Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Adult Stem Cell Growth Treats Cornea Disorders 128

Posted by Zonk
from the get-those-lazy-stem-cells-on-the-move dept.
stemcellar writes with a link to the ScienceDaily site, reporting on a method for adult stem cells to grow cornea stem cells. This use of differentiated stem cells in therapies on specific parts of the body is fairly novel, the article states, and could have numerous applications in medicine. "The research undertaken by the ophthalmologist has shown that, from a small biopsy sample, the new growth technique enables the growth of the number of stem cells thus obtained to the point of obtaining sufficient for the treatment to be effective. The cell sample is taken from the limb of the healthy eye - the ocular structure responsible for the transparency of the cornea. The importance of this growth method lies in the fact that it enables the characterization of the cells obtained, i.e. determining the quantity and viability of the units to be used."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adult Stem Cell Growth Treats Cornea Disorders

Comments Filter:
  • by mrnick (108356) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @04:39AM (#19944285) Homepage
    I like this kind of medicine. It uses your own body as a donor I am sure your left eye wouldn't reject cells from your right. rejection is the major problem with transplants today (beyond demand surpassing supply).

    Now bring on the clones and grow me a new liver! I just bought a new bottle of Jim Beam! :)

    Nick Powers
    • by erbuc (752495)
      This is great stuff! The only problem is that the US Government won't approve such a treatment. I work for a Medical Tourism company in Thailand and we are already working with Theravitae on their Adult Stem Cell programs that do the same thing. It is being used for Coronary Heart patients and Diabetics with PAD. The patients own Adult Stems Cells are used and so far there is a 75% success rate that the patient recovers from the conditions they had prior to treatment. The Government in Thailand has approv
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ameyer17 (935373)
        I am not an expert on federal law, but I thought Bush was allowing adult stem cell research.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I am not an expert on federal law, but I thought Bush was allowing adult stem cell research.
          Yeah, what Bush did was refuse to provide federal funding on new lines of embryonic stem cells from after the time of the decision, but he wasn't opposing adult stem cells at all, much less banning research on them or use in treatment.

          I don't know what the GP is all about, maybe just an advertisement?
          • by buswolley (591500)
            I told you, using dead babies is not the way to go. Adult stem cells, skin cells; those are the ways to go.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by erbuc (752495)
          Research yes, and embryonic stem cell research as well. But Adult Stem Cell research was pushed aside a few years ago in order to direct funds elsewhere.

          The company that I spoke of actually picked up shop and moved to Thailand, had their research approved, and have a working fully approved product today. So this research in the US is already a reality for others.

          I do not want to supply links or mention the company again as it may be construed as advertising and I do not wish to abuse my privileges here. Do
          • It has always been faster to get approval for new medical treatments in other parts of the world than in the US. The US requires a high level of experimental proof that a treatment is effective and that it does not cause more harm than good. This requires quite a bit of time. Sometimes this means that people have to wait longer for an effective treatment to be available than we all would like. However, in the 70's there was a cancer treatment that was hailed as a wonderful, effective treatment of cancer and
            • by HiThere (15173)
              That's one way of putting it. It's perhaps true as far as it goes.

              OTOH, the US colludes with companies that want to suppress unpleasant results. By this I mean results internal to the company that have shown a treatment that a company is proposing is dangerous.

              So, yes, there's more red-tape in the US. But it doesn't necessarily help the end-user. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Combine this with SLAPP lawsuits, and you have a system that tilted significantly against the average end-user (n
        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          Any ban on this treatment is not due to any research ban. There is a 7-15 year lag time for new drugs and treatments to get approved by the FDA in the US. While we don't get the very latest in treatments, we're not exposed to treatments in the beta stage either.

          • by Firethorn (177587)
            Yes, it does generally keep the number of Vioxx type cases down.

            I don't think that it's too bad when on average the FDA revokes drug approvals less than once a year - while approving dozens a year.

