Scientists Create New Human Embryonic Stem Cell 713
Homework Help writes "U.S. scientists were successful in creating a new human embryonic stem cell. From source, "U.S. researchers said on Monday they have created a new human embryonic stem cell by fusing an embryonic stem cell to an ordinary skin cell.
They hope their method could someday provide a way to create tailor-made medical treatments without having to start from scratch using cloning technology.
That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.
""
s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Insightful)
should read:
That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without destroying a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.
To echo something I said the other day: personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?
Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines. Without regard to the purported scientific use{ful,less}ness of the existing lines, the fact remained that funding was indeed provided, human embryonic stem cell research (including the destruction of embryos) was not banned, and a conservative approach was taken. Further, large research entities - such as the state of California and the University of Wisconsin System - have had little difficulty in establishing research centers to skirt federal funding restrictions and still commit federal-scale research funds to embryonic stem cell research.
The ethical considerations are important: should we also clone humans? After all, aren't you "anti-science" if you oppose unrestricted human cloning?
Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro? Note I'm not saying that even embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos - indeed, embryos that would have been discarded anyway - shouldn't be done; I am saying that there should be ethical debate and discussion: as I'm sure many would agree, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.
In any event, I applaud researchers for finding a potential method that may allow embryonic stem cells to be used without the associated destruction of human embryos, thereby removing a significant and valid ethical consideration as a barrier to the further exploration and use of these cells as potentially valuable tools.
Note: I didn't vote for Bush, and don't personally support Bush's current human embryonic stem cell policy.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not to say that every possible study under the sun should be funded, no matter what it's about. But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal re
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Insightful)
But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.
Every ethical debate will be colored with the body of our experience. Some will be religious, some will be considered by yourself to be "objective", others will come from different philosophies. That's why it's called debate.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Informative)
Most Americans [pollingreport.com] now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Insightful)
really, pick one stance and stick with it. either embryos are alive and need to be protected, or they aren't and don't. I don't see how destroying embryos on the way to having a child is somehow more ethically acceptable than curing "everything from A to Z".
Personally, I have no problem harvesting embryos, even if a woman consents to being a "farm" for eggs. An embryo is no more a human than cake batter still in the mixing bowl is a cake. Obviously, this is where my opinion diverges from many of you. That's okay. All I ask is consistency in our respective positions.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Informative)
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Insightful)
Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".
Most Americans thought slavery was a good thing and that "people of color" should not have the same rights as those who were not "people of color."
So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make.... Does 50.00000001% or 99.999999999% make it *right*?
Of course not.
I wonder how barbaric we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
1)There's no proof it will work yet. Many great things didn't getting the funding they deserved because there was no guarantee it would work.
2)And what exactly would they patent? You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.
I suppose they could patent the method of using them, but a rival company could easily take what they came up with, modify it enough so they can get their own patent and save a lot
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be so sure. The patent rights for a gene sequence go to whoever first discovers it. You can have a plant growing in your garden for years and then be sued because it contains a patented gene sequence. Ludicrous? Yes.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Informative)
You can not patent the "sequence" of a gene. The whole genome sequence is freely available to the public.
In simple terms what you could patent is the discovery that "this piece of sequence does that" or how it functions in nature and how can it be utilized.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome /elsi/patents.shtml [ornl.gov]
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
No form of R&D is a licence to print money - especially at such an early stage. There is much work to do, many lines of investigation to be explored, and a lot of paths will lead to dead-ends.
The return, if it comes at all, will be long in wait - and a lot of commercial enterprises would simply not survive long enough to reap their dividends.
The potential in this, and many new scientific fields is enormous; but to try and fit that into some economic model is the kind of thing that the "square peg in a round hole" simile was invented for.
Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.
Very true, and while I am a supporter of stem cell research, believe an embryo is a life, and would prefer that embryos destined to be discarded be used rather than wasted; I understand the other side.
