US Stem Cells Contaminated 758
Croaking Toad writes "According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall. The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses. New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush." To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well. Update: 01/24 19:40 GMT by J : Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines. What a curious genetic heritage we have...
"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)
-- George W. Bush
Just thought I'd help back up the parent there.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Insightful)
oh geez (Score:3, Funny)
Re:oh geez (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Informative)
Bush has eliminated funding from new stem cell lines.
Q.E.D. - Bush has reduced federal funding for new stem cell lines.
Moral of the story, do your own research [google.com] rather than just believing what Bill O'Riley and Fox News tell you.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)
The ban (in place since 1995) was pushed through as a rider on an appropriation bill by the GOP. NIH sought help from HHS on how the ban applied; in 1999, HHS responded that research on stem cells can be funded by NIH (public funds) so long as the stem cells themselves were produced via private funds. In short, so long as government funds weren't used for the first step, any ethical research could be conducted. Government funds *were* going into research on these cells, just not at the creation stage.
However, under the Bush guidelines, this is changed. If the stem cells are not part of the original "64" lines (not really 64 lines, but that's beside the point), no government funding can go into research involving them. So, apart from the fact that it doesn't change the fact that government funds couldn't be used for the creation of stem cell lines, it bans research on any line that hasn't already been created - in short, making it a more restrictive policy, not less.
Here's some details about the history of the lines and their current status:
AAAS Policy Brief: Stem Cell Research [aaas.org]
It also explains why there is animal contamination.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)
That is a campaign speech lie. He was not the first president to fund stem cell research. Under previous presidents, stem cell research was undertaken with federal funds for that purpose. However, to prevent controversy, they projects were labled "paralysis research" or such.
So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)
And if you think Slate is too liberal a source to trust on this, here's a venom spitting concervitive to back me up.
"the feds are not going to actually get involved -- will not spend appropriated funds -- until after the pluripotent stem cells have been already recovered from the process." [Source [worldnetdaily.com]]
I think we can safely take the above paragraph to indicate that Clinton approved the use of federal funds to research embryonic stem cells, though did not approve said funds to actualy extract the cells.
Anything else you need me to prove?
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2, Informative)
So, yes, a private company can harvest more cells and give them away, but any researcher who touches them can kiss his funding good bye.
Correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
Very important distinction.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where's the logic ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization [babycentre.co.uk]. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
Re:Where's the logic ??? (Score:3, Informative)
Incorrect. That is not what the order says.
Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization.
Incorrect again. That is not the only source of embryonic stem cells, but it is the only source for which federal funding is allowed.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the p
Re:Where's the logic ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any scientific evidence that a Day 5 blastocyst is NOT a live human being?
Um, yeah. A blastocyst [wikipedia.org] is undifferentiated. No heart, no parts, just a blob of cells. Do you think your sperm are little people ?
How can pro-life groups be against IVF, if it results in birth?
They are against it because fertilized eggs are destroyed in the process. Some more here [time.com], and a few notes on blasts as well.
criminal purposes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2)
(apologies for horribly mangled quote)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2)
The only medical research corporations are willing to fund is the kind of research that will result in fairly quick discoveries of drugs meant to treat, not cure, ill
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2)
Other countries are already the first option for cutting-edge treatments that haven't yet or won't gain approval in the U.S.; this is yet more business being pushed the way of slightly less scrupulous countries. Perhaps the original resear
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention the questions about just who would be profiting under this.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)
The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.
MOD PARENT UP! Animal embryonic stem cells funded (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Insightful)
Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses. If Bush is in favor of destroying existing resources (human tissues) instead of using them to advance science and save lives, why not ban organ donation? Does anything in the bible say "thou shalt not help fund researching [new, human, embryonic] stem cells if thou art the [federal] government?" If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding, or the research itself? If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research? Can anyone make sense of this policy? It scares me, not in how sweeping the effects are, but because The President, the "Leader of the Free World," is using executive orders [64.233.161.104] to dictate where scientific research funding goes based on personal, nonsensical, unpopular religious motives.
