Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech News

Human Based Stem Cell Culture Medium Developed 133

Posted by samzenpus from the get-it-in-you dept.
ubersonic writes "A new culture medium for growing human stem cells -- that contains no animal products -- is offering researchers a cleaner and therefore safer environment for performing the cutting-edge technology. The discovery means that stem cells developed for therapeutic use can be transferred directly to human subjects. By using this medium all of the concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines can essentially be removed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Human Based Stem Cell Culture Medium Developed More

Human Based Stem Cell Culture Medium Developed

Comments Filter:

  • Interesting Discovery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IntelliAdmin ( 941633 ) * on Thursday January 05, 2006 @02:16AM (#14398595) Homepage
    This is a very interesting discovery. Could this totally remove the argument about stem cell research? Since it sounds like they are able to produce Stem Cells without using other human tissue to do it.
    • I don't believe that it will totally remove any arguments about stem cell research. We don't currently need human "tissues", just human "cells".

    • Re:Interesting Discovery (Score:5, Informative)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @02:32AM (#14398639) Journal
      Could this totally remove the argument about stem cell research?
      Nothing can remove the argument about stem cell research.

      The measures taken by Pres. Bush only placate some of the critics.

      There will always be a group of hardliners who think any stem cell research is bad, in the same way that some people think any abortions are bad, irrelevant of the circumstances.

      For some people, the issue is about where the stem cells came from, for others, the issue is about what can be done with the stem cells.

      • Re:Interesting Discovery (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hunterx11 ( 778171 ) <hunterx11@g3.1415926mail.com minus pi> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @05:00AM (#14398843) Homepage Journal
        There are always hardliners, but as time passes they become less and less relevant. There are still plenty of people against IVF, but it's pretty accepted. There's almost no one against organ transplantation. And you'd be seriously hard-pressed to find someone against using analgesic drugs during birth for moral reasons. Stem cell research will almost certainly become uncontroversial during the lifetimes of young people today, or at least much sooner than human cloning.

        • And you'd be seriously hard-pressed to find someone against using analgesic drugs during birth for moral reasons.

          Not to seem like I'm making fun of your point, but Scientologists seem to have some moral objection to painkillers during birth.

          I don't think stem cell research will become uncontroversial, but I do agree that the people who're objecting will eventually become marginalized in the debate.

          Stem cell research will progress whether they like it or not, both domestically (in some cases, without federal

          • Not to seem like I'm making fun of your point, but Scientologists seem to have some moral objection to painkillers during birth.

            Er, did you mean Christian Scientists? Different breed entirely.

        • Yes, and by that time neural implants and Borg technology will be widely accepted. And Borg tech main facilitating factor for market penetration will be its being bundled with Duke Nukem Forever.
          And of course it will be the year Linux is ready for the BrainSktop(tm) :)
      • I agree. Even once we can go and get a replacement heart grown from our own stem cells there will be people picketting the hospital saying we're evil for having our defective heart transplanted. Just like there are people now who consider blood transfusions to be evil even if it's your own blood you have banked that you are transplanting.
        • Even once we can go and get a replacement heart grown from our own stem cells there will be people picketting the hospital saying we're evil for having our defective heart transplanted.

          Well, if you have a kid, then rip it's heart out for a transplant then I imagine quite a few people are going to object (even if the other parent agrees it's a good idea). A few less might complain if you clone yourself and do the same thing. Harvest some eggs and grow them into a heart plus a few organs minus any kind of b

    • Re:Interesting Discovery (Score:5, Informative)

      by heatdeath ( 217147 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @03:41AM (#14398679)
      No, they're able to produce Stem Cells without using animal proteins, which means that they don't have to remove the contaminating proteins after it's cultured. This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.

      • Re:Interesting Discovery (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Tallweirdo ( 657529 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @04:11AM (#14398742)
        This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.
        It is my understanding that research stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses but instead from fetuses or fertilised eggs created for IVF (In-Vitro Fertilisation) but not implanted. This is an important distinction as surplus IVF fetuses are eventually destroyed (incinerated as biological waste) after the mother successfully gives birth.

        Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?

        • One question: Do the scientists have a moral obligation to get the parents' approval before they commence their experiments? Agreed, the extra fetuses or eggs would have been incinerated anyway. Nonetheless, a parent might still feel icky if they learnt that their fetuses are being used for experiments. In any case, the parents are paying the clinic to help them get a baby, NOT to aid stem cell research.

          Disclaimer: I'm definitely not one of those anti stem-cell fanatics. That should not preclude us from rai
          • Re: Rant. Because a good doctor actually takes time to sit down with their patients and diagnose the issue. If a particular appointment takes an hour instead of the 15 minutes scheduled, then it takes an hour. Doctors schedule their days around average appointment durations, but this invariably means that there will be overruns that will cause delays. These delays get absorbed by the appointments that run short, or by the various buffer periods that doctors schedule in.

            On those (rare!) occasions when the bu
            • Well, ok. The same argument can be extended to ANY profession though. A good architect also needs to sit with the client to understand their needs and has to tackle both the highly demanding clients along with the easygoing ones. I'm not being so inflexible as to suggest that any delay is intolerable. I can understand having to wait once in a while. However, a trip to the doctor invariably takes away half a day (which is worth more than what i pay to the doctor, incidentally), as opposed to an hour with any
              • You could always try, oh, calling the doctor's office first to find out how late they're running...
              • I'm sure that after a few years, a good doctor would be easily able to predict the average time taken for a diagnosis

                And I'm sure they do, and I'm sure that's what the grandparent poster said as well. The physician wants to go home at the end of the day just as much as you do. Any reception and other support staff want to get back to their families. The cleaning crews would like to get in to vacuum the waiting room.

                The problem is that patient appointments very seldom last for precisely the average pe

              • You've dealt with other "professionals" than I have. If you get furniture delivered, the closest I can usually get people to promise is the nearest couple of hours for when they'll show up. And they're often wrong. Same thing with a plumber.

                Now if you show up in their office, that would mean that there should be less variation, and I've generally found that there is, but even relying on the bus schedule is an uncertain thing at best. Sorry, I don't have much experience with engineers, but contractors ar
          • In any case, most doctors/researchers have such an inflated ego or god complex that they would not even think twice before trampling an individual's basic human values.

            I have never met a doctor that has a god complex. I've seen politicians on TVs who may suffer from this, but most doctors I have met generally respect the patient because they sincerley wish to make them better.

            Secondly, an individual basic humans values should not include willfully waste of things that would ease the suffering of other human
          • [rant] To digress wildly, why are doctors the only breed that give you an appointment after a week and *then* make you wait for 2 hours in the waiting room. Would you take the same shit if it was your carpenter or lawyer? Someone should sue their egotistical asses, i tell you.[/rant]

            And I forgot to point out that if your lawyer or carpenter is late, you don't sue them either. You simply get a new lawyer or carpenter. If you doctor, lawyer, or carpenter really screws up something that causes you direct damag

        • Well, the problem still remains since the main issue most pro-lifers have with abortion is that you are in fact destroying something that has the potential to become a human being. Most individuals who are against abortion do not make distinctions between a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus, and a human being. That's why many pro-life pharmacists often refuse to fill morning after pill prescriptions which are meant to prevent a pregnancy by causing any possible fertilization to be aborted before implantati

          • For that matter, shouldn't sperm count too? Think of all the lives that get destroyed every time a guy masturbates! Contact your senator!
          • Just to be precise:

            The argument is that the current source of embryonic stem cells destroys something that is human life, not something that has the potential to be human life. Now, that obviously raises the question of what counts as human life, but the argument is not over potential.

            (It should also be noted that Catholics who are pro-life are often (not always) anti-contraceptive because of their understanding of sexuality. See here [aol.com] for a sample.)