This research is controversial, and runs counter to the core beliefs of more people than just religious zealots. The government has elected not to fund it with public money, but has allowed the research to continue on its own merits. I think that's the most balanced approach one could hope to take.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in research they're giving their 'lives' to the possible benefit of may sick individuals. Otherwise, in the vocabulary of the Anti-Choicers, they're just abortions
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't say that too loudly, you'll start something. There are people who feel this way. You may try to dismiss them as religious nutjobs, but in a representative government, even the nutjobs' opinions count. You can't say "there's no debate on this issue, because those who disagree with me are idiots".
This is a very cool technology, because it *deos* let us ignore the debate on harvesting embryos and move on to doing useful research!
Irony that the sitaution is solved... (Score:3, Interesting)
No side of the stem-cell debate is AT all honest.
On the left...
The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.
This is more about politics than anything else. A prohibition on federal funds isn't a prohibition on research. Bush was the first President to approve ANY funding, and al
Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved... (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite - current researchers say they're about 3-5 years away from starting human trials in repairing spinal cord injuries with stem cells. More here [fsma.org], though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).
Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved... (Score:3, Insightful)
See: Flying Car
I think the previous statement about 20 years is a fairly balanced guess, but we'll see about that 20 years from now.
Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that there may have been a few pro-choice people who are as you said they are, but I suspect it's a small minority.
The `left' says there is no moral question? It may be that the `right' is generally `pro-life' and the `left' is generally `pro-choice', but these are hardly hard and fast rules. And I'm not aware of many `pro-choice' people who would claim that there is `NO MORAL question' about abortion (and stem cell research) at all.Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can ignore your insulting but expected demonization of the "left", but this bit is just absurd. It's "comfirmed" that Bush is a genius? No, it's evidence that scientists are willing to make heroic efforts on behalf of all of us desipte the inane restrictions Bush put in place. There's no rational argument that th
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, embryonic stem cell research is even less ethically sticky than organ transplant. If your infant is on life supoport with no hope of surviving, at what point do you pull the plug? Do you agree to give those organs so that some other infant might live?
With stem cell research, you're talking about taking cells from something that hasn't even evolved beyond a tiny ball of cells---far less alive than that infant---and yet most parents would gladly give up that infant's organs so that someone else's child might live, but a surprisingly high number of those same people would not be willing to give up a handful of cells from a frozen embryo so that adults can live.. It's an appalling ethical contradiction.
The ethical arguments against stem cell research are grounded in the abortion debate. Unfortunately, the [expletive deleted] Republicans have created this politically charged anger over the abortion issue. The dyed-in-the-wool religious right folks don't want to feel like they are changing their stand on destroying a fetus. Unfortunately, they can't see past the rhetoric to realize that this is a completely different fundamental issue.
The result is a group of people who have become so dogmatically indoctrinated in their position that it would take a miracle to change their minds. Because of them, legitimate medical research that could save lives is being stifled in the name of God. That's just wrong, by any definition, in much the same way that the Church stifling Gallileo was wrong....
I'm not saying there are no ethical issues. If we see people creating fetuses for the purpose of extracting stem cells, many could legitimately consider that morally and ethically reprehensible---myself included. However, as long as you are extracting tissue from a fetus that is going to die anyway, not taking advantage of those cells would be equally morally and ethically indefensible.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
The same argument can be made about an infant or a toddler. If you left an infant or toddler in the woods on their own, the odds of them surving to be an adult on their own are almost zero. Very young children are only slightly less dependant on others than they were when in the womb.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no, "let them go on to become babies" option. There's nowhere to put them so that they'll grow. There is no life support for these particular embryos anymore. They've already been taken off life support.
The original point was that, once you decide to take the baby off life support, do you donate the organs, or bury it? He argues that most parents would choose to donate the organs and save other lives.
He's not arguing that we should pull people off life support to harvest their organs when they have a chance of survival. That's a straw man.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
By contrast, and especially with the current state of our "intellectual property" laws, anything developed by a private interest will be doled out at whatever rate will maximize profit - and any attempts at competition will be ruthlessly stamped out.