I think the rest of government should do what the Pentagon [wpda.org] does, and ignore it. There's no basis in law for "executive orders" anyway. I doubt any president would allow a case based on violating an executive order to go to court, in case the Supreme Court ruled that Executive orders don't exist. Chances are, Bush can't do anything but get grumpy if the whole Federal Government simply ignores his ban.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Insightful)
Stems cells are very much "byproducts from fertility clinics". When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab. After a certain ammount of time, the healthiest embryos are chosen and implanted. The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions. Those embroys were never destined to be born. Why not help people with them?
-B
Wait... (Score:3, Funny)
What about unmarried couples? Wait, you're one of those religious right-wing zealots aren't you?! Quit pushing your propaganda! Burn him at the stake!!
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Insightful)
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp [nih.gov]
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not a little network of nerve cells that can fly a plane can reasonably be considered to be conscious (and I think that the universal answer among neuroscientists would be "no"), these cultures at least have one crucial feature--there are actual neurons present, which are certainly necessary, albeit not sufficient, for consciousness.
But at the early stage at which stem cells are harvested, the embryo doesn't have any neurons.
So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty? (Score:5, Insightful)
A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings.
I could get rich mining irony ore here. If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand. Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing.That's correct (Score:5, Informative)
That's correct, but also misleading. The executive order banned embryonic stell-cell research by any organization, group, or researcher receiving federal funding.
Not federal funding for stem-cell research. Federal funding for any research, related or not. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).
The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2, Informative)
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.
That's not true, Federal funding for any research done on new stem cell lines is denied. It's not just the harvesting. Huge difference.Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. Some Germans cared, some didn't. To say that no Germans thought that mass murder was wrong is simply wrong.
>>The slaveowners actually thought they were doing a service by beating their slaves and forcing them to labor.
Only those who believed their own lies. Just because you keep up a front doesn't make it the truth.
What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for. Infanticide has a longer history than civilization. Longer than our species. As far as opinions go, mine is that the fetus isn't a child until there's brain activity. None of this "potential" tripe that so many people bandy about. Until then it's just a lump of flesh.
You want to rail against "child murder"? How about the foetal deaths caused by pollution? How about all those dead kids in Iraq? Conservatives have no moral authority because they have continuously contradicted themselves.
If murder is murder, why have a death penalty? Why start preemptive wars? Political convenience, that's why. It's all a lie.
Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is I am personally pro-life. My vote, however, is firmly pro choice. Why? Because as soon as you legislate what is acceptable and what is not (as to when an abortion is legal when normally banned), you will inevitably run into a condition where an abortion would make logical sense, but is not covered by the law, and thus is illegal.
I am pro-life because my mother had me ten days after she turned 18. I was put up for adoption, and was
Re:There is a middle ground though... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of relaxing, maybe those people could spend some time in a NICU, taking care of the babies who were born and are kept alive in neverending pain because "life is precious". I do not believe in late term abortions (my son [boxscore.ca] was born at 24 weeks gestation, just over 1 pound, and nobody can tell me he was not alive and aware of his surroundings at that stage) but placing a uni
Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it funny that the same people who are so adamant that abortion is murder are almost always the same people that are opposed to the dissemination of methods of birth control as well as the same people who are quick to make single mothers the scapegoats for all of society's ills.
And what right do you have to tell a pregnant woman, regardless of how her child was conceived, just what exactly she is allowed to do with her own body?
Re:Aborted Fetuses = Murdered Children (Score:5, Informative)
It goes like this:
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry jgardn, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away. So your problem is not with stem cells but actially with in vitro fertilization.
Here's a good primer:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp [nih.gov]
Re:Stem Cell Research Facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes Bush is being hammered on this issue, and rightfully so IMHO. I do not think that is the purpose of the issue, though. This is a complicated issue with many diverse opinions. Implying that only the people who agree with you are sane is an example of why we aren't finding a common ground. Leave the rhetoric out of it, please.
Let's stop politicizing sc
Private shops can continue as they see fit (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit (Score:2)
Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit (Score:4, Interesting)
A correction. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A correction. (Score:2)
Re:A correction. (Score:2)
The text of Proposition 71 [ca.gov] which proposes a 3 billion dollar bond sale to fund stem cell research in the state. It even says in your linked article that New Jersey isn't trying to outdo California's 3 billion.
