"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China 429
destinyland writes "In China's Guangdong Province there's been 'almost miraculous' progress in actually using stem cells to treat diseases such as brain injury, cerebral palsy, ataxia and other optic nerve damage, lower limb ischemia, autism, spinal muscular atrophy, and multiple sclerosis. One Chinese biotech company, Beike, is now building a 21,500 square foot stem cell storage facility and hiring professors from American universities such as Stanford. Two California families even flew their children to China for a cerebral palsy treatment that isn't available in the US. The founder of Beike is so enthusiastic, he says his company is exploring the concept of using stem cells to extend longevity beyond 120 years."
Watch out for chinese stem cells (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have lead in them...
<Ray Kurzweil>
Oh well, it'll just be a few more years before they develop stem cells to adjust the effects of lead on the human body. Singularity [wikipedia.org], here we come!
</Ray Kurzweil>
Re:Watch out for chinese stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
Say what you will about the Chinese, but we could still learn a thing or two from them. At least they have the guts to try this stuff.
Re:Watch out for chinese stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you will about the Chinese, but we could still learn a thing or two from them.
We've already got Fleischmann, Pons, and Taleyarkhan - what more do we need to learn about this kind of thing? Hu gives no numbers for success rates, and identifies FDA standards as a challenge. Anecdotes abound, and stats are lacking.
Complete bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I will go out on a limb and say that this story sounds to me like complete bullshit.
First tipoff: TFA doesn't list any citations to peer-reviewed articles. (I couldn't find any on PubMed.)
Second tipoff: Hu claims to have treated >5,087 patients for ataxia, autism, ALS, brain trauma, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, diabetics, Guillain-Barre, encephalatropy, and spinal cord injury.
If he could have treated any one of those diseases successfully, any major medical journal would have been happy to publish his report, doctors from all over the world would be flying over to learn his techniques, and pharmaceutical companies would be offering him wheelbarrows full of money for the rights to use his techniques. And it would have been on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
Third tipoff: The reporter who wrote this sounds like she doesn't understand the story at all. She doesn't ask one substantive question (like, "what peer reviewed journals have you published your work in?"). She sounds like she's asking generic questions from a list of standard interview questions her business editor gave her.
Fourth tipoff: The word "miraculous."
I'm not taking it seriously enough to look up the citations, but Science magazine had an article a while back investigating a Chinese doctor who claimed to be treating spinal cord injured patients, and it turned out that his patients weren't getting better and he hadn't published anything significant.
The WSJ had an article about a Chinese brain surgeon who was cutting a part of the brain to supposedly cure schizophrenia, depression, and a whole list of unrelated conditions, but he wasn't curing them, a lot of his patients were left with severe brain damage, families were paying him their life savings, he was making a fortune, American brain surgeons were shocked at his irresponsibility, and he performed several times more of these procedures than the rest of the world combined.
A friend of mine taught a course in science journalism in China a while back, and he was appalled to find out that Chinese journalists would just make stories up. They didn't understand the difference between telling a good story and telling the truth.
This is from the country whose pharmaceutical industry brought us contaminated heparin, contaminated milk, cough syrup that killed babies, and pet food that killed dogs.
To quote Thomas Paine, which is more likely: that a miracle could happen or that a man could lie?
It's not anti-Chinese to say this. In the U.S., the Chinese are some of the best scientists and science journalists.
China, for all its many virtues and accomplishments, is suffering from the results of Communism, the Great Cultural Revolution, and now unregulated free-market capitalism.
China is the same zoo of quack doctors and drug companies that the U.S. was in the days of Upton Sinclair, which led to the FDA. And we still have quacks here.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and pet food that killed dogs.
Sure, it's bad news for the dogs, but it's PARTYTIME for the restaurants!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using that logic the Nazi's had balls too.
Other than Godwin-ing the thread... you think they didn't?
What they didn't have was ethics (or morals).
Re: (Score:2)
I know of somebody here in the US who has received adult stem cell treatments for leukemia here in the U.S., so this is being done here. It's just that this particular treatment hasn't been approved here in the US, and you can't guarantee getting into a test study (if somebody in the US has the treatment ready to test), or not being in the control group even if you get in the study.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you....that was the first thing I was thinking...that if the results of their testing doesn't match the desired outcome, how long until they start fudging the results. China's Government isn't known for being the most open and tolerant of differing opinions.
