Stem Cells Restore Feeling In Paraplegic 540
Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"
Benefit of the doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place. A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work and others are having to modify their protocols to use one of the "acceptable" lines of stem cells the Bush administration in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to approve for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work.
It should be noted that it is not just patients who have been paralyzed that can potentially benefit from this work. Other potential therapies to come out of stem cell work include treatments for heart disease, retinal vision loss disorders, Parkinson's disease, Cystic Fibrosis and many others.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2, Insightful)
Facts are cool.
Re:Miracle Treatment (Score:2, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.
(BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)
Re:And what did it take.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm, this is a perfect example of why it is people like you that keep us from moving ahead. You had a knee jerk reaction and did not actually read what I wrote. Specifically, I wrote "for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work. So, what you fail to understand is how much research is funded by the federal government. If you are unable to acquire NIH funding, that severely limits the type and extent of research that can be accomplished given the current academic infrastructure.
Stem cell research can be funded by state or by private organizations. Also, there is nothing limiting research other types of stem cells.
True, but those funds are very very small compared to the types of funding that the federal government delivers. Also, Universities prefer to receive federal funding because of the indirect costs. In fact, in some situations, it is difficult to maintain a position at a University in biomedical research without federal funding.
If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?
I love this country and I have a passion for science. What I want is for us to continue to succeed instead of being hamstrung by political agendas.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you don't get modded down here, because it's a good point. I might respect the position of someone who, after much deliberation, believes that embryonic stem cells should be used. However, anyone who thinks that using embryonic stem cells is a no-brainer either doesn't understand the ethical considerations at stake, or simply doesn't believe in ethical considerations at all. Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.
And yes, also the research here was done with umbilical cells, and the US government has absolutely no problem funding research using umbilical cells. The federal government simply put restrictions on the funding of gathering fetal cells, which is a long way from outlawing stem-cell research.
That site has been hijacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Extremely sceptical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Having looked upon those rationalizations look again at your arguement.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called "doublethink".
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT's the issue. Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls.
That statement also shows the inextricably parallel issue of defining when human life begins. By definition, the choice to end a human life, especially one which has viable potential, is...shall we say...controversial.
Under legal definitions which were decided by U.S. courts, not the U.S. society, human life starts after the baby's head exits the mother. That's an over-simplification, true.
Rhetorical point: When does a baby truly become a person? When does a minor truly become an adult?
Can you see it from the perspective I just described?
--
On a related note, given the huge number of people who want to adopt babies and can't find them as well as the people with fertility challenges, it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people.
"No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people.
I've not been there myself and really don't know what would be involved. This is just an idea that came to me after watching friends struggle to have children.
--
Watch, 5 will get you 10 the bulk of replies to this will be flamefests.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted. You can't reverse an execution.
What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Next question?
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Today unused embryos are worthless trash, if legal for research they'd be a very valuable commodity. This might give the incentive to overcollect embryos or start paying women to donate embryos only to turn around and sell them.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're really interested (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt despite being modded a troll) I'd tend to recommend Plato or Aristotle. Google for "Nicomachean Ethics" and you'll probably find a free version. There are plenty of works out there, but no authority.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Non sequitor. The zygote or morula is going to be destroyed at time T, whether the method of destruction is research or the incinerator, whereas you are considering killing now a person who would not otherwise die until some unknown time in the future.
A closer example would be, what is the ethical problem with using the bodies of condemned criminals for research after they are dead? (Punting the ethical issues surrounding state homicide for the moment.) Provided that the victim of execution agrees (since we generally recognize an ethical right of people to have their corpse disposed of in a matter that they approve of), I don't think there are any, and thanks to one such person we have the Visible Man project [ge.com].
We might consider that the parents have a proprietary interest in the cells in question, and that disposal should be according to their wishes; but assuming that is addressed, if the cells are about to be destroyed anyway, research seems ethically superior to the trash can.
Re:Politics as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
so... libraries don't have armchairs?
the mere fact that an embryo has the potential to become a human being
There's your mistake... I think those on the other side of the fence treat an embryo as a human being. Assume this other sider believes in a "soul", and it is this "soul" that is the defining mark of a human being. I really can't see any point for the soul to come into existence except at the moment the egg is fertilized. Though perhaps I have misunderstood those on the other side.
For one thing, many things have the potential (i.e., have some causal relationship) to the creation of a healthy infant child. As someone else once suggested to me, one such thing is a glance of flirtation toward a fertile young woman. From that glance, there exists the potential for intercourse; from that intercourse, the potential of conception; from that conception, the potential of a human child in the form of an embryo.
I must be gone now, for it is my moral obligation to make babies with all the fertile women I've laid eyes on today. (I like this "philosophy" stuff!)
Re:It's not surprising t hat World Net Daily (Score:1, Insightful)
I work at a general store, and the odd time I get this person (with his aid) that doesn't have any hands... he doesn't have any eyes... he can't be more than 3 feet tall... he's hunched over almost to his waist... he can't speak... in essence (as you put it), he's a steamed prawn. Is he still a human, even though the kid is hard to look at sometimes?
What if you had a child that looked like that? Would you banish him to the middle of the desert and let the steamed prawn shrivel up?
USA Constitution and what the government can do (Score:3, Insightful)
how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security?
Can you show me where in the USA Constitution where it says health is the responsibility of the government?
A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals
Seeing as how federalist principals stand for small government not large government it seems you're the one with problems of uderstanding federalism.
I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending.
I'd prefer to see less of MY tax dollars going to both the military and to medical research.
if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field
And if taxes weren't high to pay for all this by the feds then the private and commercial sectors would have more money to spend on research. And job creation.
So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research.
And how can you get off on saying the constitution allows tax spending for scientific research? Though I've looked, read, and reread other than where the constitution allows congress to grant copyrights and patents I see nowhere where it deligates this power. Maybe I missed it so can you point out where it says otherwise? Maybe it's in Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress [usconstitution.net] but I don't see it.
Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research.
And I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, James Jay, and James Madison who all loved small government would say to you? Though a bit later I know what Col. David Crockett would of said, "Not Yours To Give". [house.gov] Heck, I'd like to see NASA privatized as well. What many don't realize is that the USA Constitution is a limit on what government can do, the 10th Admendment even spells it out:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People [usconstitution.net]
FalconThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re:Extremely sceptical (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple "embryos have no inherent moral value" is not itself a rational statement, but an assertion devoid of logic. To demonstrate rationality, you have to demonstrate a chain of causality from base assertions to a nontrivial solution. In this case the extent of the logic is "non-conscious things have no moral value" + "embryos aren't conscious" => "embryos have no moral value". The rest of the grandparent is a series of strawmen, which are fine for making points but don't actually support the main point in any way.
When it all comes down to it, the two assertions in question are equally valid. They are both one step removed from the base assertions, and the base assertions both consist of an arbitrary statement of an ill-defined term (consciousness and soul) and an arbitrary, unsupportable assertion as to the moral value of said term (soul = good, consciousness = good). Careful definition can swing science into the favor of the consciousness decision, but careful definition can do the same for the soul argument. Even then, science cannot by its nature make moral commands, so wether the people involved are scientific or not is irrelevant.
So, in conclusion, your point on the 'scientificness' of the debaters involved is irrelevant, and both of your examples exhibit roughly equivalent rationality. Rebuttal complete.