Do you really think leaving basic research up to
Re:Objective Morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Objective Morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Stem cell research should definitely proceed eventually, but only after clear ethical guidelines have been worked out that will prevent it degenerating into something along the lines of cloning entire humans as
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only speak for the US, and this only applies to research that is not Black or Grey (secret or top secret status). But any publicly funded research requires the results to be public. If the research is privately funded then the results of the research is property of the private company that funded it. Private companies do not make it policy to share research. This means that _only_ publicly funded research is available for others to follow
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
Take Satellite TV which is really an outgrowth of several gov funded research programs such as Radar (British), Rockets (Germany, US, Russia), Digital Computing, (British, US) Ect. Now all of those programs and much more where needed to get satellites into orbit but the these Governments got more than just TV satellites out of them they also got weather sat's, GPS and SPY sat's Ect. No single company would
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"...
For that to be correct you first have to define "human life" in terms that science can measure.
If you mean capable of human emotion then I would say you were wrong (others may disagree based on their beliefs) since at early stages the embryo has no complex nervous system.
If you mean "genetically human" then you're right, but so is some of the gunk under my toenails.
If you mean "has the potential to become human" then you're right, but the tense is important, i.e. it's not human yet, and we still haven't defined what being human means so can't measure the point at which it becomes "human".
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand that most of the embryo's are leftover from fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded. What moral qualms could be had for experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?
Why aren't the religious zealots freaking out about the "unborn" being unceremoniously dumped into a biohazard waste bin at the fertility clinic the same way they freak out if they experiment on it, possibly saving lives in the process?
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
The moral qualms come from the fact that today, they're discarded as a side effect of trying to help couples start a family; to bring a life into the world that will be cared for and nurtured, and to propagate our species.
Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply. As I said, we could certainly also farm humans for immense scientific benefit and usefulness. But does that
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it's okay to create a factory for fertilized eggs and destroy the leftovers if it means someone who couldn't have a child naturally can grow one rather than adopt, but it's not okay to create them for the potential benefit of millions of people that are already on earth and suffering from debilitating diseases?
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
We already had a societal debate on whether it was worthwhile for the purposes of fertility. The answer is apparently, "yes, it is."
We must also have the debate on whether it's okay, on a potentially much larger scale, for medical research. It's not a foregone conclusion, by the way, that embryonic stem cells are necessarily a magical panacea for all disease. The may in fact be very useful. But to paint them as the end-all be-all (not saying you, personally, are doing that) is just as disingenuous as the opposition.
I already said I, personally, support unrestricted human embryonic stem cell research.
I also support fertility clinics.
My positions are perfectly consistent, so don't try to paint me as some kind of fence sitter. What I'm trying to say is that ethical debate is warranted for new uses of human embryos that require their destruction. The fact they're already discarded (i.e., destroyed) for fertility purposes doesn't negate the need for any debate for new uses. Further, as I said, such use may at some point outstrip supply for fertility clinics. Then what do we do?
I'm not saying I have the universal answers to these questions, just that they're there, and shouldn't be ignored. I know what my own personal opinions are, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is my assertion that debate on this topic is very valid and warranted.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very telling of why there is such little progress on these issues. Instead of focusing on seeking truth too many people are seeking sides.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
And one day water might turn purple, but until then, how about we just make decisions based on the fact that it's blue-ish right now?
We've got several hundred guys whose job it is to make up new laws. If people start farming abortion clinics, I bet one of them will get on top of it pretty quick. And we'll all support them, because your opposition i
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3)
I shed "human cells" every day in the form of hair and skin.. would you call those cells "human" ?
having a brick doesn't mean you have a house.
cells are cells, they are not humans.
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Interesting)
They actually check the chicken eggs before shipping them off to be eaten....
On the converse- get caught destroying a bald eagle or a piping plover egg, and see how the government feels about the "not yet born."
I am going to be honest- I have trouble formenting an opinion on stem cells, because each time I lean one way, something pulls me back in the other direction. My question, if stem cells lead to a cure for cancer, will those who opposed the stem cell research boycott the treatment, and die?
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Informative)
It has something to do with the way the chickens are raised, locked in tiny cages for their whole lives, choking on their own filth, and forced to live as egg factories. They become physically and mentally ill in that environment, demonstrating self-mutilation behavior and a drastically reduced lifespan.