            The medical community has never decided that the embyro i

            • Yes, that sums it up quite nicely. I was phrasing it in terms commonly accepted by the pro-choice camp, in which an gamte, fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, etc. are distinct from an actual human being. I would consider human life to begin when the fetus actually starts exhibiting detectable brain activity which I think happens sometime in the 3rd trimester.
        • I'm not trying to be an arse, but FYI, a foetus is 8 weeks old - that's quite clearly a human! These are embryos, a little bundle of cells.

          People think of the two quite differently (for good reason, I think).

          Cheers,
          J.
          Going to be a dad in June ;-)
        • Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?

          Yes.

          Perhaps you believe there are no fates worse than death. For the raw materials of procreation there are far far worse possibilities on the horizon.

          Is it conceivable that you could create a normal (more or less) walking talking human out of cells that are never implanted? Numerous science fiction writers and other futurists
        • Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?

          I would imagine that a good number of the stem-cell research opponents feel that it's a horrible act to destroy a fetus (ok, let's be precise, embryo) at any point after the sperm breaches the ovum.

          Neither science nor common sense would suggest that each and every embryo that is formed is destined to be carried to term and birthe
        • "Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?"

          No. Which is why IVF is just as bad as embryonic stem cell research. Look when Nazis were killing folks anyway they decided they ought to at least benefit from the killing. They then decided that experiments should be performed on them. You know. They were going to be killed anyway so it was moral research right?

          From t
          • Actualy there is another interesting twist to the argument you are making. The German Reich determinied that certin races where not as evolved as them and did not deserve to survive and there fore justified the murder of those peoples. In the modern world we have decided that unborn children are not human enough deserve protection under the law, and we therfore can justify thier murder. We are not alone though it is common for mankind to dehumanize thier victims. Just look at the way the west is viewd by r
      • This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.

        While non-embryonic stem cells can come from aborted fetuses, most actually come from bone marrow, fat cells, nasal and cheek linings, umbilical cords, etc. Stem cells from these sources are not controversial and have been successfully used to treat parkinsons, diabietes, leukemia, spinal
        • "Regardless, the "discovery" reported doesn't impact the moral or ethical discussion, it comes into play after the intitial stem cells are taken (or created, in the case of embryonic ones)."

          I have no doubt that at the moment of this discovery there are some embryonic stem cells already harvested somewhere. But if I can now multiply them eternally in a glass dish without risk of contamination and without needing anymore embryo's then that essentially ends the debate, right?

          After all, I can always take a cell
          • No, it has nothing to do with the debate, because if one accepts the argument that the embryo is human life and therefore unethical to use or destroy, then any cell lines derived from them are still unethical. The medium used to multiply the stem cell line does not impact that. What it does is makes the stem cells grown in that medium more viable to be put into a human being without causing rejection from the animal proteins.

            The ethics are tied up,not in the medium used to propogate the cell line, but in
            • Well if we can multiply existing cells there is no further need to destroy anymore embryos to harvest more cells.

              I seriously doubt anyone would claim the cells themselves are somehow more sacred if taken from an embryo than a human. The debate is whether it is ethical to destroy embryos to harvest said cells. As long as we can reproduce the cells already harvested destroying embryos could be outlawed from this point forward and stem cell research could continue unhindered.

              After all, how is a stem cell in it
              • Well if we can multiply existing cells there is no further need to destroy anymore embryos to harvest more cells.

                I seriously doubt anyone would claim the cells themselves are somehow more sacred if taken from an embryo than a human. The debate is whether it is ethical to destroy embryos to harvest said cells. As long as we can reproduce the cells already harvested destroying embryos could be outlawed from this point forward and stem cell research could continue unhindered.

                That is effectively what Bush did w
      • the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses

        It was my understanding that stem cells from aborted fetuses were LESS useful than those that were regressed from the host that would receive the benefit of the treatment. Thus, the reason the US ban is only on aborted fetus stem cell research is not a bad thing (if it's not the better way to go, let's not go there anyway).

    • Could this totally remove the argument about stem cell research?

      The question is not whether stem cell research will help mankind. The question is who has to pay the price for the research, both literally and figuratively.

