Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Scientist Pushing for Early Use of Stem Cells 263

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the why-turn-away-volunteers dept.
hzs202 writes "BBC News is reporting that Professor Ian Wilmut is pushing for stem cell treatment to be offered to people with terminal illnesses. Professor Wilmut told journalists that the treatment could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientist Pushing for Early Use of Stem Cells More

Scientist Pushing for Early Use of Stem Cells

Comments Filter:

  • Oblig. Futurama Quote, Serious Thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:22PM (#14353705)

    Farnsworth: As a man it has become too much of a chore for me to clean out my wrinkles each day. Is it true that stem cells may fight the aging process?

    Geneworks Woman: Well yes, in the same way an infant may fight Muhammed Ali! But -

    Farnsworth: One pound of stem cells please!


    But seriously, it seems to me that the motives of this Professor Wilmut may not be entirely pure. Certainly, it's difficult to argue against offering treatment to victims of neuro-degenerative disorders, and I know for a fact that if I was such a victim, I'd be clamoring for treatment as loud as anyone else, but does that make it right to use humans as guinea pigs to 'speed up the pace of research'?

    It's easy to point out the suffering people and make a play for accelerated protocols based upon sentiment. It's not so easy to adhere to the standards of medical ethics and integrity. If Professor Wilmut was an uninvolved commentator on the issue, his opinion might hold a bit more weight, but the fact that he is one of the central players in the field [edge.org] tends to impune his impartiality in the matter.

    • Re:Oblig. Futurama Quote, Serious Thought (Score:5, Insightful)

      by crazdgamer ( 846581 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:28PM (#14353749) Journal
      But seriously, it seems to me that the motives of this Professor Wilmut may not be entirely pure. Certainly, it's difficult to argue against offering treatment to victims of neuro-degenerative disorders, and I know for a fact that if I was such a victim, I'd be clamoring for treatment as loud as anyone else, but does that make it right to use humans as guinea pigs to 'speed up the pace of research'?

      Absolutely. Patients have to sign the form when they get treatment. They know the risks involved. Besides, if there are no other options (usually the case when they're terminal), what do they have to lose? Everything else doesn't work, you might as well better the rest of the human race and be a guinea pig for a drug or treatment that might save the lives of thousands.
      • you might as well better the rest of the human race and be a guinea pig for a drug or treatment that might save the lives of thousands.

        you might as well better the bottom line of a mega-pharmaceudical and be a guinea pig for a drug or treatment that might save the lives of thousands of wealthy people.

        Fixed.

        • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by StarKruzr ( 74642 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:40PM (#14353819) Journal
          better to not develop them at all, lest they fall into the hands of wealthy people?

          wtf, man?

          Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people. What the hell are you talking about?

          What life-saving medical procedures are ONLY available to wealthy people?
          • If youre an ugly woman, a boob job could save your life!

          • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Elvis Parsley ( 939954 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:01PM (#14353949)
            "Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people."

            Major pharmecutical companies have been fighting attempts by African governments to essentially pirate the design of AIDS drugs. Poor African countries, which are suffering from AIDS epidemics, might be able to buy significant quantities of drugs at cost, but certainly can't pay prices which include the drug companies getting their royalties. Which means that lots of poor Africans are dying so that multinational drug companies can show a profit.

            Of course, if they did give away those drug designs (and, by extention, other massively useful and necessary drug designs) so that the poor could live, there's every chance that the companies would fold and there wouldn't be any new drugs to stop the next plague.

            To sum up: life sucks.

            • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:43PM (#14354174) Homepage
              Given how fragile the AIDS virus is, and how difficult it is to transmit, I'd have thought that the easiest and cheapest way to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa would be for African governments to convince their citizens to stop behaving like asshats.

              But hey, why bother trying to educate and empower your people, when you can simply blame it all on big pharma while you sit back and wait for^H^H^Hdemand handouts from the world government?

              • Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)

                by BorgCopyeditor ( 590345 )
                Education's very important, sure. And so is changing people's sexual practices. Those things are what will help much more than some wonder-drug. That said, the U.S. won't give money to education programs that don't preach abstinence. This is foolish, though it and things like it probably helped win Bush votes among Christian conservatives.

                • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by susano_otter ( 123650 )
                  Hey, abstinence is a guaranteed prophylactic against all kinds of horrible diseases, not to mention unwanted pregnancies and the whole cascade of social and personal ills that brings.