Many vegetarians will buy "free range" eggs, which cost much more, but are harvested from chickens that are not kept in cages.
Here is some good docu [cok.net]
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of city folks will buy free range stuff that is 5 times as expensive than the regular stuff, yet not very different in either taste or the way the chickens live. I know city dwellers like to think that those of us who were raised on farms are idiots, but we do get a chuckle out of being able to sell an egg for $2 because the chicken was, um, "happy"....
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
As a religious zealot, I'd say that most of us ARE very upset (not "freaking out", though) about this. But it is within the law for people to do so, so there's nothing we can currently do about it.
As for "freaking out" about experiments on embryonic stem cells, that activity in itself isn't one I see a moral barrier against; far from upsetting me, I could wholly support that research
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
I violently disagree with the idea that all people should keep their damn noses out of all the affairs of other people.
Unless, of course, you claim that "a fetus is not a human being" and has the same rights as, say, a fly. But if you say that, then we can have a meaningful discourse about the nature of life, man
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I, personally would never go through what some would go through to have a child. My wife and I were trying to have a second child and we got to the point where insurance would not cover it. I said we can't go any further. While it saddens me a little, I stil have my son. I do not want her to risk her life trying fertility drugs and possibly have 3 or more kids to take care of. Don't get me wrong, I love kids and God gave me a wonderful child to love everyday, but I personally feel if God wants us
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way.
I've noted many times that almost all successful, mainstream religions are founded on people absolving themselves of personal responsibility. Your statement is just a way of saying, "I'm not responsible for what happens god is. It's all god's fault."
I lose a good deal of respect for anyone who makes such a statement. If god wanted that baby to survive he'd pull him out of the river himself, why sho
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sick of having all this karma anyway. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
Targeting stem cell research is merely a way of winning over voters who dislike what they perceive as the demystifying of "humanity" by science without alienating people who are in favor of fertility treatment
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:2, Interesting)
Would it be murder if I drown a kid that was born with no brain?
Personally, I think the whole idea of "life" isn't what we should or DO care about
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that- I fully support adult stem cell research, and this is an exciting step merging the two branches. Next step- creating an adult stem cell from a non-stem cell, and researching the difference between the embryonic and the adult stem cells. Either that or figuring out how to remove the 2nd set of DNA from the lab-created embryonic stem cells. Note that embryos aren't the only potential source- cord b
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I think the fundamental issue about stem cells and anti-abortion in general is that both sides are not talking about the same thing.
Pro-Life looks at human life as precious. Without looking at what life is being lived.
Pro-Choice is looking at when human consciousness and a valuable like begin AND end. Often, they are proponents of the "Right to Die".
Re:s/creating/destroying (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a line I see frequently from people who really should know better. As if nobody was having this debate anyway, as if it wouldn't happened without the President f*ing up research for years.
What's particularly aggravating about it is
Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Months? Nah
Years? Maybe.
Decades? Seems to be the most likely.
Don`t mean to rain on this parade, but if there's one thing that's even slower than game develoment (*cough*DNF*cough*) it's medical research.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:4, Informative)
Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to explore your belief that all Christians are against using aborted fetuses. I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman o
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:2)
That would be the pope... who is also against it
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Please, that's BS
This new take that bible is not to be taken literally is an attempt to give meaning to a book that has largely lost it's meaning in the modern world. The bible was written by combining a bunch of second hand stories and by a bunch of people with nothing better to do then follow around a guy who said he was the son of God.
If your willing to admit that the is not the word of
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:2)
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The objection is that if the use of these embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply... It's currently a byproduct because there is no market for it, but if the market is built the system will be abused.
So if people enjoy shooting at cars, and occasionally kill someone that's ok, but if we allow salvage companies to make a profit recycling those cars there will be a profit motive and more people will shoot at cars?!?
What the hell kind of logic is that? Either i
You don't speak for "Christians" in any case (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, as long as you're speaking for all Christians everywhere -- evidently including me and my extended family, despite none of us ever having signed over any plenipotentiary powers to you -- why don't you go ahead and just tell us what God thinks? You're already speaking for other human beings whose minds you plainly DO NOT KNOW; why not go for the Go(l)d?
