Stem-Cell-Like Cells Produced From Skin 265
MikShapi writes "Skin cells can now be turned into something resembling stem cells. A genetic modification to four genes using a viral vector reverses differentiating, making the cells revert to a stem-cell state, capable for becoming any other cell in the body. The researchers are calling them 'iPS cells' or 'induced pluripotent stem cells.' In their experiments, iPS cells in the lab turned into nerve cells, heart muscle, and other tissues. The research was published in Cell and Nature by teams from the universities of Kyoto and Wisconsin. The article notes that if the new method proves successful, 'we can disconnect the whole stem cell debate from the culture war, from battles over embryo politics and abortion rights.' And, should this technique be adopted, stem cells will henceforth be abundant, easier and cheaper to come by for research and therapeutic purposes."
It's not the end of the debate though. (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd think everybody is in favor of longevity, but one of Bush's early science advisers made it clear that he was opposed to life extension in principle and Bush explicitly backed him up on that. It blew me away, but they clearly were making the case in favor of death. Personally, I was shocked at this and I brought it up with some people in my family and I was even more surprised to find that a lot of the older people were sympathetic to the idea that death was something that shouldn't be messed with.
Personally, I say fuck that. Ya'll can be my witnesses, I want to live as long as freakin' possible and if I end up lookin' like Frankenstein carrying my head in the jar in the crook of my sewn on arm then all the better. Sounds good to me.
Some of the arguments in favor of death are kinda lame. I've heard the economic argument over and over. This is a popular one. It's like the economy would get all screwed up if people stopped dying on seventy year clocks because all the old geezer's saving would just accumulate insane interests until the oldest people had all the money. Okay, I can see that but this is not a good reason for people to die. Money aint that big a deal if we all had indefinite life spans. I'm sure we could calmly negotiate something once everyone had matured a few hundred years.
Another pro-death argument is the idea of overpopulation. I think I have a sweet answer to this one and this is what I really wanted to post about. See, the key is that you've got to have an answer that appeals to a really silly level of religious symbolism and I think I got it.
What you do is, you say that anybody who wants to extend their life past a certain age and have children will have to voluntarily exile themselves into orbit or the moon or some other place off the surface of the earth. This is the perfect solution. Why? Because, the result is that the people who accept eternal life can only do so if they . . . wait for it. . . go to heaven.
Is that sweet or what?
Re:This won't stop them turning it into an issue.. (Score:2, Interesting)
i mean after all wtf is wrong with playing god? if we listened to these whacko's we'd still be praying on our needs in a dirt hut.
If i was a rich billionaire i'd pump shit tins of money into stem cell research and have them make me some kind of catdog style animal.
Wow! That's not only a troll, but 100% Grade-A Certified Organic FUD!
Conservatives, or more accurately, Christian Conservatives, have nothing against stem cell research. Hell, Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research. Yes, George Bush authorized funding for stem cell research, as long as the money was not spent on NEW stem cell lines derived from embryos. Existing stem cell lines from embryo's, chord blood stem cells, this type of stem cells, or any other, is fine and government funded. This type of funding is perfectly fine with everyone, including Christian Conservatives.
So your comment only shows that you are either ignorant or the facts or simply a liar. Which one is it?
Re:The science! (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is where we disagree. And I'm sure you can understand this line of thought even if you don't agree with it. It goes to the question of what is a human deserving of human rights. We consider it a unique being with DNA, post-fertilization.
We find this definition has a scientific and ethical clearity that can avoid a lot of the horrors of history that now (most of) humanity regrets based on what counts as a human worthy of protection.
We've found your previous and current standards of tribe/religion/family/ethnicity/sexuality/age/disability/ or simply 'might makes right' distinctions to be unworthy of our species.
So you disagree - so if we are not persuasive, are we at least not 'stupid?'
you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory
To quote Jerry Sienfeld's response when he was told he was not in listed in the top 10 of comedians in the history of America but was instead number twelve, I'll take it.
Re:It's not the end of the debate though. (Score:2, Interesting)
As for overpopulation.. there's an (as good as) infinite amount of space out there. We're probably going to run into this problem anyway, so any extension to age will only accelerate the issue. I'm sure that one day in the future, 'overpopulation' will be as big a buzz phrase as 'global warming' for our politicians, and it'll be dealt with (even if for the wrong reasons).
The debate will never end (Score:3, Interesting)
One day (probably in the far distant future) the science-types will work out how to assemble (from scratch, no less) one (1) Hew-Man Being(patent-pending, tm, etc most likely) without the mess involved with "an embryo".
What you gonna do now?
You think this is insanely unlikely? (remember folks, people once thought it insanely unlikely the earth was NOT the center of the universe)
Until it's born, it's "an embryo". Of course essentially the same thing occurring as "just a bunch of separate organs" is (by definition) not "an embryo" although (in theory, so far) you could piece the jigsaw-puzzle together in "an assembl-O-mat" and produce a walking-talking fully-functional human.
And maybe we won't do it that way - maybe we'll just use full nano-assembley and build him (or her) one atom at a time.
At what point do you differentiate between "a human" (or "a person") and something that was literally designed and manufactured by "those geeks in Building C" you see in the cafeteria some days?
Do they deserve any rights? Rights the same as "the rest of us" or not? (anyone seen Blade Runner lately?)
Should "they" be any less worthy simply because we fully understand how they came to be, and can control that process?
Does anyone else in this room find it odd and unsettling that the very same people who are so against killing people before they're born are constantly requisitioning more funds from congress in order to kill people after they've been born? (well, very long after. And "those people" aren't "my people" so that makes it fair and just, doesn't it?)