One imagines you would need a woman to carry the thing around for 9 months. Or have they invented a vitreous womb too? And I haven’t read the story but I am willing to bet that nobody has shown the slightest inclination to mix synthetic eggs with synthetic sperm.
Another scare story… science is bad and unnatural, stick to the crystals and aromatherapy in Femail.
Oh and “ethical fears as…”, “outcry over…” and so forth. Bollocks. Add the phrase “we at the Mail are attempting, for our own purposes to create…” at the start.
Since they can’t create eggs and sperm from nothing, but only from stem cells taken from embryos, it’s misleading to say “without man or woman”. Since you need an embryo to create a baby. Maybe they’re too polite to put “without ovaries or testicles”.
This is terrible. If there’re no parents, who’s going to sexually abuse the child? If there’s less paedophilia then they’ll be less brilliant tabloid stories.
Isn’t this very old news? Back in 2007 it was announced that researchers had succeeded in diversifying male stem cells (because they have both an X and Y chromosome – female stem cells only produce eggs) into male and female gametes. Of course, you still need the stem cells, which as far as I know cannot be artificially manufactured (though steps have been taken in this direction). Looking at this article on the Mail site, they make a number of wild suggestions about how women might be able to use it to reproduce without men (though strangely given the above not the reverse despite reporting on the progress of artificial wombs last year), but don’t mention where the stem cells in question came from.
The Mail wikipedia page is completely censored, by a few users. I wouldn’t be that surprised if they worked for the paper.
If you try to make any changes, and add obvious, controversial headlines, or stories, they delete the changes within minutes. And threaten to report you to wikipedia.
I got so sick of this, that I called their bluff, and implored them to report me (even though I work in the press, and any suspension from the site could have resulted in work discipline).
Anyway, holding my breath, I was right in my stance, as the wikipedia people actually turned on the people reporting me, and said that the people making the complaints were breaking rules by claiming “ownership” of a public page.
Anyway, there is a definite war going on between people who want free speech, and about 5 users who are doing their best to make out that the Mail has never made a mistake in it’s history.
I insist, no matter how they try to threaten you, you are breaking no rules by making accurate, fact based changes, that are sourced.
If they try to threaten you, and reverse the changes, report them
the other papers said that this was to help infertile couples, nothing about having babies without parents. considering the struggle to keep premature babies alive in incubators, i seriously doubt there is the technology to raise embryos from conception to birth in artificial wombs anyway. mail getting its tin foil hat on as usual!
One imagines you would need a woman to carry the thing around for 9 months. Or have they invented a vitreous womb too? And I haven’t read the story but I am willing to bet that nobody has shown the slightest inclination to mix synthetic eggs with synthetic sperm.
Another scare story… science is bad and unnatural, stick to the crystals and aromatherapy in Femail.
Oh and “ethical fears as…”, “outcry over…” and so forth. Bollocks. Add the phrase “we at the Mail are attempting, for our own purposes to create…” at the start.
Since they can’t create eggs and sperm from nothing, but only from stem cells taken from embryos, it’s misleading to say “without man or woman”. Since you need an embryo to create a baby. Maybe they’re too polite to put “without ovaries or testicles”.
Utter tosh!
All part of their “Gays want to breed, it’s not right we tell you!” campaign.
Why have they used a photo of Agassi with Brooke Shields there? He’s been married to Steffi Graf since 2001.
“Ethical fears” = frightened of change, or the idea other people actually understand science.
Oddly they never identify the specific ethical principle in question.
This is terrible. If there’re no parents, who’s going to sexually abuse the child? If there’s less paedophilia then they’ll be less brilliant tabloid stories.
What if they start to clone Daily Mail readers in the millions? Oh god, imagine that…
Isn’t this very old news? Back in 2007 it was announced that researchers had succeeded in diversifying male stem cells (because they have both an X and Y chromosome – female stem cells only produce eggs) into male and female gametes. Of course, you still need the stem cells, which as far as I know cannot be artificially manufactured (though steps have been taken in this direction). Looking at this article on the Mail site, they make a number of wild suggestions about how women might be able to use it to reproduce without men (though strangely given the above not the reverse despite reporting on the progress of artificial wombs last year), but don’t mention where the stem cells in question came from.
PS.
The Mail wikipedia page is completely censored, by a few users. I wouldn’t be that surprised if they worked for the paper.
If you try to make any changes, and add obvious, controversial headlines, or stories, they delete the changes within minutes. And threaten to report you to wikipedia.
I got so sick of this, that I called their bluff, and implored them to report me (even though I work in the press, and any suspension from the site could have resulted in work discipline).
Anyway, holding my breath, I was right in my stance, as the wikipedia people actually turned on the people reporting me, and said that the people making the complaints were breaking rules by claiming “ownership” of a public page.
Anyway, there is a definite war going on between people who want free speech, and about 5 users who are doing their best to make out that the Mail has never made a mistake in it’s history.
I insist, no matter how they try to threaten you, you are breaking no rules by making accurate, fact based changes, that are sourced.
If they try to threaten you, and reverse the changes, report them
So if they’re going to create babies without men, they’re going to need something else which has a lot of bollocks in. Quids in for the Mail then.
Frankestein…………………………..
the other papers said that this was to help infertile couples, nothing about having babies without parents. considering the struggle to keep premature babies alive in incubators, i seriously doubt there is the technology to raise embryos from conception to birth in artificial wombs anyway. mail getting its tin foil hat on as usual!