            FDA approval is tough and getting tougher.
          • "There is a 7-15 year lag time for new drugs and treatments to get approved by the FDA in the US." After my first heart attack in November, 2004, the Cardiologist said "two months, could be two years."; followed by the admonision to "Put your affairs in order." 7-15 was not an option. The FDA takes that long to repeat the same studies, over and over, in different locations, with different doctors, each one biased to "proving" his pro or con position, through the manipulation of his "findings". Dr. Amit Pate
      • I think "not globally approved" is misleading. The real issue is "not US FDA approved". Some of the critics like to imply that countries accepting the benefits of Adult Stem Cell Therapy are "backward", Third World, or, don't "know better". Adult Stem Cell Therapy is being practiced in such obscure places as: Brazil, Thailand, Germany, and Singapore, to name a few. I've been to Thailand, pumped 5 figures into THEIR economy, received a dose of MY OWN STEM CELLS, and (less than 2 months later) I'm doing thing
      • by plunge (27239)
        This is mostly because countries like Thailand don't much care if these sorts of treatments have terrible side-effects: they consider their citizens expendable in the pursuit of profit and business.

        Have no fear though, if a Republican wins in 2008, America is sure to head in that direction eventually.
    • by thrill12 (711899) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @05:54AM (#19944531) Journal
      ... because I think that this new technology is exactly not meant for the purpose of abuse, in all its forms (alcoholism, self-inflicted injury etc.). This is ofcourse mainly an ethical discussion, but honestly: why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives, even if healing can be 100% ? It still costs money, you know.
      (I know you meant the last remark in jest, but it helps making my point ;)
      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by headkase (533448)
        We need to ditch money soon. Money just represents unused energy or resources and capitalism is a method for allocating the surplus under conditions of scarcity dependent on goal(s). We not developing countries anymore in the West. We live in the land of plenty and our primary activities are trending into knowledge applications. Abolish copyrights in favor of a cooperative creative commons let everyone use everything and be amazed at what the stone-soup parable has to teach. Spare resources would still
        • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          Capitalism has served its purpose here so stop treating it like religious dogma and envision a better way.

          The one day I don't get mod points...

          Our health care system, shrinking middle class, hell, shrinking working class, are signs that the American-type of capitalism is losing its relevance. Lately, the ones benefiting the most from it are spreading the canard that somehow, capitalism is "ethical". Every week, I hear on talk radio somebody say that capitalism is somehow "biblical". That's usually followed

          • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

            by that IT girl (864406)

            I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good?


            I feel I have to point out that, after legislation after legislation is passed to chase God OUT of the country, people can't complain when He's no longer there to protect it.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
              Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the re
              • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

                by ArcherB (796902) *
                Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the religiou
                • by plunge (27239)
                  What the hell are you talking about? Crosses ARE allowed on individual graves in memorial cemeteries for goodness sakes.

                  Like many people, I think you are mightily confused about the nature of endorsement and accommodation and what people want.

                  The basic doctrine that most SOCAS groups advocate is that the government should not use its authority to specially privilege one religion over another: it should be religiously neutral. That doesn't mean, however, that it cannot give reasonable accomodation to the n
            • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

              by The Spoonman (634311)
              after legislation after legislation is passed to chase God OUT of the country, people can't complain when He's no longer there to protect it.

              Please, keep your stupidity to yourself. We passed legislation keeping YOUR god from trampling on the rights of the brainwashed followers of other gods as well as those who don't believe in any of your fairy tales or voodoo. As for his "protecting" it, thanks, but I can do without his "protection". His protection means people fly planes into our buildings, millio
              • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

                by ArcherB (796902) *
                Please, keep your stupidity to yourself. We passed legislation keeping YOUR god from trampling on the rights of the brainwashed followers of other gods as well as those who don't believe in any of your fairy tales or voodoo. As for his "protecting" it, thanks, but I can do without his "protection". His protection means people fly planes into our buildings, millions of people are killed in concentration camps, blacks are strung up by the neck, children are told to drink the Kool-aid, Palestinians are killed
                • Bad things have been done in the name of religion, so let's ban religion.

                  Exactly. Your flawed attempts at logic by extrapolating to include cars notwithstanding, the banning of religion would be the greatest achievement mankind could hope to achieve. As to banning cars...nyuh-uh, not the same. A car is an inanimate object, religion is a set of codes designed to promote evil behavior. To follow the logical course of the argument, you'd have to say "murder is bad, we should ban all murder!" We don't
                  • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

                    by ArcherB (796902) *
                    A car is an inanimate object, religion is a set of codes designed to promote evil behavior.
                    Really? Love thy neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife, neighbor's ass, neighbor's wife's ass. Honor thy mother and father. Turn the other cheek. All that is Evil? I think your definitions are a bit skewed. My church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and gives aid to those that need it. We do not force religion down their throats in exchange either. Su
                    • All that is Evil? I think your definitions are a bit skewed.

                      Oh, I get it, the one or two sentences in the whole book that might be construed as "good" are the end-all and be-all of your religion, then? How 'bout...