      Anti-abortion folks believe that a fetuses are human beings, and that it's a horror for the government to fund experimentation on their dismembered bodies. They believe they are protecting the weakest from slaughter by discouraging research on new lines of stem cells. They certai

      • Re:Orthogonal issues (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mrbooze ( 49713 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @03:55AM (#14398710)
        No, the argument that it "encourages" abortion is not strong at all, it's completely non-existent.

        Does anyone out there really think that young women are sitting around thinking "Hey, if I get pregnant, I can go through annoying hormonal shifts, then have a painful and mildly risky invasive procedure, then they can use my aborted fetus to do medical resarch! Hooray!"?

        People can reasonably have ethical objections to the concept of aborting a fetus for any reason, but it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.

        Especially since one of the most commonly suggested sources of stem cells are excess fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.

        • Re:Orthogonal issues (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Not to mention the psychological impact of having an abortion. I doubt there are very women that look upon abortions all that trivially, despite what religious fundamentalists want to believe.
        • There is nothing wrong with encouraging abortion [wikipedia.org]. I know all you FSM-freaks out there will lend some support to this alternative religion (the Church of Euthanasia). I mean, abortion is one of the Four Pillars, which were written down, indeed first conceived, when Bobby Henderson was still in diapers.

          And yes, I did RTFA and the new growth medium may be a helpful contribution to this area of research, although I think it might be better to grow the new tissues within the recipient host body, if that is

        • Especially since one of the most commonly suggested sources of stem cells are excess fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.

          Leftover embryos from fertility treatments aren't just the most commonly used source of stem cells. They're the only source of embryonic stem cells used in any serious academic or clinical research. Religious right propoganda to the contrary, cells from aborted fetuses are unsuitable for myriad reasons.

          • Well, the problem lies in the fact that:

            A pregnancy is considered to begin, by the medical community, when a fertilized egg is implanted into the womb. Thus, morning after pills (Emergency Contraceptive Pills), which prevent this process, are not considered abortion drugs, even though they are often used after fertilization has occured.

            However, religious groups and other individuals who base their ethical judgements on religious arguments or appeals to pathos(pictures of aborted fetuses, religious rhetori

        • People can reasonably have ethical objections to the concept of aborting a fetus for any reason, but it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.

          They want to make sure the field is covered. If you categorically oppose anything related to research involving anything that could have been any part of something that could have, under any circumstances, become human, then you are, in a way, making sure that abortions never, ever have an upside. It

          • This doesn't mean that they are stupid, only that they are non-rational

            This irrationality, if it continues for much longer, will be the death of the human race. It sickens me to see it continue, here in the 21st century. I am currently reading a book (don't remember the title exactly - something like "Descartes' Secret Notebook"), which I haven't finished yet, in which the author gives a biographical account of Descartes' life, and his struggle against irrationality in the face of the Inquisition. For inst

        • it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions. [...] Especially since one of the most commonly suggested sources of stem cells are excess fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.

          No, it doesn't. You see, even if in reality no fetal tissue were ever used, that wouldn't keep the idea of it from being used as a softening touch to a young woman making her decision. "It's ok, like donating your body to science."

        • Does anyone out there really think that young women are sitting around thinking "Hey, if I get pregnant, I can go through annoying hormonal shifts, then have a painful and mildly risky invasive procedure, then they can use my aborted fetus to do medical resarch! Hooray!"?

          No, but what about the doctor advising her after she becomes pregnant? If he wants to do some research and get a paper published but needs some cells to do it, he has a motive to advise for an abortion even when it may not be in her best i

        • ...it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.

          Does it take a special kind of brain damage to imagine a woman considering getting pregnant to have an abortion to create stem cells if it would save a loved one? I think that's what some have a problem with.

          • Considering how unreliable it is to get pregnant in the first place, yes, given that said mythical woman could simply donate eggs and sperm to be fertilized in a lab to extract stem cells from, in this mythical situtation where she for some reason needed her own stem cells to save her own child. (Stem cells are very unlikely to have the immune reaction issues a normal tissue transplant would.)