See, there's a subtle
Re:Before anyone starts flaming.. (Score:5, Funny)
But do you weigh the same as a duck, heretic?
And another thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And another thing... (Score:3, Funny)
<western>We don't like yer kind 'round here.</western>
Great news! (Score:4, Funny)
So, allow me start us off:
I hate Bush. Discuss.
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
On that note (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great news! (Score:2, Funny)
Boy, you need to listen to more patriotic country music and stay away from all those hippies at the local college. They'll rot your brain out. That's why you hate America. But with time...and country music...you can heal your wounds. Try shooting guns too...lots of guns.
</stereotypical redneck accent>
Re:Great news! (Score:3, Funny)
tm
Re:Great news! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, you're talkinga bout President Bush? I hate him too, but for different reasons....
GPL'd Biology? (Score:2, Funny)
"U.S. scientists were successful in creating a new human embryonic stem cell from source."
Do stem cells run on Linux?
Inevitable (Score:2, Interesting)
I still long for the day... (Score:4, Funny)
Morals vs progress (Score:3, Insightful)
The other fascinating thing to see is what sorts of scientific loopholes people discover to get around these moral issues. In this case, it serves a dual purpose, but interesting nonetheless.
So at the dreamers end of the scale of possibilities, where do the geneticists on here think we'll be in 10 years once we've charged ahead with developing stem cell research?
Re:Morals vs progress (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole debate is simply railing about closing the barn door after the cows have come home. If all these people who find stem
No better way to say it than... (Score:2, Insightful)
They find it objectionable...fuck'em. Let's see what their attitudes are when their ass is on the line.
Re:No better way to say it than... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Take a skin-type stem cell. It will have to have some kind of trigger to tell it to turn into a skin cell and not say..a nerve cell that attaches to the skin, or an oil-producing-cell, etc. These triggers are tiny, have to be given at the right time, and probably won't be easy to produce.
Its like having a batch of nano-goop that will eat the resources available and turn itself into an object, but you have to find out how to tell it that, by hand.
Don't believe the hype (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature has good mechanism for making sure germ line (reproductive cells) stay in a good state, but manipulated cells never seem to be 100% right. Clones often end up with poor health and life expectancy because of this, and I'm afraid stem cell therapy will end in poor results, maybe even cancer.
It's bizzare that stem cells have become such an issue for the left and the right. I see Democrats screaming at the top of their lungs so we can have more research into medical treatments that we can't afford, while Republicans are blowing the ethical issues entirely out of proportion.
Stem cell research, and federal funding... (Score:2, Informative)
Say a company gets federal funds to research cancer, or MS, or any other disease. Most places are involved with the research of many diseases/cures/whatever.
If one lab, or one person even, involved with that company is researching stem cells, federal funding for ALL projects is cut off. Even if the stem cell research within the company is being funded entirely by private sources.
It's because of this policy that a
Re:Stem cell research, and federal funding... (Score:2)
This is science at its best (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, a lot of this research gets picked up by the anti- side and used as evidence for the (false) view that scientists are just "lazy" or politically motivated, and there are lots of alternatives to embryonic stem cells just lying around if they were willing to use them. Unfortunately, most of these alternatives are not ready for prime time, and won't be for years, maybe decades-- if ever (in fact, you'll see many of them melt away, never to be heard from again once science proves them dangerous or unsatisfactory). Most scientists would like to see this research happening now, because even if it takes decades to result in a cure, a five year head start could mean useable treatments a few years earlier than if we wait. And in some cases, that could save thousands of lives.
You'll also notice that most of the embryonic stem cell research plans currently being proposed make use of excess embryos from IVF clinics, and only after effort has been expended to reduce over-production and boost embryo adoption (which currently is not very successful, but might take off with enough encouragement). Surprisingly few mainstream politicians and scientists are strongly advocating therapeutic cloning, although that technology has even more promise.
Not "create", they "synthesized" (Score:3, Insightful)
What is life? (Score:4, Interesting)
The bottom line is that there's no obvious definition over what constitutes a living person and what isn't. As someone with a master's degree in biology, I've decided there never is going to be one ("life" will be one of those words like "justice" or "freedom" that mean many things to many people).
