout your life. I hope you seek real honest help.

And one more thing: Your reply confirms not only my preliminary thoughts on your social skills, but also your lack of education. English is my mother tongue; it’s just not the Queens English. The spelling is correct. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for yours.


RE: well...
By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 3:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
What's your problem!? Are you projecting your own troubles or something? Give the name calling a break. Or go back to myspace or whatever you kids are blogging on.


RE: well...
By desertvet on 8/4/2007 3:56:21 AM , Rating: 3
Hey wannabe. You have no freakin idea what your talking about. Refering to someone in the minority has nothing to do with racism. Just because you aint got a daddy and your mama and sisters outnumber you don't make them racist. You better turn out that light.


RE: well...
By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: well...
By ZmaxDP on 8/6/2007 3:51:15 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, has anyone here heard of something called satire?

Read the whole post and you'll notice the following:
"We can all take statements completely out of context and blow them up to mean something WE WANT IT to mean so that we can get all pissy, and you, obviously, do it extremely well!"

Then, at the end you'll notice a satirical example of doing just that! If you're thinking: "God, that guy must have been dumb to think the other guy was talking about racial minorities" you might also consider that said guy may have gotten that concept too, and made fun of it instead...


RE: well...
By icemansims on 8/4/2007 3:33:50 AM , Rating: 3
Isn't that all it is really? Religion I mean. Myths are simply religious stories, no different than those of the bible. What we consider Classical myths are simply those religious stories of a religion that died out. They really aren't any different than those Christianity demands you accept as truth. To claim otherwise is rather hypocritical.


RE: well...
By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 3:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is that your degrading someones beliefs. Not cool.


RE: well...
By NT78stonewobble on 8/5/2007 9:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well I do think that when eg. religions tries to "force" people to act in certain ways they really really needs to be questioned.

And about degrading others beliefs? So you take people with tinfoil hats seriously?


RE: well...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 8/10/2007 10:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
If they were true beliefs, why the concern for the opinions of others? Would it reaffirm your faith if everyone on here was saying the same, positive things about your religion? That's why there are religious websites. This is DailyTECH, not Warm-cuddly-religious-word-of-the-day.com

Just because someone believes in something does not mean that that someone else cannot express their contradicting opinion. Believe what you choose to believe, try growing a thicker skin, and keep your religion out of our government!