                      Do not covet thy neighbor's wife, neighbor's ass, neighbor's wife's ass.

                      The penalty for which, is death (Leviticus 20:10).

                      Honor thy mother and father.

                      The peanalty for which, is death

                      Do you follow the 10 commandments, too? If so, how many people have you personally put to deat
                    • by ArcherB (796902) *
                      There's this new thing out. It's called the New Testament. It means that the punishment for sin is no longer death. It means we don't have to be perfect.

                      I know the feeling. Look at it this way, you're at least not arguing with someone completely delusional. Let's face it, you can defend your religion all you like, but the simple fact of the matter is your religion is responsible for the German holocaust, Jonestown, Waco, Salem, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, etc, etc, etc. Defend as you like with wh
              • ...the hell? I was just pointing out a trend over the past few decades or so. For example, violence in schools going up as they got rid of prayer in schools, and then the moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance, and now I'm not even sure they do the pledge anymore. Things like that. You can get as angry as you want but I'm just looking at facts. I never said I was a proponent of any particular religion. Although as angry a person as you seem to be, I'll gladly not be a follower of whatever you beli
                • You can get as angry as you want but I'm just looking at facts.

                  No, you're making them up, and that's why I'm angry. In this day and age when information is available by just typing a couple of keys, people are not only still ignorant, but making up their own facts as well. For example, by taking 30 seconds and looking up the stats on Google, you'd see school violence has been decreasing [virginia.edu]for a long time. You might want to claim isolated incidents show things spiraling out of control, but anecdotes don' [ed.gov]
                • by Copid (137416)

                  I was just pointing out a trend over the past few decades or so. For example, violence in schools going up as they got rid of prayer in schools, and then the moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance, and now I'm not even sure they do the pledge anymore.
                  You might also want to look at the alarming trend between a lack of pirates on the high seas and global warming.
              • by plunge (27239)
                The founding fathers did not hate religion. The major ones were neither orthodox Christians nor deists (though ironically, many of the orthodox Christians at the time went as far as to clal them atheists, despite the fact that they were not).

                What they did understand, however, was that religion and government were both better off the more they were allowed to simply operate without any special secretarian authority over the other.
          • I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good?

            Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian.

            The first and most important admonishment is that you Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. This is not a passive sort of activity. This is an instruction to go out and do things. Help that old lady across the street. Pick up that hitchhiker. You know what I'm talking about.

            Now, this sort of activity puts you out - it's inconvenient. And it can even be dangerous! But the whole point of this is that you can't create the kind of world you want to live in without acting as you want people in that world to act. Some eggs will be broken in the pursuit of this omelet. But what the hell? That's how it always works.

            I would say that just as you are not a true patriot if you are not willing to be arrested for your political beliefs, you are not a true christian unless you are willing to die for your world.

            The corollary to that is that it must not be a violent death, at least, not by violent actions on your part. Anyone who is bombing abortion clinics or dragging a man behind their truck is quite simply not a christian. It's turn the other cheek, not throw the other fist.

            This is not a Christian nation. There isn't one, and there never has been.

            • Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian.

              That's the stupidest thing I've heard today :-P Who are you to define who is a Christian and what they should act like? Nobody, that's who! Terms like Christian are entirely self-defined terms!

              It's great that you have a strong idea about what being Christian means, and that--in your view--it's a positive thing. However what about the person who says if you let gays marry you're not Christian? What if you suffer a witch to live? :-P What if allow abortions? the truth is there are many hundreds of thousands

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                That's the stupidest thing I've heard today :-P Who are you to define who is a Christian and what they should act like? Nobody, that's who! Terms like Christian are entirely self-defined terms!

                Those are very convenient weasel words, but this is one of the most important admonishments from a man who is considered to be an avatar of their god, and cited from a sermon considered to be one of his most important. It is in fact considered to be a central tenet of christianity.

                Christianity is organized religion, and it definitely is not intended to be self-defined; they will in fact tell you specifically what you need to believe, both in the majority of churches and in the "good" book itself. Of cour

                • Those are very convenient weasel words

                  I don't know what that means!

                  from a man who is considered to be an avatar of their god

                  Wow, what kind of nonsense is this? Just because you've seen a word in a video game clearly doesn't mean you know how to properly use it--this also shows a distinct lack of understanding in Christianity. This coming from a person attempting to DEFINE christian? Color me less than impressed!