                  Are you saying that the people of Africa lack the insight to see the wisdom of such a course, and the self-control to adopt it?

                  • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by BorgCopyeditor ( 590345 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @06:31PM (#14354420)
                    Are you saying that the people of Africa lack the insight to see the wisdom of such a course, and the self-control to adopt it?

                    Self-control or self-mutilation? Staying indoors is a guaranteed prophylactic against roadway accidents. Do you have the insight to see the lack of wisdom in inferring from that that one should just stay indoors?

                    I'm against horrible diseases and unwanted pregnancies, but I don't have to be celibate to uphold those values. Why should anyone else be? The only reason can be that one is surreptitiously advocating a life in which people have little to no sexual intercourse, or only under highly restricted circumstances (e.g., marriage as a "sex license"). This is not wisdom. People who have no sexual contact in their lives are unhappier and unhealthier than those who do. It's something we're made for, and it's not something that false threats (of death, pregnancy, or worse :) can or ought to change.

                    Are you aware of studies that show no discernible change in the number of unwanted pregnancies in U.S. school districts where "abstinence-only" education is mandated by school boards? Teaching teens about safer sexual practices, by contrast, has been shown to have the good effects on which you claim to base your appeal to abstinence. If those results were proved to your satisfaction, would that change your mind?

                    • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

                      by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @07:09PM (#14354611) Homepage
                      It might, in fact, change my mind.

                      On the other hand, it may not. I suspect there are other factors involved.

                      For one thing, not all people are made happier and healthier by increasing their sexual activity or their number of sexual partners. It's my contention that the healthy and fulfilling role of sexual intercourse is not well understood, nor well communicated, and that the failure of the abstinence-only program may be due in large part to its being presented in a vacuum.

                      Also, I'm not sure that the adolescent bias in favor of the more permissive, sexually promiscuous teaching, and the adolescent tendency to reject the more restrictive, contrary-to-passing-hormonal-urges teaching, is in itself indicative.

                      Mind you, I'm not advocating the repression of human sexuality, but rather a more thoughtful and self-controlled approach to it.

                      Animals act without thinking on their various urges. Humans do not, or should not, anyway.

                      Human sexual intimacy isn't just "animal sex with condoms", and pitching it that way won't solve all our problems.

                      I mean, how much of our current problems with sexual intercourse in both America and Africa can be attributed directly to a culture of sexual promiscuity? And how much of those problems can really be solved by moving to "sexual promiscuity with a condom on top"?

                      Millions of people, in all times and places, have lived happy, healthy, satisfying, and fulfilling lives, all the while practicing the disciplines of chastity and monogamy.

                      Now you pooh-pooh those disciplines, and offer a rubber sheath as a superior solution. It'll be interesting to see how the Condom Generation turns out, and if their understanding of human sexuality ends up building a better tomorrow than our parents' did.
                • Also, so what if the U.S. isn't paying for it?

                  Are you seriously arguing that the leaders of Africa cannot or should not do anything, unless the U.S. government foots the bill?
                  • Also, so what if the U.S. isn't paying for it?

                    Because as a taxpayer, I want the money I contribute to be put to good use, not frittered away on symbolic and meaningless programs that have no other purpose than to pacify zealots.

                    Are you seriously arguing that the leaders of Africa cannot or should not do anything, unless the U.S. government foots the bill?

                    Nope. Just that if we do help foot the bill to combat AIDS in Africa, we should do so intelligently.

          • Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)

            by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:05PM (#14353968)
            Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people.

            You have a definition for the word "plenty" that I'm not familiar with.
            17 million people in Africa have died of AIDS and less than 1/10 of 1% of HIV+ people are receiving treatment. Doesn't sound like "plenty" to me.

            • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by jnaujok ( 804613 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:28PM (#14354108) Homepage Journal
              In Uganda (I believe it was Uganda, I read the article some time ago) where the government started a policy of AIDS prevention education the rate of AIDS infection dropped by over 90%. Uganda now has one of the lowest infection rates in Africa. The cost of this education was less than 5% of what they would have spent on the drugs to treat the new infections had the previous infection rate continued.