Sounds Like Cold Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll believe it when I see it replicated.
Isn't that exactly... (Score:2)
...What stem cells do? Replicate.
Re:Isn't that exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that exactly... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure the poster mean when the experimental results are replicated independently by another lab.
Also, stem cells replicate relatively infrequently. Replication results in minor DNA damage, so the body keeps the source of new cells in as pristine a condition as possible by minimizing stem cell replication. One of the two new cells chills out until needed again while the other replicates as many time as is necessary.
That's actually one of the major concerns for adult stem cells. Taking cells from an adult, which has already endured a lifetime of genetic damage, and using them for a stem cell line is begging for some cancers to pop up. All the nastiest cancers known to man originate from stem cells. Fetal stem cells have the benefit of being the most pristine stem cells you can get.
Re:Sounds Like Cold Fusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Finding fraud in China [nature.com]: As Chinese research expands, who is looking out for faked results?
I don't want to come off as more racist than I already do or anything, but the last few miraculous discoveries in China were faked.
Re:Sounds Like Cold Fusion (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not coming off as racist. That's a cultural observation, and it's entirely appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By "Chinese" I mean the nation not the people. People who have left China for a better life I'm much more willing to trust.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it more noble to get the fuck out, or stay and help fix what's wrong with your country? (ObDisclaimer: I have my own plans to desert the USA. Sorry.)
Chinese Sputnik? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have too much on my plate already to worry about this, and I don't think it affects me personally. Everybody in my family is perfectly healthy into their 100's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
America needs a good shake up to awaken people from this dumb political fuckfest and get their focus back on technology and science.
In short, turn off the damn tv and pick up a book!
Re: (Score:2)
If true, this might, trigger a reaction in USA, like the launch of Sputnik by USSR did back in 1957. Suddenly science will be "in" again and it will shake America from its lethargy, self absorption and provide some kind of common unifying goals.
The vast sums of money people would be willing to spend on cures only stem cell treatments can offer have already shaken many awake. Don't know what you've been paying attention to, but there is already fierce competition in that field. Lethargy? Maybe most of america is only starting to realize that stem cells are "kind of a thing" but biologists, biotech industry, politicians, doctors, and numerous other people have been focused on it for years. The rate of research on it is actually very fast. It ha
Re:Chinese Sputnik? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, give me a break. People always say, "Things were different in [some time in the past] and now they're changing for the worst."
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Yes, we have our distractions today - typically in the form of computers and technology, but these things existed ten, twenty, and a hundred years ago, too. People's basic needs have not changed - food, shelter, needing to feel important, love, etc.
Interestingly enough, though, the reason it may seem like people are wasting more time is because they are (I know, I'm sort of contradicting myself). We are able to accomplish things much more quickly that we do have more time for important things as well as things like Twitter and Facebook. It really depends on how people choose to use their time.
As for the GP post, I, too, am concerned what the US is going to do in the future. There are a lot of very smart people in other countries, and the United States cannot rest on its laurels. It'll be interesting to see what the future brings.
Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Informative)
Unless I misread the article. It seems they found a way to make Adult Stem Cells behave like embryonic stem cells.
The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.
As the anti-abortion groups see abortions as killing a human life, it makes it a situation where you kill one human life to save an other or many, which is a huge ethical dilemma.
Now if you can make adult Stem Cells work like Embryonic then the issue to the ethics is reduced, taking most major religions out of the fight. Only leaving a few Right Wing Crazies who will not even try to understand the difference.
Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're being reasonable. You must stop this immediately. It is against the Slashdot Terms of Service with regards to any political or ethical discussion (hereafter referred to as "flame war").
Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Informative)
The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.
Actually, you're playing right into the hands of the pro-life movement by saying that.
It is NOT (repeat NOT) that you needed to kill/abort the fetus so as to get stem cells.
The fetus was aborted already. It is now medical waste. The only question is if you can use the medical waste to save lives, or not.
The distinction is an important one, but one which is all to easily overlooked by those who wish to perpetrate the image of scientists aborting fetuses so they can get their hands on those precious stem cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum, in case it's not clear :
It's the difference between using the organs of a dead person in organ transplant, and murdering someone to steal their kidneys/lungs/heart etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.
First off, embryonic stem cells were/are harvested from embryos which had already been terminated, usually for the purposes of in-vitro fertilization.
