Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

'Plentiful' Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Found 489

Posted by Zonk
from the bumper-crop dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest have discovered a 'plentiful' non-embryonic source for stem cells, as well brain, liver, and bone cell types as well. The cells, found in amniotic fluid, can be harvested without harm to the donor or the donor's unborn child. While there's no proof that amniotic stem cells are as potent as embryonic stem cells, scientists are hopeful that this will be a huge step forward for the field of stem-cell research."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Plentiful' Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Found

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Viability? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by will_die (586523) on Monday January 08, 2007 @07:32AM (#17506476) Homepage
    embryonic stem cells which have already resulted in _proven therapies that work_
    And thoses would be???? Please name two, here I will make it easy name one.

    Since the original poster will never be back the list of proven embryonic stem cell therapies is none. The truth about embryonic stem cell was that since it contained a large amount of possibilities venture capitalists invest huge amounts of money and have shown no possible pay back any time soon, so they started pushing to have the government put more money after it. When that failed they started doing a bunch of press releases about the potential capability and got some state governments and other individual to buy in. You are starting to see less about embryonic stem cells because the major venture capitalists have sold out after they did thier pump and have no need to spend the money on PR any more.
  • Re:Viability? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by savorymedia (938523) on Monday January 08, 2007 @09:03AM (#17507008) Homepage
    Or we can keep putting money into embryonic stem cells which have already resulted in _proven therapies that work_
    Really? Do you have links? The only proven results I've seen have been from ADULT stem cells...although I'll admit that I haven't kept up with the most recent results.
  • Re:amazing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by oliverthered (187439) <[oliverthered] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Monday January 08, 2007 @09:18AM (#17507126) Journal
    I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?
  • Re:amazing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ArcherB (796902) * on Monday January 08, 2007 @09:45AM (#17507350) Journal
    I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?

    I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?

    To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.
  • Re:Still human ... ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caseydk (203763) on Monday January 08, 2007 @11:00AM (#17508180) Homepage Journal
    "3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources."

    I think this is where it gets pretty dirty... having Michael J Fox and John Edwards (referencing Christopher Reeve) that "cures" are on the way when - to the best of my knowledge and research - *adult* stem cells are the only ones which have actually demonstrated anything useful.
  • The cow can't say "I wonder about what there was before I existed" (an action that is uniquely human) but the cow can seek good grass to convert into methane and manure.
    How do you know that cows aren't wondering that? Sure, they can't say that in English, but how do you know what goes on inside their heads? Or what about other animals, like dolphins, who do have a language they use to communicate with others of their species? How do you know what they talk about? Or how do you know that a cow's life wasn't intended by God to be the comfortable life for reincarnated human souls after living a good life? Just lazily hanging out in the sun all day, no worries, just occasionally being milked, but we had to go fuck that up by cramming them up in little cells and forcing them to milk much more than they were ever meant to until they get sent off to be slaughtered.

    You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else.
  • Re:Ethic issues (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Enzo the Baker (822444) on Monday January 08, 2007 @11:37AM (#17508648)
    Well, Hippocrates (c. 460 BC - c. 370 BC) was certainly not a Christian, and he was opposed to abortion.

    From the Hippocratic Oath: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...