              You, on the other hand, advocate allowing the infection rate to continue, and demand that drug makers must pay for creation and shipment of drugs to people who are unwilling to simply not engage in dangerous practices. This is the equivalent of telling the people of London in the 1600's suffering from the Black Plague, that the problem is there's not enough penecillian (not to mention that it hadn't been invented yet), not that we need to clean the rats and human feces out of the streets. In your world, you'd make Alexander Fleming pay to distribute it through the rat infested warrens of the city and damn the sanitation department as prejudiced jerks if they want to do anything about the slovenly conditions.

              In typical emotion-led fashion, you take the point of advocating that they continue to live in filthy ignorance and that you'll preserve that lifestyle no matter how much it costs to those who've gotten themselves out of that same self-destructive lifestyle.

              And I bet you consider yourself compassionate too.

              • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Razor Sex ( 561796 )
                You're the only one who is making medication and education seem mutally exclusive. Why not do BOTH?
                • I'm not the only one. I've seen this same discussion at least a dozen times on SlashDot, and I have yet to see one person screaming:

                  "WHY NOT EDUCATE THEM TO NOT DROP TROU EIGHT TIMES A DAY!"

                  You're the first person I've seen ask "Why not do both?" which would mean we could provide medicine and education for 10 countries for the same price as one country with just medicine. Congrats.
                  • If people are going to have lots of sex (which millions of years of evolution suggest they will continue to do), then why not "educate" them to do it safely, not pretend you can stop them from doing it? And in any case, why should anyone stop?

                    And ... 8 times a day? Where does that happen?

        • Supposing for a moment that you're absolutely right and some treatment in question would save wealthy people and only wealthy people and never ever ever offer any help to the poor or middle class, or even to you the "guinea pig". Would you rather help save the lives of thousands of wealthy people or of nobody? Are "wealthy people" so amazingly evil that anything which extends their lifespan is a blight upon society?
    • If someone has a disease/disability and there are experimental treatments available, assuming that the patient was told all the risks, yada,yada,yada Why shouldn't they be allowed to try it on a human who would otherwise have no current possibility of a cure. If someone not affiliated with the medical or pharmacy field who had a disease tried manufacturing their own drug and tried it on themself, should that be illegal??
    • Humans aren't being used as guinea pigs - it's everyone's own choice whether they want to participate in such studies or not, but guinea pigs or other lab animals don't have that choice.

      For that reason alone, I think it's not only OK but in fact the *only* ethically sound opinion that we stop all animal tests immediately and only rely on volunteers for testing. At the risk of sounding cynical, if a disease is bad enough, people will sign up for tests; or, put another way, if noone signs up for tests, then t
      • "[...]but in fact the *only* ethically sound opinion that we stop all animal tests immediately and only rely on volunteers for testing."

        Uhhhh, this seems like a *really* *bad* *idea* to me. You do realize that most new treatments and drugs go through a series of dose efficacy and safety trials on animals prior to testing on people for good reason. I mean, isn't it a good idea to know beforehand what dose per/kg weight will likely kill before asking a person to try it out? It may not be pretty, but animal tr

      • Re:Oblig. Futurama Quote, Serious Thought (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:46PM (#14353870)
        I need fifty healthy volunteers immediately. You'll have your kidney's chronically instrumented, then will be fed a variety of drugs that will raise or lower your blood pressure. When we're done you will be sacrificed and your kidneys will be inspected.

        There is research that cannot be done on terminally ill volunteers. Not all medical research is simply new-drug-to-treat-terminal-illness testing.

        Research animals are treated better than the grad students who work with them, and are euthanized in much more humane ways than the US uses to execute prisoners. Chances are you, or someone you love is alive today because of animal testing, whether you like or realize it or not.

        They've got a great poster down by the animal resource centre -- it's a bunch of people protesting animal research and the line at the bottom says "Animal research has given these people 20 extra years of life to protest."

    • Re:Oblig. Futurama Quote, Serious Thought (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Elvis Parsley ( 939954 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:33PM (#14353781)
      And would starting to treat terminally ill patients right now provide as much scientific value? Or would it divert funding from possibly cheaper or at least more informative on a dollar by dollar basis animal testing, so that in the long run we might save X people but not develop effective stem cell therapies for Y years longer, thereby losing another X+N people who might have been saved had we gone a more orthodox route?

      (Seriously, I'm asking. I have no idea what the answer is.)

      • Re:Oblig. Futurama Quote, Serious Thought (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:57PM (#14353924)
        And would starting to treat terminally ill patients right now provide as much scientific value?