What people will find, of course, is that there's a way to reprogram adult cells so that it looks and acts just like embryonic stem cells. Of course, that means that you could turn it into something that looks an awful like a human being. If any cell in your body has the potential for turning into a full-grown human, does that mean liposuction is murder? If I create a stem cell from scratch, can I grow them to term and sell them as non-human slaves?
I'm not necessarily advocating either side in the debate, only that it's one of those ethical decisions rather than something science dictates as fact. I suspect it'll be argued over for many decades to come.
Re:What is life? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a personal note, I would greatly prefer stem cell research to be more open than it currently is. I think it should be matter of course that growing new organs is a high
Questions for anti-ESCR people (Score:4, Interesting)
I have several questions for all of you:
1) Conception takes place before implantation in the uterus. If you don't already know, many contraceptives work by blocking implantation. Since a conceived zygote is being blocked from developing further (and will die), is this murder?
2) At the stage the cells are taken from (blastocyst), a biologist could divide the inner cell mass (any one of which is used for embryonic SCR) and what would happen is that twins or triplets would develop. If you believe each child is given a unique soul at conception, does that soul also divide into two or three? Or does God give "last-minute" souls out?
My point, if it's not clear, is that embryonic stem cells are taken at a stage when it is not individually unique. A lot of people also seem to be happy with either in vitro fertilization or birtch control pills while opposing embryonic stem cell research.
Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people (Score:4, Insightful)
Someday is today (Score:4, Insightful)
Doctors hope to someday use embryonic stem cells as a source of perfectly matched transplants to treat diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's and some injuries. [emphasis added]
Currently, doctors are already using adult stem cells to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and some forms of cancer.
Which lends me to believe that the debate about embrionic stem cell research has very little to do with actually creating cures for diseases. It seems to me that the debate is more about the role of science in society than the actual results it produces. It would seem to some that science is man's highest endeavor, capable of doing no wrong. To them, anything, no matter how horrible, is justifiable in the name of science.
But what is really interesting is that the opposition to embrionic stem cell research is not an opposition to science or discovery, but rather an affirmation of the dignity of the human being. They see science as the servant of mankind, not mankind as the servant of science. The fundamental objection of embrionic stem cell research is not an objection to discovery, but rather that the research is being done with a secondary objective of allowing science to arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human.
And this is the fundamental battle over embrionic stem cell research. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with removing the role of the church from ethical decisions in public policy.
Interestingly, I still find it ironic that some people believe there is a conflict between science and religion:
- Religion finds answers the ethical questions facing all of mankind.
- Science explains the natural world.
- Together, with the ethical guidelines provided by religion, and the knowledge provided by science, society can make decisions which preserve both the dignity of the individual and benefit society as a whole.
I still find it strange that some people believe that science alone can answer all of the questions facing mankind, or that religion alone can sufficiently explain the natural universe. It's all knowledge folks; it enlightens those who are willing to accept it. Insisting that science somehow "proves" God doesn't exist, or that an ancient religious text "scientifically describes" the creation of the world benefits no one and only shows one's ignorance.Nazi research (Score:4, Insightful)
If we can benefit from the use of embryonic stem cells without the ethical and moral problems inherent in obtaining them from actual embryos, isn't this a win for both sides of the issue? I submit that anyone who objects at this point isn't interested in medical advancement, but has some other agenda, for which this issue is just a proxy.
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:3, Informative)
Strictly speaking, he does not have that obligation, nor that power. He can recommend to the Congress "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." He must do what is necessary to uphold the law of the land.
But the power to act lies within Congress, and any recommendation by the President is based upon his personal opinion, which may or may not ref
Re:Flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if it should say "destroying" instead of "creating" in that sentence, why is it flamebait?
Nah (Score:2)
Re:Can someone please explain to me... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can someone please explain to me... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Infidels: ( +1, Patriotic ) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I fail to see the problem (Score:2)
Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying not to. They'd rather not be forced to pay for it, via taxes.
Re:What's The Prob? (Score:3, Insightful)