Economist reports that my idea about doing non-destructive stem cell research has been successfully tested.

Once a fertilised egg has divided into eight cells, one of those cells can be removed in a biopsy without reducing the chance of a successful pregnancy....such biopsied cells might, instead, be encouraged to reproduce—thus generating a line of stem cells.

I expect other people had the idea before I did (I'd be obliged for an earlier cite.) In any case, I presented it badly enough to be criticized by NASA Watch. Now I just need to get the other idea I thought of in fall 2004, Space-Shot.com, to turn a profit.

So instead of creating one blastocyst and using it for stem cells instead of letting it come to term, we can create identical twin blastocysts and use the smaller one for stem cells instead of letting both come to term? Nice idea, but I don't think it'll make the religious right any happier.

There is already a senator claiming that its 'twinning' and then killing the twin. If that's the case then removing a cell from a human and creating a clone is also twinning. I love it when science makes words based on primitive ideas meaningless.... like 'planet'....

There is no need to create a blastocyst from the embryonic stem cell to create the embryonic stem cell line. The cell could be continually dividing from the one to two-cell level. The original egg could be brought to term. The harvested cell would not be able to be brought to term (that's the claim in the Economist anyway).

While I think the idea stands up philosophically, I agree completely that it will not put the debate to rest. The method is inherently very (but not completely) ineffective at harvesting stem cells and would raise the cost of such research.

The new debate might be like the abortion debate; will the Government pay for the more expensive method (non-destructive stem cell harvesting/adoption) or will it attempt to limit the less expensive method (destructive embryonic stem cell harvesting/abortion)?

Personally I would prefer to have a brother who lived in a petri dish to not having a brother. Even if my brother had only one cell, and his only contribution was saving people's lives by being a medical research specimen. Would he be entitled to the minimum wage, social security and have to register for the draft? How would one honor my brother's right to vote at age 18? Does the state protect his right to buy life insurance?