        It's interesting that this question would never have even come up without the activism of the HIV/AIDS community. Fast-tracking the FDA process was unheard of before then and nowadays many terminal diseases have advocates pushing for approvals, breast cancer is one prominent example.
        Just because you're treating people with an experimental procedure doesn't mean you abandon the scientific method. You can still have control groups and statistical analysis to advance the knowledge gained from treatments. As long as people are fully informed, I see no ethical problems.
    • If south park is any authority on the subject (and I think we all agree it is), these patients will be given dead featuses and drink the cells.
    • Most people don't realise it, but you can get non-FDA approved therapies, including drug therapies, in this country unless they have been banned for some reason (like heroin, for example, or Laetril). Non approved drugs can be imported for personal use on order of a physician.

      We in the medical fields do, however, have a responsibility to protect the public from fraud. It is hard to make an informed decision even if you are trained, and have the facts at your disposal. And to say "well, I'm dying anyway, what can it hurt" doesn't take into consideration the many harms done by bad therapy - delay in proper treatment (if any), co-morbidities, and even economic ills. I mean, you're dying - do you want to impoverish your soon-to-be widow by spending everything on worthless treatments? How about your kids?

      I'm not saying stem cell research is worthless - it's almost undoubtably not. Healthcare decisions are hard, though. TFA(uthor) does not give enough credit to the thought and work which should be done before giving these therapies to anyone, dying or not.

  • Too good to wait? sometimes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) * on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:22PM (#14353706)
    "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"

    This kind of thinking does actually make sense in some specific cases. If you take a look at the history of Lorenzo's Oil [myelin.org], (or if you have seen the movie), it tells about how the father of a boy found a treatment for a disease (ALD in this case), and he started the treatment right away on his boy. ALD is a degenerative disorder that eventually kills its victims within 2-3 years of diagnosis. This father's treatment worked so well in stopping the disease that the medical community decided to start human trials right away, and it has saved literally thousands of lives already. If they had gone the usual method of rat testing, than maybe humans several years later, many ALD victims would have died by that time.

    From the article: "If you've developed a treatment that might be beneficial in, say, motor neurone disease, then it's reasonable to allow people who are in the last stage of the disease to offer themselves. It sounds like they're being used as guinea pigs but sometimes people with a terminal illness volunteer to be used as guinea pigs if it will advance medical treatment for others," he said.

    Just as with the ALD case, there are people out there with fatal diseases who do not have time to live to wait for some clinical trial ten years away. Assuming the treatment is as effective a Lorenzo's Oil and obvious, I say people should have a choice when it comes to these trials. Obviously there must be some safeguard againt fraud biotech/pharmo companies who make crap treatments. But even with the threat of these charlatans, there are many treatments out there with the advent of Stem cells that are sitting in petri dishes in labs around the world. Many of these treatments have yielded very promising results, and if terminally ill people had a chance to try these promising ones, good treatments that would otherwise have to wait for a decade or two could come to light much more quickly.

    • I would say that the fast track treatment should only be reserved for terminal diseases. There is a reason testing takes time, because there are always the chance of unintended consequences and treatments need to be thoughroughly vetted. Thalidomide and Phen-phen (sp?) are two treatments which needed more time, I think Vioxx and similar drugs weren't given the statutory amount of testing as well, to the detriment to those that took it.
    • I was going to post a reply pointing out there is a lot of skepticism about the effectiveness of Lorenzo's Oil, but it appears my information is old. A quick Google found this New Scientist article [newscientist.com] about a study showing its effectiveness. You can still find links expressing skepticism, but I'd say a study trumps those.

    • Adding on this... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Adding to your this case, I think that some political reality needs to be taken into consideration also.

      This is Scotland, not the US we are talking about. To give a few (hopefully relevant) examples:
      Abortion: no debate on the issue. Pro choice.
      Religion: Church of Scotland and "no religion" make up over 2/3 of the population. Not exactly southern baptist country.
      Politics: Has voted left wing for the last 50 years. "right wing" parties currently make up 15% of the Scottish parliament, the rest are left

  • Stem cells vs. the aging & the brain (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:28PM (#14353752)
    If you are able to replace certain cells in the body with new ones, does the aging process still have an effect on its development and effectiveness?

    Even if you are able to grow a new liver from stem cells for your resident alcoholic, does this mean you will have to grow a new brain in order not to repeat the process?
    • Even if you are able to grow a new liver from stem cells for your resident alcoholic, does this mean you will have to grow a new brain in order not to repeat the process?