Re:A correction. (Score:3, Informative)
Old News (Score:3, Interesting)
See ya later, Johnny (1925-2005) and thanks for the memories!
To eliminate some FUD (Score:5, Informative)
"Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.
No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above."
Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so.
Re:To eliminate some FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait... they're not? And the $4 billion in funding in California was heavily pushed and lobied for by the private research companies who will be getting the funding?
Re:To eliminate some FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To eliminate some FUD (Score:2)
It is my understanding that almost all clinical research has potential for Federal funding. Further, even though it may not be used, it's a pretty big deal to be excluded from funding because of the area of research a group or company may have been involved in. I don't know what the current dependence on federal funding is, but even the potential from your operation from being barred from receiving funds is a pretty scary idea. It wasn't necessary to
Incorrect summary (Score:2)
The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed".
Anyone with the expertise can harvest new stem cells legally in the US, the Feds just won't be giving them grant money to do it.
It's too bad whoever wrote the story didn't even bother to read a couple of paragraphs into their own linked text.
Re:Incorrect summary (Score:2)
Now Californias (Score:2)
Good for them
Re:Now Californias (Score:2)
On the bright side, at least Callifornia has a huge new government jobs program.
Re:Now Californias (Score:2)
Re:Now Californias (Score:2)
In parctice, private dollars usually err on the side of more risk. A tiny percentage of companies that are privately funded succeed, and even the ones that fail represent the best of the companies that go through the investors technical review process. Such a review process typically involves hiring some of the foremost experts in the related field to decide for the investors whether the concepts the company is based on are sound.
This is not news (Score:4, Interesting)
Stem cell research not "outlawed." (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. Firstly, Executive Orders cannot create law (Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952))
But more importantly, the EO in question applies only to research conducted with federal tax money. Private research institutions and some state-funded ones (including several in California and other states) are free to persue their own stem cell lines as they see fit.
This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but to complete your post... (Score:2)
To be fair, some of those families may later change their minds and want another child, but by the time the woman passes childbearing age, those frozen embryos are pure, simple e
Embryonic Stem Cells (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and even if you could harvest any embryonic stem cell in the world, you would still have the "transplantation" immune response problems that you see with those contaminated cells; after all, you are taking the DNA of a human (we can argue if that human was ever "alive" later) and implanting it into another "live" human, you better be sure that your significant proteins match [healthgoods.com].
Stem cell harvesting not outlawed. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is slashdot, with the journalistic integrity of Dan Rather.. I should not have expected any different.
Stem cell harvesting is not illegal, so harvest away. What you can't do accoring to that 2001 executive order is harvest stem cells and expect the government to pay for it. It's like saying Bush outlawed cars because he won't buy you one.
That's fine with me anyway, it's beyond me why the government pays for reasearch that does not go into the public domain. Let pfizer pay for their own research! They don't need my subsidy.
-- Greg
Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed. (Score:4, Informative)
Contaminated? All of em? (Score:2)
Let the conspiracy theories fly! Surely it was the fundamentalist conservative right wing; or was it the liberal fundamentalist hippie left? Perhaps the Nazis? I'm sure in the end we'll blame it on terrorists.
Cordblood, (Score:4, Interesting)
Contaminated? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, fundamentally it's an effort to make an argument for new stem cell lines, by undermining the viability of all the existing lines, including those federally funded. There's not much new to it, except now it's dressed up in a "new" study, when everyone has always known that these lines (not just the Bush-approved ones, but almost all ES cell lines developed past a certain stage) were developed with so-called mouse feeder cells. To call this "contamination" is simply dishonest. A good number of cell products used in humans are developed with feeder cells from animals, and some of these (not embryonic cells, but other cell products) have been successfully developed into medical treatments in the past.
A couple of key points. First, it is not true that all the Bush-approved lines were developed with these mouse feeder cells. There are sixteen lines (not counted in the LA Times's "20 or so" available lines) that have been frozen in an early state, so as to wait for better cell development techniques. These have never been exposed to mouse feeder cells or any other cells, they are frozen and could be used if these folks had a better method to suggest.