            And as an earlier poster said, as far as I know there is nobody working with stem cell lines extracted from aborted

  • Contamination (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nativequeue ( 943365 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @02:23AM (#14398606) Homepage Journal
    It has been shown [bbc.co.uk] that an animal based culture medium will contaminate the stem cell line.
    Might this still happen in the long run, just contaminated with human molecules, as they mix with the growth medium?

    • Re:Contamination (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Belseth ( 835595 )
      The problem was rejection and posible bad reactions to being exposed to the animal proteins. The human proteins aren't likely to cause the same rejection issues. The real problem now is Bush is demanding that they stick with the small number of existing lines, most of which are already contaminated. They can still experiment in this country but they can't recieve government funds if they use new lines because it upsets the radical base. I think there will be a lot of opposition to treatments being approved

    • "All of the concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines can essentially be removed using this medium,"

      "We describe the derivation of two new human embryonic stem cell lines in... culture that includes protein components solely derived from recombinant sources or purified from human material,

      "Derivation and culture in serum-free, animal-product-free, feeder-independent conditions mean that new human embryonic stem cell lines could be qualitatively different from the original lines

      And on

      • I did read the article. The medium gurantees no contamination from animal cells. My question however was, might the human material used contaminate the cells? It took them how long to figure out most if not all existing stem cell lines are contaminated by animal genes?
        • It's not a contamination by genes, I assume that animal proteins in the medium would influence the ability of stem cells to preserve their status. It's more likely that contamination here means proteins that "shift" stem cells to become another cell type.
        • They didn't " most if not all existing stem cell lines are contaminated by animal genes". There was a legitimate concern that some viroid particles might have caused contamination. Concern doesn't equivalence to "consider as a proven fact". There was also some concern that perhaps some of the sugar molecules might decorate proteins differently in different species, and hence in the cell-lines. Concern isn't proof. This is offered as a way to shelve the concern without refuting it. And it's likely impo

  • Ummmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @02:34AM (#14398647) Journal
    Should we really be trusting a story from RedHerring.com?

  • Real Contri (Score:2, Informative)

    by dartarrow ( 930250 )
    FTA: "The scientists hope their findings will help reopen the debate over federal funding of stem cell research in the United States."

    the real contribution any stem cell research/findings should at this point be :
    1. clearing up its name, after the incident from *that* korean scientist
    2. reducing if not totally eliminating legal limitations based on ethical issues.

    do these things and you're good to go.

    • Re:Real Contri (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Stripe7 ( 571267 )
      None of the stem cells from these clean lines can be used in any Federal funded stem cell research. Bush made certain of that.
      • "None of the stem cells from these clean lines can be used in any Federal funded stem cell research. Bush made certain of that."

        Judging by Bush's current credibility, it won't be long before this changes.

  • Stem-cell green (Score:5, Funny)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @02:36AM (#14398656) Homepage Journal
    "We describe the derivation of two new human embryonic stem cell lines in... culture that includes protein components solely derived from recombinant sources or purified from human material," reads the paper.

    Stem-cell green is people!

  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by pcgabe ( 712924 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @03:36AM (#14398672) Homepage Journal
    By using this medium all of the concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines can essentially be removed.

    And thank God! Now that the major concern regarding stem cell research has been cleared up, we can get on with this vital, life-saving work.

    That =was= what all the controversy about stem cell research was, right? Contaminating proteins?

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by heatdeath ( 217147 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @03:37AM (#14398673)
    Chinese scientists have made amazing advances in enabling multiple births, for those Chinese people who want to have twins. Iranian scientists have also genetically modified a pig so that it will reproduce and grow at 5 times the normal rate. Iran's hunger problems will surely end soon.