      Not if you believe in the human ability to rehabilitate and change. Many people, when faced with the "life-changing event" of imminent death, change their behavior patterns.

      Many do not... but many do.

    • My understanding is that the brain doesn't die after 100 years, like the body does.

      If the body didn't strangle the brain to death, the brain could probably go on living for a lot longer.

      I've read an estimate of 150 years somewhere, but I'm not sure what the real length is.

      If we can develop Brain in a Jar technology, [taoriver.net] we may be able to circumvent the body entirely. It seems entirely feasible, to me.
      • My understanding is that the brain doesn't die after 100 years, like the body does. If the body didn't strangle the brain to death, the brain could probably go on living for a lot longer.

        Where did you get this "understanding"? This notion seems to ignore the fact of increasing reaction times, decreasing recall, and other indicators that the brains of otherwise-healthy seniors are less fit than when they were younger. Obviously most people's brains would still survive for a time if their hearts and othe

        • I think that when people use their brains, they retain all those things.

          In the US, we just habitually tell people: "Okay, you're retired, no need to think any more. Go home. We don't want you."

          I've read that in other countries, elderly people have incredible memory, use their brains, and are mentally healthy.

          I've also read that people who use their brains, learn new languages, etc., etc., and much healthier after retirement.

          People who are powerhouses, keep doing things, keep thinking- they don't lose their
          • I think that when people use their brains, they retain all those things.

            Some do, but others don't. I used to know a guy in his late 80s who was intensely curious about the world, never stopped reading and exploring new subjects... and still found himself forgetting people's names, had to stop driving, etc. No Alzheimer's, just old age. You can point to examples of people who've kept their brains active and gush at how nimble their brains still are, but that's circular reasoning and selective sampling.

  • Depends greatly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:34PM (#14353786)
    "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"

    We generally don't use humans as guinea pigs. Medical treatments need approval before they can be used. This guy clearly thinks the benefits outweigh the risk, but his opinion shouldn't be the one that decides.

    If early testing shows no serious side effects and tremendous benefits, treatments can sometimes be fast-tracked testing phases. But if every time someone believed as this man, a treatment skipped testing, more people would die than be saved.

    Testing and clinical trials exist for a reason. Because in many cases, they save lives. It's an imperfect system, to be sure, but it's better than the alternative.

    • Re:Depends greatly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:43PM (#14353837) Homepage
      This guy clearly thinks the benefits outweigh the risk, but his opinion shouldn't be the one that decides.

      Maybe the patient should decide what treatments they want to pursue (experimental or otherwise), rather than the government.

      • I suppose, if they can afford it.

        But if it's going to be tax funded, an elected governmental body should have some say in the matter.
      • patients may not understand the risks, they may be pressured into an experiment, and they results are hard to determine outside the lab.

        I am not saying yes or no,, just pointing out that there will be some pretty awful abuses.
        We live in a country where you can't sell body parts for the same reasons.
      • Maybe the patient should decide what treatments they want to pursue (experimental or otherwise), rather than the government.

        That already happens now to an extent. If you go to an oncologist, depending on your cancer, you'll be offered an assortment of treatments to choose from. Some will already be approved, others will be in experimental stages. You won't be offered it though unless it has gone through some early testing. The first stage of testing is to figure out two things: First, if there are any show

    • Re:Depends greatly (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tverbeek ( 457094 )
      This guy clearly thinks the benefits outweigh the risk, but his opinion shouldn't be the one that decides.

      Right. It should be up to the patient's.

      What's so hard to grasp about informed consent and self-determination? You make sure that potential recipients of a treatment are given as complete a picture as possible of the risks and potential benefits, and let them decide. Not the doctor. Not the government. Not the HMO. Not the activists on one side or another of the debate. The patient.

    • Re:Depends greatly (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      But if every time someone believed as this man, more people would die than be saved.

      Not if they were going to die anyway.

      If you are in the later stages of a serious brain degenerative disease, and have 6 months to live, if a treatment has a 10% chance of success and providing you with another 40 years of life and a 90% chance of killing you in 6 months, it's still worth doing.

      Testing and clinical trials are a necessary system, and many of the major medical screw-ups in recent memory have come from not enoug

  • Good or bad or in between? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cmdr_earthsnake ( 939669 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:35PM (#14353795) Homepage
    could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"

    There are two arguments for this problem, the first being that people should enjoy life while they are dying and not get tested on and have as long a life as possible. The second argument is that they SHOULD be treated and use whatevers possible that may work to help treat the problem.