                  It is in fact considered to be a central tenet of christianity.

                  Ok, great, you've isolated "a central tenet" of Christianity. Do I take it to mean that you're backing off from the claim that that this one thing is the SOLE definer of Christian or not?

                  Christianity is organized religion, and it definitely is not intended to be self-defined; they will in fact tell you specifically what you need to believe, both in the majority of churches and in the "good" book itself. Of course, there's many versions of that book and all in common use today are pretty heavily bastardized -- which should tell you as much as anything else what fucking charlatans the people selling the faith are.

                  O

                  • by drinkypoo (153816)

                    Ok, great, you've isolated "a central tenet" of Christianity. Do I take it to mean that you're backing off from the claim that that this one thing is the SOLE definer of Christian or not?

                    Show me where I said it was the sole determiner of whether or not you are Christian. Come on, show me.

                    Can't do it? There's a reason for that.

                    There's actually a number of things that you are required to believe by all major sects of Christianity to be considered a Christian - otherwise you're a heretic. For example, you have to believe in the holy trinity. If you don't, you're a heathen. But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about demands attributed to god, either through his own words

                    • Show me where I said it was the sole determiner of whether or not you are Christian. Come on, show me.

                      1) Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian. (followed by 2)
                      2) The first and most important admonishment is that you Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. (followed by explanation of how this works)
                      3) you are not a true christian unless you are willing to die for your world.

                      Ok, so as I understand your points 1,2,3. ACTUAL Christians (#1) must obey this doctrine (#2), or are not true christians (#3).

                      That would seem to me to imply that that's it--the whole shebang right the

            • Except that the "do unto others" bit, like "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill", was only meant to apply to Jews, as you'd know if you'd read it in context. There's nothing in the Bible opposing enslaving or murdering other "races", and it positively encourages killing unbelievers.
              You're right in saying that by the standard of the Bible, American Christians aren't true Christians, but it's not because they are all-round love-spreading machines. If anything, it's because they eat pork and shellfish
              • That's silly too. One can easily find historical texts--dating back hundreds of years (I'm familiar with a some Byzantine / maybe 700-800s in particular) that explain WHY christians don't need to get circumcised, can eat pork, can eat shellfish, etc.

                The idea that to be a good christian one also has to be a good jew is actually a relatively NEW idea!

                the point is "true Christian" doesn't mean jack shit. There is no one checklist of things that a Christian MUST do/believe and CAN'T do/believe.
                • The historical texts are meaningless if they contradict the Bible, which is still by definition Christianity's only holy text. //The idea that to be a good christian one also has to be a good jew is actually a relatively NEW idea!//

                  Is it? Matt 5:17-18 disagrees with you. "New Covenant" or not, the laws of the OT are still supposed to apply. //the point is "true Christian" doesn't mean jack shit. There is no one checklist of things that a Christian MUST do/believe and CAN'T do/believe.//

                  I'll agree that "true
                  • I'll agree that "true Christian" doesn't mean anything, but not that there's no such checklist. The Bible is just that.

                    Which is perfectly true except for human interpretation!

                    Christianity--as practiced by a majority of adherents--has never been a religion in the mold of Islam (or, in the mold of the dominant theological schools about Islam). In Islam, the Qur'an is seen as the literal and exact word of God--the words in the Qur'an were transmitted directly from God through Muhammad to people. Some people--including many Muslims!--would argue that there is no room for interpretation there. I think the vast majority of Chris

                    • Still, an interpretation that goes against both the letter and the spirit of what is by definition the only real guideline to Christianity is a pretty worthless one. And I think you'll find that in the US especially, Biblical literalists outnumber liberal christians by quite a margin (even if most of them don't even know what the Bible actually says).
                      The world *would* be a better place if everyone used common sense in interpreting their religion (it'd be a lot less religious, at the very least). Unfortunate
                    • That's a good question.

                      Biblical literalists outnumber liberal christians? Hmmm... I don't know, I'm not sure I buy that at all! I mean only around 1 in every 5 americans go to church every week according to most polls I've seen.

                      I've found that many people seem to think of America as a place where everyone walks around with a bible (and a hamburger...and an SUV...and a gun). Particularly Europeans think this--I've read some BBC articles discussing faith in America that I absolutely had no idea was about amer
                    • ~shrug~ I don't know that I believe any survey that reports that 44% of the US population believes the world is 6000 years old and I would LOVE to see just what question they asked! I honestly have never heard one person that i've met--ever--say something like that (and I grew up in North Carolina--"the south!"). I am not denying that there are certainly people (especially in the more rural and deeper south) who are young earthers, but 44% seems like an insane number.