Second, the FDA has a lot of experience dealing with cell products (again, not embryonic stem cell, but others) developed with such animal cells. Then-administrator of the FDA Mark McClellan, in testimony before [the president's bioethics council] in September of 2003 [found here] was asked about the mouse feeder layer issue in embryonic stem cells, and he replied: "We've certainly had experience, successful experience, in thousands of patients in documenting the safety of cells that have been exposed to animal feeder cells, mouse feeder cells, and the like."
This new study strikes me as a partially dishonest repackaging of old worries in an effort to put new pressure on the Bush administration's funding policy. The trouble with it, as with all similar efforts by the researchers, is that the policy is based on a moral conviction, not a scientific assessment. Even if what they are saying were correct, it doesn't change the moral problem with embryonic stem cell research, and so will not change the policy. And from what I can see, it isn't correct either.
Par for the course, alas. What a course!
This puts an end to some brain-drain (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably offtopic, but very newsworthy IMHO... (Score:5, Informative)
I submitted this twice and for some reason it wasn't accepted. Not that i'm holding a grudge, but i have diabetic friends and this is major news for me, and perhaps could change some people minds' about stem cell research (not embryonic stem cell research though, which is a more delicate subject).
Re:Probably offtopic, but very newsworthy IMHO... (Score:2, Informative)
Why The War Over Stem Cells (Score:5, Informative)
There's an astonishing report out of China; it can be read here [guardian.co.uk]. (The story, already quite poignant, is made even more so by the realization that the author is himself tetraplegic and is considering the procedure himself.) Essentially, the Chinese have already abandoned stem cells, and have moved onto nasal cells from four month old fetuses. They're working. Read this:
Self-preservation is the strongest instinct, and morality will inexorably be rewritten to allow whatever is required to survive. This is ultimately what will end the abortion wars, and pro-lifers are horrified at this (likely) endgame.
Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the end game. "Abortion cured my Alzheimers." "I wasn't ready to have a child, but I was ready to save a life!" That kind of thinking ends the war. Sure, you'll have boutique procedures developed for those who want to remain ethically pure, but they'll initially be less ef
Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't you mention... (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly, don't believe the hype. One of the things we learned from Dolly (the cloned sheep) is that adult cells are quite different than fetal cells -- the loss of telomeres creates significant problems with aging and long term survival. We don't know entirely how stem cells are going to work; from the article, the Chinese have already abandoned them in favor of nasal cells from four month old fetuses. (In a counterpoint, I've read there are attempts to harvest the same cells from adults. It might work.)
Fundamentally, we don't really know what cures we're going to get out of stem cells. But this isn't an argument about whether they'll work or not; like you say, it's an argument about whether it's right to take the cells from fetuses. What I'm saying is that if a cure is found, the ethics will be rewritten, because while a fetus might be human, a six year old child and a seventy two year old grandfather definitely are.
So that's the fight. That's why you started by insisting that embryonic cells are useless. That's why the non-embryonic studies are getting funded so richly. Your only hope really is that the non-embryonic cures will be so fantastically effective that embryo-harvesting approaches won't be able to keep up. This is imaginable -- reimplanting one's own stem cells neatly avoids all sorts of rejection issues -- but it's not likely.
Immoral? (Score:3, Interesting)
Those cells can be, and are, harvested from embryos that are otherwise discarded by fertility clinics. Do you really think scientists are going to order up a bunch of embryos and surgically remove eggs from human donors, in expensive and potentially dangerous procedures, while all these free embryos get trashed?
You're saying you'd rather those embryos just go to waste.
As long as we have fertility treatments that create surplus embryos, yo
Re:Immoral? (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't know how it works... they culture lines of stem cells, they don't use them directly. They replenish themselves and don't require lots of new material. There will never be a 'demand' for more, at least not a demand that even comes close to outpacing the avaliable eggs. By the way, they ALL go to waste now, thousands per month or more.
Jackelope (Score:3, Funny)
logic ? (Score:5, Informative)
I have absolutely no moral or ethical objections to harvesting stem cells. I don't consider undiferentiated cells to be " a human life". I also have a close family member who has Parkinsons disease. I am strongly-pro stem cell reasearch.