    I find myself falling on both sides of the fence, as if it goes horribly wrong, unspeakable things could happen with usage of stem cells. But I also think that if it has the potential to save people's lives, and minimize suffering and help people in general, it should be used.

  • Application (Score:2, Funny)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
    I need these for my stem cell phone project - they're grown right in your ear!

  • Stem cells from newborns (Score:5, Informative)

    by AnonymousJackass ( 849899 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:41PM (#14353825)
    I learned something interesting last week from friends of my wife and I. When their daughters were born (now 4 and 6yrs old, respectively), they had stem cells taken from their umbilical cords and sent off to a facility in (I think) Texas, where they're safely stored and frozen. Apparently the thinking is that (hopefully never, but...) maybe one day one of the girls will have some kind of ailment that requires the re-growth of an organ (for example), or similar. So they will pull the stem cells out of storage and use the 'current' medical advances to hopefully cure them.
    I was amazed to find out that it is possible to do this and that people are doing it already! I think that is so cool! I meant to ask them if it cost anything, but I forgot. Anyone know?
    Just thought I'd share, since we're on the subject...
    • It does cost money. I've never looked into it because I dont yet have kids, but once saw a deal for it posted on fatwallet.com :) Do a google search for umbilical cord storage and you'll come up with something.
    • it is possible to obtain stem cells without killing children? I don't claim any expertise in this area but I was under the impression that stem cells were harvested from stillborn/aborted fetuses. Hence, there was a serious moral/ethical debate.

      So, if stem cells can be obtained without such a grisly requirement, what's the moral/ethical hold up now? I seem to once recall reading something about stem cells being discarded by hospitals as bio-medical waste. Is this true? Are we wasting time on a politica
      • Stem cells can be taken from an umbillical cord, but if memory serves, they are at a stage where they would only be usefull for the doner. Assuming the servive being frozen for long periods of time.

        However, stem cells used that stir the religous community are stem cell embryonic stem cell(which occure weeks before fetal stem cells developed). But that is a misnomer.
        Stem cells used in research are the leftover created from In Vitro Fertilization. otherwords, they were going to be tossed out anyways!
        Also, the
      • um...there are several different techniques used to harvest stem cells. Do a Google search on stem cell harvesting...

        They can even be harvested from embryos without destroying it. [newscientist.com] In fact, the embryos in question that had a stem cell removed where later put into the womb of a female mouse, and 23 of the 47 came to term in spite of having cells removed. The 47/23 ratio is the same rate as the control test of coming to term as embryos that had not been tampered with...

        They can also be harvested from your
    • My wife and I had considered this--if it wasn't for the $2000 down payment and the $100/year fee beyond that, we probably would have signed up yesterday. It actually involves harvesting stem cells from the umbilical cord blood.

      http://www.cordpartners.com/ [cordpartners.com]

      http://www.cordblood.com/ [cordblood.com]

      http://www.corcell.com/ [corcell.com]

  • The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LionKimbro ( 200000 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:41PM (#14353827) Homepage
    Here's a stronger argument, the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant. [nickbostrom.com]

    It argues that it is immoral and lethal for us to delay our work into longevity reasearch.

  • Been here, done this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:50PM (#14353896)
    In what way is the argument for untested deployment of stem cell therapies different from the argument for untested deployment of any other new drug or treatment?

    There is always a balance to be struck between safety and delay. The procedures exist for exactly this reason: to guide us in balancing risk and potential reward.

    • There is always a balance to be struck between safety and delay. The procedures exist for exactly this reason: to guide us in balancing risk and potential reward.

      I think the guidelines are improperly set. The government has made many things illegal, or restricted in an attempt to force us to be safe. I, for one, think that is a tyrannical act. To place physical safety above the freedom to make our own choices is unethical, and is a usurpation of individual rights. I'm all for the government regulatin

    • thuis underlines an interesting issue:
      Should people, even dying ones, be allowed to chose an experemental treatment?

      Intially, the answer seems to be yes;However there are other considerations, like do we want people to becomes beta testers. Can we implemented in a way where people with less and less life threatening disease can't demand to be experimental as well? Will this impact the results from double blind tests?