                      It's like the evolution / creationism de
                  • by jmccay (70985)

                    Is it? Matt 5:17-18 disagrees with you. "New Covenant" or not, the laws of the OT are still supposed to apply.

                    Have you noticed Jesus never preached to the Gentiles, and his main audience was the Jews. If you read the book of Acts, following the OT laws was brought up in the early church. Paul, and Peter, argued against placing the yoke of the OT laws on the Gentiles since there forefathers were unable to bare the yoke. If I remember correctly, James, the brother of Jesus, agreed to a point. I will leave finding the answer to this as homework. (Hint: read the book of Acts.) As for a true Christian, that wo

                    • by plunge (27239)
                      Honestly, they didn't have much choice. Many of the claims made by the early Christians were so preposterous to educated Jews that it's no wonder the movement had so little success with them. Most of Jesus' followers were either illiterate and mostly ignorant of rabbinical Scripture, or cranks and outsiders, like Paul. Not a single major rabbi from the time converted to Christianity or even felt that it's claims passed the laugh test (mostly because the definition and veracity of a messiah were very clea
          • by multimed (189254)
            Before indicting capitalism because of the problems with the healthcare system, why don't you stop and consider whether it actually is a capitalist system. There isn't real competition in as far as consumers being able to easily shop around between different providers. No price transparency means people can't be good consumers and make decisions based in part on cost. There's a hodge-podge of government funding - to the effect that private providers get under-paid for services provided for some individua
          • by DittoBox (978894)
            Funny, I was listening to a podcast the other day that was claiming that (without saying the magic words) communism was biblical. Its a funny old world.
        • The problem is that your post does not acknowledge any difficulties with the idea. I don't think there has been a successful large scale system like that, and it's been tried. It's not a new idea.

          It would be easy to think one can trust a computer to better guide the economic system, but who makes it? Who maintains it? Do we trust those people to not jury-rig it? In the end, it still comes down to "do you trust the system"?

          Even to answer the question that the grandparent post asked, should a physician b
        • We need to ditch money soon.


          If anybody needed proof that there is such thing as too much Star Trek....

        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          We need to ditch money soon. Money just represents unused energy or resources and capitalism is a method for allocating the surplus under conditions of scarcity dependent on goal(s). We not developing countries anymore in the West. We live in the land of plenty and our primary activities are trending into knowledge applications. Abolish copyrights in favor of a cooperative creative commons let everyone use everything and be amazed at what the stone-soup parable has to teach. Spare resources would still need
      • by timmarhy (659436)
        so make it an option for pay for it with a excess on top to help subsidise it to treat people who are in a bad through through no fault of their own. that way, the wealthy have the chance to help others while getting what they want (new liver or what ever). there are plenty of people out there who have more money then sense, who would gladly fork over $100,000 for a new liver to abuse.
      • by Guuge (719028)

        What about injury due to birth complications? The mother knew the risk but decided to get pregnant anyway. What about injury in a car accident? The risks of driving are well-known, but someone chose to drive anyway. What about sports injuries? Anyone who plays football clearly understands the risk of injury. What about problems resulting from high blood pressure? The patient clearly should have been eating healthier food.

        At some point, we have to decide who is responsible for judging and delivering punish

      • by shrubsky (661474)
        "why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives...?"

        Was there an implication that society would pay for this procedure, rather than the one receiving it? I don't have a problem with some idiot buying himself a replacement liver (or pancreas, or whatever) with his own dollars. If we're talking about forcing me to buy it for him, then I agree completely.
  • from tfa:

    The results to date achieved amongst the group of rabbits, with induced limbic insufficiency and which then had a transplant of adult stem cells, showed recovery of the corneal epithelium in 60% of the treated animals

    Not knowing anything about the risks, alternative treatments available, and potential effects of non-treatment, 60% might not be particularly good. I mean, a 60% success rate is a 40% failure rate. On the other hand, this treatment is new and likely could be further optimized.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rob1980 (941751)
      I think that success rate is going to have to come up a bit, but at the same time I wonder how much of those 40% of treatments that failed resulted in the subject experiencing some kind of harmful side effect. If it's small enough more people may be willing to roll the bones and hope they just don't fit into the .01% category.
    • by timmarhy (659436)
      since when has a low rate of success been a measure for what treatments you give a patient? plenty of people embark on treatments with a success rate of less then 10%. it's the side effects and any resulting damage caused by a failure that you have to weight up against the risk of doing nothing.

      in all likelyhood, people trying this aren't likely to get any blinder if it fails, so who gives?