  • Further research planned (Score:5, Funny)

    by LameJokeGuy ( 943407 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @03:38AM (#14398674)
    American scientists expect further research to lead to breakthroughs in Large and Super-Sized stem cell cultures in the near future.
  • As cloning advances, perhaps there'll come a day on which it is possible to somehow clone stem cells or figure out a way to get them to reproduce. Impossible?
    • The problem is not the reproduction of stem cells, but how to have them expand *without* losing their ability to differentiate into any other type of cell (called in biology "totipotency"). I'm not very updated on human stem cells, but for other organisms (mice mostly) you can already cultivate them in vitro. The biggest problem is that they're rather delicate, and they are extremely prone on differentiating into other types of cells.
  • you *cannot* "contaminate proteins"! what contamination in the context of stem cells is that cells may become differentiated due to the way how they're cultured. the essence of a stem cell is that its undifferentiated cell and has a potential to transform to any cell type (muscle, brain, cardiac, liver, etc). With time these cells may loose this totipotency, or their ability to turn into any cell type. Contamination has nothing to do with culturing stem cells in heterologous medium!
    • ... you *cannot* "contaminate proteins" ..

      It's not about proteins being contaminated, but about proteins from the medium ending up in (a.k.a. contaminating) the stem cells.

      The original text ".. concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines.." is somewhat ambiguous ..

    • The cells can be contaminated with animal proteins. If that happens it makes the tissues unsuitable for implanting into humans (because of rejection).

  • I appear to be alone in my opinion.

    While I find it great that technology can find cures and whatnot, I find stem-cell research rather unethical. Stem-cell research is using the bodies of wouldbe humans. Now I say wouldbe but in reality these are full human beings. They are hardly developed however, but they have all the components to grow into babies, so they are completely human. Stem-cell research would be taking a body of another human being, and changing it's growth pattern to become part of someone el

    • Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @08:02AM (#14399205) Homepage Journal
      Given the success of cloning, it could be argued that any cell culture could be reformed into a complete animal. We can't do that quite yet with humans, but we're pretty close.

      Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human?

      Wouldn't be me. Obviously you're a member of the soul on fertilization camp. Which would you rather be? Part of a cell culture that's saved the life of another human, allowed somebody to see, to walk, etc or to be incinerated with half a dozen others as 'medical waste' because you didn't happen to be the one implanted?

      Besides, for actual treatment they're more likely to use cloned or artificial stem cells to prevent rejection by the immune system.

      Somebody should probably mod this guy up. I don't agree with him, but he's a perfect example of the anti-stemcell viewpoint.

    • Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by giorgiofr ( 887762 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @08:12AM (#14399229)
      I disagree with almost everything you said but I won't flame you because you are being polite in your exposition. That said, I think there is a big flaw in your reasoning that I want to comment on.

      Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human? [...] Do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? [...] Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance.

      I am sorry but there is nothing "besides" or "outside" life/living. You're implying the existance of some sort of sentient being who would suffer under certain conditions and would like a different treatment: but such sentient being, by your very definitions of the circumstances (not being born at all), cannot exist. You're kinda condraticting yourself. So, to answer: *I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here. I wouldn't have any problem being turned into a treatment if I didn't exist yet, because there would be no *I* to speak of.
      So unless you give evidence that somewhere some soul is crying, right now, because it doesn't want its body-to-be to be turned into a treatment, I will disagree with your opinions.
      Besides, I think your opinions, my opinions, and everybody else's opinions have *no* relevance at all and that every scientist should do whatever he likes to do. Cloning babies and engineering planet-destroying death stars... whatever. Then again, I also think they should not be subsidized at all, no matter what they're resarching. This would make all these discussions quite useless.
      • Not to jump into the stem cell argument, but I think you have a precarious position in your argument. You talk about existance and appear to define it as being born. And also imply that you would need to be sentient.

        The danger in your argument has to do with those two areas. For if a being must be sentient, does that mean someone in a coma no longer exists? How about the severely mentally disabled? As for being born, does that mean a baby that is two months premature exists, but a fetus still in the wo
        • the embryo used to harvest stem cells is just an early version of the human being that will be born nine months later.

          s/will be born/has a chance of being born/

          Please keep in mind that 50% of all pregnancies result in miscarage during the first trimester. I will leave you to ponder the reasons or ramifications for this but I couldn't let that absolute sit there uncontested.