      Of course, there is a difference between a procedure with a high degree of saving someones l

      • thuis[sic] underlines an interesting issue: Should people, even dying ones, be allowed to chose an experemental[sic] treatment?

        In my mind it underlines an even more important issue. Who should chose if a dying person undergoes an experimental treatment, the dying person or the government?

  • would I? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hostingreviews ( 941757 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @04:57PM (#14353926) Homepage
    My mom died and dad died of illnesses that could have been prevented, assuming this stem cell hype is true. Would I sign the waver allowing it to be done for them without knowing if they wanted it? Absofreakinglootly.

    Why wouldn't I? Whos stalling here? People are dying, at least try it ONCE for crying out loud. Some patients can't get worse.

    • Re:would I? (Score:4, Informative)

      by lonesome phreak ( 142354 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:49PM (#14354204) Journal
      President Bush, in 2001, halted all federal funding on stem cells outside of the already-established 78 lines. Many of those cells have been corrupted and can't be used in human trials.

      However, he did a partial reveral just recently and signed a law [thefactis.org] creating a national stem-cell bank based on umbilical cord cells. This is really good news, and hopefully will allow the US to catch up to other countries.

  • Snake Oil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:15PM (#14354022) Journal
    While I understand the good faith efforts of people to implement working cures faster, I think this is incredibly thin ice to tread on.

    Let's all keep in mind Barnum's Maxim when we hasten to implement all those "great" cures out there, that the (pokey, old fashioned, heartless gov/corps) don't immediately start distributing. There are LOTS of examples where the "perfect cure" ended up having heartbreakingly bad collateral consequences. Thalidomide, anyone?

    If you, as a terminally ill patient, are willing to make yourself into a medical experiment that's cool - you will good or bad end up advancing medical knowledge to the benefit of all of us. (In fact, my father is still alive and thriving today due to a then-experimental bone marrow replacement technique.) But when you sign up for this stuff, you MUST then accept the consequences of being a lab rat, ie. you may die.

    But make these decisions for YOURSELF, not for others. For the bulk of the population, the nice, long duration exhaustive testing works just fine. I personally think it's irresponsible for a scientist or a doctor to advocate this for anyone else.

  • Its about time... (Score:2, Funny)

    by fuo ( 941897 )
    "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"

    Finally the medical/research industry learns from the software industry!

  • What Would Cartman Do? (Score:3, Funny)

    by greysky ( 136732 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:37PM (#14354154)
    I say we use the stem cells to clone a new Shakey's Pizza!

  • Response from someone with a terminal disease... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamescarl ( 884722 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @05:47PM (#14354194)
    When you are faced with a terminal disease, there are a number of issues that most people don't understand. First off, you want to extend your life as long as possible. There comes a time, however, when regular treatments don't work and the only options available are experiemental treatments. As someone about to reach that point, I feel that if I can donate my body to medical science before I die so that others can be saved, it's the least I can do. Also, from a selfish standpoint, there is the possibility that experimental science can extent my life. Now, I'm not in favor of experimenting myself for studies that are too dangerous but that's my decision, not others. In a free country, the right to control how and what I do with my life and my body are not the decisions of the government or any of you. Obviously, these studies need to be controlled so that they don't get written up in the National Journal of Evil under studies on growing arms out of backs, but they are currently done every day at hospitals and research centers around the world.

  • Take away the buzzwords (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boatboy ( 549643 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @06:38PM (#14354446) Homepage
    Let's remove the words 'stem cell' and 'terminally ill' for a while. What he is advocating is relaxing the rules on human research for certain classes of people. His suggestion is morally reprehensible- expirimenting on humans without extensive research proving benefit and safety is just sick and isn't really good science. Regardless of the technology being tested or the body of people being tested on.

    Common objections:
    O: But it could save lives!
    A: Breeding babies to full term and harvesting full grown organs for sale is possible now, could save lives, and is morally wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
    O: You have no right to tell someone what to do with their body.
    A: Actually I have a 'right' to tell people just about anything, and make my case. And they have a 'right' not to listen, or to listen objectively and change their mind.
    O: If they consent to be expirimented on, who are you to object?
    A: First, 'consent' is difficult to prove. How does one determine their consent wasn't coerced? Second, there is plenty of historical basis for prohibiting someone from doing everything they want- it's called the legal system. Again, a person may consent to have a child for the express purpose of killing it and giving it's heart to another child. Fortunately, this is illegal.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close