But I take issue with Dr Ajit Varki foisting fake science on the public.
from The Register:
"The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products.
The argument for the necessity of harvesting new human stem cells goes like this:
Having established that culturing stem cells in a serum replacment derived from animal products contaminates the cells with Neu5Gc, scientists attempt to rid existing cell lines of Neu5Gc by culturing them in serum replacement derived from animal products. This fails to rid the stem cells of Neu5Gc. Therefore, they conclue that existing cell lines can not be rid of Neu5Gc by growing them in a in serum not derived from animal products. It is therefore necessary to harvest new cell lines and grow them in culture not derived from animal products.
Try growing existing cell lines in serum not derived from animals and see if that rids them Neu5Gc. Then get back to us.
So, logically... If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!
Same thing, different century.
Research does not have to stop. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two things that puzzle me about the United States of America: fear of human sexuality and fear of progress.
Blowing things up on TV and showing violence on the news is okay. People start complaining only if a part of a naked female body appears on the tube or if those *damn* scientists try yet another method that could potentially save us from suffering and premature death. Whoever thinks that U.S. is a country of freedom has never tried to get an abortion in Mississippi or teach evolution in Georgia's public schools. I do not even want to start talking about stem cells...
Although federal funding is cut, I suspect that it will not stop research in the long run. I hope that my state decides to follow California and raise its own money for embryonic stem cell research. And if I ever become a millionaire, I know where I am going to spend my money. Moreover, you do not have to be rich in order to achieve something. Although I do not have education in biotechnology and other related fields, I think that there are some kids at MIT and Harvard that can achive something that I can't. If we provide enough financial support through small donations, we can fund public labs that rely on money, not religious influence of our government. If this country was able to raise millions of dollars for the victims of the recent tsunami, I believe we can rase enough money for small scientific projects. Once these projects start returnig results, companies will jump on the bandwagon and the industry will be able to support itself without Mr. Bible's say.
Where is the logic in the argument ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization [babycentre.co.uk]. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.
p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.
Re:Where is the logic in the argument ? (Score:3, Insightful)
(No need to post AC, we're all friends here on
Wow... you must read a lot of SciFi books... "Will we have a new underclass of 'breeders', who get pregnant as often as possible to sell thier 'surpluss tissue'?"
That's not how it works... you just need a few lines, not a continuous supply. Let's try to stick with the facts here.
You suggest that IVF is OK since "People pay for IVF" - I suppose that following that logic, if I hire a hitman it's ok since I paid him/her to kill someone ? I still think
I don't know about antlers (Score:2)
Personally I was hoping... (Score:2)
Re:ahem... (Score:4, Informative)
60 Minutes had a piece several weeks ago about the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation. They provide lots of private funding for medical research. And one of the projects they mentioned was the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines for research.
Re:This is pure FUD (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
No (Score:3, Informative)
To have stem cell-based therapy you need to bank common HLA types.
The neoconservatives won't pay for it unless making Christian septuplets is somehow involved. "Use the existing '60' lines," they say. So, federal funding blackout on anything likely to be useful in the field. Ever wonder why the Bush compromise was inadequate? This is one big reason.
What we just found out is that, even if you
Re:This is pure FUD (Score:5, Informative)
"The problem is that current stocks have taken up a "non-human molecule called N-glycolylneuraminic acid or Neu5Gc" - probably when they were grown in a lab culture containing animal-derived materials from mice and calf foetuses. Neu5Gc is found on the surface of animal cells, but the human immune system attacks it - the major reason for transplanted animal organ rejection in humans."
But hey, if you say they're fine, they must be fine. After all, you're posting to Slashdot.
Re:New lines? (Score:2)
Of course, it still falls under under the ban on creation of new lines.
Re:Make G. W. Bush's head spin... (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd very likely be wrong. Bush's tax cuts have plainly delivered tens of billions to rich individuals and corporations already (with the deficit climbing precipitously largely due to these changes). His various regulatory policymakers have made it easier for polluters to pollute and tax cheaters to cheat.
As for policies that would suit the Falwell/Dobson wing of the Chri
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sort of off topic, but (Score:3, Informative)