  • by WheelDweller (108946) <WheelDweller@g m a i l . com> on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:30AM (#19944831)
    Adult stem cells, I'm told, have had lots of applications (hence the research money available for it). It's the embryonic stem cells that don't seem to have as many applications.

    It's just kinda creepy to see so many people trying to get government funding of stem cells from the "people who won't vote" (to put it mildly). It's like one party in America loves to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn; ever notice?

    I know embryonics are in the grey area, but the willingness of people to cannibalize babies just seems wrong, in general.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      always about the children with you people. first it was 'stop child labor', then it was 'stop child sexual abuse', now it is 'stop harvesting organs from children'. where is this going to stop? i suppose next you are going to take away underground child fighting?

      people like you are what is holding this country back. i suggest you move to some workers paradise like canada, where they dont even know what an MRI machine is, or how to do labial resurfacing, but at least they all get the same crappy free health
      • by Guuge (719028)
        Even worse, they support the barbaric practice of having women put children in their bellies! That's cannibalism, folks. Furthermore, these children are completely naked. Those liberal child-consuming pedophiles must be stopped!
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Babies (real babies) have psychological sophistication slightly greater than an insect. Sure, we develop very rapidly as we approach toddler stage, but the ugly shit-machines that people think of as babies are little more than meat and potential. Embryos which is what embryonic stem cells are harvested from, aren't even meat. They're more like tadpoles. Using phrases like "cannibalise babies" is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. We are not cannibalising babies. We are removing insentient, parasi
    • by eli pabst (948845)
      Wrong. Adult stem cells are essentially just easier to use for certain applications where the adult stem cells is easily differentiated into whatever tissue you are trying to grow. Which is why there have been a number of successful uses of adult stem cells, particularly in hematologic disorders because blood progenitor stem cells have been extensively studied, so we know how to make them do what we want. By definition, an embryonic stem cell can do anything that an adult stem cell can do (adult stem cel
    • It's just kinda creepy to see so many people trying to get government funding of stem cells from the "people who won't vote" (to put it mildly). It's like one party in America loves to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn; ever notice?

      The main utility of embryonic stem cell research is as a wedge issue to portray those who object to it as knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying, holy-rolling retards whose fondest hope is for the poor sick to die of their infirmities. Personally I don't have a problem with the

    • by Anonymous Coward
      A Harvard bioethicist whose name I currently forget (if you don't believe me I'm happy to take the credit myself) has pointed out that even people who claim to believe that embryos are morally equivalent to babies generally DO NOT really believe that...

      How do we know? Simple thought experiment:

      A fertility clinic is on fire, and about to collapse. You have to choose which to save - door number one, a baby in a waiting room. Door number two, a liquid N2 tank with 40,000 frozen embryos. You can't save both. Wh
      • The problem with thought experiments on ethics is that the proposition has as much to do with the outcome as the experimenter. For instance, you would probably get a different distribution of answers depending on the number of embryos or babies. Same goes with the Prisoner's Dilemna and the Radium Cure - modify the premises slightly, the answers can change drastically.

        It also depends on the ethical system you are using.

        From a strictly utilitarian point of view (the framework you seem to set as the standar
      • Another thought experiment:

        A building is on fire, and about to collapse. You have to choose which to save - door number one, your beloved spouse in a waiting room. Door number two, a liquid N2 tank with 40,000 frozen adult strangers. You can't save both. Which do you choose?

        Many people would choose to save their spouse. That doesn't mean that they don't believe those strangers aren't human beings. It's just that one's emotions often influence what one does. It's like how people care about the hunting of c
    • by plunge (27239)
      "Adult stem cells, I'm told, have had lots of applications (hence the research money available for it). It's the embryonic stem cells that don't seem to have as many applications."

      Even researchers that are against embryonic stem cell research still admit that embryonic research is extremely promising and important insofar as our knowledge goes.

      Saying that because adult stem cells are productive that this invalidates any benefit from embryonic stem cell research is like saying that because we can cure cancer
  • I read that at first as "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Treats Cornea Disorders"

    and then when I did a double take, the first two words looked to be "Adult Swim .. .. .. .."

    Guess I need to cut down on my pointless animation intake! I say that with adoration, by the way.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...