          [ mod -1 offtopic && -1 bad_spelling ]
      • because it doesn't want its body-to-be to be turned into a treatment

        I had to read that a few times...

    • <i>They are hardly developed however, but they have all the components to grow into babies, so they are completely human.</i>

      So by this definition i suppose that an unfertilized egg and some sperm is completely human? After all, those are components required to create a human.

      Hell, by this definition, a large mound of carbon, oxygen, iron, hydrogen etc. is completely human as well.

    • Stem-cell research is using the bodies of wouldbe humans.

      No, it's just using a tiny clump of human cells.

      Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance. It would be better simply to not exist, because either way, you wouldn't be conscious, just in the latter you would be worse off.

      Better off to simply not exist? There's no person existing there, except the one who got the cells implanted into them to enable them to walk! An e

    • I don't disagree with the basic idea of what you are saying. The problem is that you are confusing "stem cells" with "embryonic stem cells". Not all stem cells are embryonic stem cells. The stem cell lines that so far have provided the best results have been stem cell lines extracted from adults and umbilical cords and not aborted or non-implanted embryos. Most people who object to embryonic stem cell research have no problem with adult or umbilical cord stem cell research. Just be sure that when you put fo

    • I know that many of these come from fertility treatment, and would be disposed of anyways. If this were to happen to you, do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance. It would be better simply to not exist, because either way, you wouldn't be conscious, just in the latter you would be worse off.

      There's a little red heard on

    • Do you also find masturbation unethical?

      Highschool joke:
      =======
      (Two spermcells are talking)

      Sperm1: I am gonna be a Doctor when I grow up.

      Sperm2: Oh yeah, I'm gonna be a *Computer* engineer when I grow up.

      (would-have-been-father ejaculates)

      Sperm1: Damn asshole! Screwed up my career!!

      Sperm2: Goodbye, /.
      =======

      Your streetcry: Spermcells are (haploid) people too! Prevent cruelty to sperm! Give life a chance?

      So you won't ever accept an organ donation, even if your life depended on it. Right? This would
    • What is a stem cell, it is a bunch of DNA with some surrounding cellular machinary. It is the same DNA, give or take, that you have in every cell. Given the correct chemical stimulus and processing you may be able to encourage many cell types into this state. We just don't have a good handle on the cellular biochemisty to be able to do this at the moment. On this assumption it may be possible to create new life from any part of you which has it's full compliment of DNA. In this context, you would seem to
    • Are you propsing that all stem cell research is wrong or only embryonic stem cells? Non-embryonic stem cells can come from any number of sources including bone marrow, fat cells, umbilical cord blood, nasal cells, etc. These, non-embryonic stem cells don't destroy an embryo nor require creating an embryo through nuclear transfer to produce them. As such, they are not and never could be a living human being and are truly just cells (just as skin cells and bone cells are).

      I only raise the point to raise awa
    • I see in the hours between when I read this at lunch and my after work response many people have responded with surprising lucid criticisms of your imagined fears and misplaced objections. I can't help to add a few of my own.

      You make a number of statements that are either very vague, mischaracterizations, impropbable, or philosophically faulty... either way they leave me with a lot of questions about how you arrived at your conclusions... actually let me restate that...
      Your statements lead me to conclude t

  • Oh! (Score:2)

    by Snaller ( 147050 )
    For a moment there i thought it was a tiny stemcell which could predict the future!
  • ...and THUS, The Tleilaxu Masters are born unto mankind...

    That's the first thing that came to mind, genetic engineering DUNE [dunenovels.com] style.

    Let the Tleilaxu religious furvor begin.

  • There are better ways to get stem cells (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There are companies out there that can produce stem cells without the use of baby fetuses, the problem is the government is not informed enough to separate these company from the companies that do use baby fetuses. http://www.aastrom.com/ [aastrom.com] is a company that produces stem cells for you using your own bone marrow and they have had a few positive human tests around the world (including the US) but everyone is still worried about human fetuses. I just don't understand.....
  • Before falling into the gaga over stemcells, read the literature. Stemcells don't actually work.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close