It still strikes me as odd how little protest there is among the life-begins-at-conception folks against in-vitro fertilization. You're creating n fertilized e
Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not an expert on this in any way. However I would expect Adult Stem Cells from the same patient would make more compatible fixes vs. Embryonic cells from a different genetic group.
If I were to regrow a bone for my finger with Stem Cells I would expect mine to more closely match the one I loss, and would be accepted by my body better.
Re: (Score:2)
There are easy solutions for that, it's just that some fundamentalists aren't ready to accept them. Exempli gratia:
* Hint - It's green [wikipedia.org] and Charlton Heston spoke out strongly against it.
* He who walks behind the rows [wikipedia.org]
* A workable system that apparently was in place until some ass-hat named Logan [wikipedia.org] busted it up.
See, who says that the elderly have to be a drain on society?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the media, the industry, and potential patients that continue to blur the distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells.
Many people that suffer from various diseases have so far found no cure with adult stem cells, and desperately seek access to new embryonic stem cell lines in the hope that these will indeed cure them. I genuinely feel great empathy for them, and if that were all it was about, then the research would be unrestricted.
But that's not all that it's about.
The crux of the embyonic ste
The U.S. lost ground by not doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. lost ground by not doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Limiting funding for embryonic stem cells did slow research into adult stem cells. Specifically, it slowed research into just what is and isn't possible to treat with stem cells. Adult stem cells don't function exactly as embryonic stem cells do, generally embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming any tissue in the body where as adult stem cells are limited to a subset of them.
For every tissue, it is probably possible to produce an adult stem cell that will be capable of becoming that tissue but it costs time, money, and equipment to create it. That same time and effort could have gone directly to working on and testing the treatment. So, yes you are correct that adult stem cells can probably be used to cure the same diseases embryonic stem cells can. But you are also wrong if you insist that the lack of embryonic stem cell funding didn't slow that research down, leading to thousands of untimely deaths.
That's not a judgement on the ethics of the situation, I'm just trying to lay out the facts as I see them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it seems to me that you don't see the facts as they are.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming any tissue in the body whereas adult stemcells are limited. ESC's turn become random tissues with gusto, often growing bones and teeth inside cultures. They're extremely hard to control. Adult stems cells are much easier, and pluripotent adult stem cells have almost the same capabilities of ECS's. So ECS's really aren't needed.
Additionally, last I checked 72 successful treatments have been devloped from ACS's, and a total of, er, um, 0 from E
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The environment towards biology research having anything to do with stem cells has gotten very hostile over the last 6 years. I do part time work in a biomed engineering lab at my university (UVA), and between many of the higher-up administrators not knowing the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells and many organizations (PETA and co.) protesting any publication of clinical models involving animal research, it's difficult to get anything really innovative approved. It's gotten to the
The kind of article I'd like to see more often (Score:5, Informative)
Props to the submitter.
By the way, if this is even one-tenth as good as it looks in the article, it'll be awesome. For example, from the article:
One example is the recovery of a nearly blind sixteen-year-old girl, Macie Morse, who recently got her learnerâ(TM)s permit and started driving.
She came to one of our hospitals for treatment in July 2006, with 20/4,000 vision in one eye and only light perception in the other due to optic nerve hypoplasia.
After treatment, Macie now has 20/80 vision in one eye and 20/400-plus in the other!
Dumb Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumb Question... (Score:4, Informative)
how are stem cell treatments suppose to work?
Using the intarwebs? YOU FAIL IT!!! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
120 years? Time to get Malthusian... (Score:2, Insightful)
he says his company is exploring the concept of using stem cells to extend longevity beyond 120 years.
Maybe it's just me, but I believe that longer average lifespans are not a good idea at all.
It's just more mouths to feed, more people farting, shitting, throwing out trash... If we're planning on extending lifespans, we should at least implement better family planning across the globe, otherwise, we'd just be starving hell of a lot more people in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
If human history has anything to tell us, it is that problems don't get fixed before the problems arise.
Miraculous Communism (Score:2, Insightful)
Miraculous and China in the same sentence. Until their results are duplicated I would regard this announcement with great skepticism.
Who wants to live that long? (Score:2, Funny)
Methuselah lived 900 years.
Methuselah lived 900 years.
But who calls that livin' when no gal will give in
to no man who's 900 years?
Societal cost (Score:4, Insightful)
How are we going to pay for an increasingly older population? Will they be older and healthy and still working, or older, on expensive medications, and requiring expensive procedures to keep them living?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ethical nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
(intellectual weakness: shouting "but the USA is worse" every time someone mentions any negative trait of any entity anywhere)
Wait until (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait until someone actually gets cured. This needs to show more than a placebo effect, and proof of cure from someone outside of the actors. The people who they claim to have cured may not have had anything wrong with them in the first place.
This sounds a lot like other snake-oil salesmen in the medical business. A lot of initial hype, and when results fail to appear they just quietly disappear again, taking their money with them. They do make a LOT of money on such scams, which is why they are so popular. $15,000USD per treatment would bring in a lot of money from desperate people.
Can we just change the name... (Score:2)
... to ADULT Stem Cell Research (ASCR?) so all these collective panties won't get bunched up every time a new research report or story comes out? That'd be nice. Thanks.
~AA
Genotype specific? (Score:2)
The question is, are the treatments requiring genotype specific stem cells?
If so, where exactly do you get them? Stored cord blood is one source. Another is a (very) close relative. But there is another very exciting source - a clone of the person. You don't actually have to let the clone develop very far to get stem cells, but what you do need is a real, developing clone.
The only problem is, in order to exploit this type of treatment, you need to have to be able to make a clone. How much do you think
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
> Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research
It's embryonic stem cell research that conservatives don't like. Adult stem cell research is fine.
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even embryonic stem cell research. It's destruction of embryos. Meaning:
1.) Bush's policy was to fund ESCR from already-existing lines.
2.) There are various attempts [wikipedia.org] to derive ESC lines that don't require destruction of embryos.
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
And it's not even destruction of embryos that was prevented. It's federal funding of same. This has to be one of the least understood and most poorly reported issues of the entire Bush administration.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but let's not conflate "what conservatives don't like" with "what was prevented." Conservatives don't like the destruction of embryos, period.
The federally funded variety was just the one type that the Bush administration had the political will to stop.
On top of that, conservatives tend to be wary of other acts that don't involve the destruction of an embryo, but are conceptually close. For example, conservatives often oppose emergency contraception, some even regular contraception. I would not be
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a matter of being "conceptually close" to destruction of embryos. One of the mechanisms of emergency contraception (and the Pill) is destruction of embryos--preventing implantation.
I bet you didn't realize that "destroying an embryo" isn't necessarily the same as "abortion", did you? By the technical medical definition, "abortion" is ending a pregnancy, and we mark the beginning of pregnancy at the moment of implantation. (And there are sensible medical reasons for these divisions--but those distinctions are only relevant in some contexts.) So if you prevent implantation, they call it "contraception", not abortion--even though the fertilized blastocyst is being killed.
(Note: By some definitions, "embryo" only applies after implantation. But by that definition, the debate isn't about "embryonic" stem cell research--it would be about "blastocystic" or "zygotic" stem cell research.)
In other words, this website [princeton.edu] is bordering on misinformation. Technically correct misinformation, but misleading information.
To my knowledge, that typically comes from a theological disapproval of birth control, unrelated to destruction of embryos. Most often from Catholics. It's about the question, "Should we be taking control of getting pregnant out of God's hands?" It's not about a "every sperm is sacred" idea.
It may be for some... Hmm, actually, I have no idea what the breakdown is.
Of course. It's the same question as, "Should we use the results of Nazi medical research?" It's a difficult ethical question. Once the harm has been done, can we use the "tainted fruits"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1.) Prevent the release of the egg.
2.) Make it more difficult for sperm to reach the egg.
3.) Affect the endometrial wall, making it more difficult for the blastocyst to implant.
The third one can only happen if the first two fail, so it's not the primary mechanism, but that's where the concern is with emergency contraceptives. (Note: There's also some controversy over the significance of the third mechanism.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be one of the least understood and most poorly reported issues of the entire Bush administration.
I think the fact that GWB is of above average intelligence is the most poorly reported aspect of the entire Bush administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was fun to watch this little game of telephone unfold:
eldavojohn: "Republican conservatives"
tcopeland: "conservatives" (dropped the 'Republican' part)
JeanPaulBob: "Bush" (converted 'conservatives' to 'Bush'. To be fair, Bush probably qualifies as a genuine conservative on this topic).
Gospodin: "prevented" (stuck with 'Bush', but changed gears from stuff that wasn't liked to stuff that was prevented).
Communication can be tricky sometimes.
But if I understand what you guys are saying, it was US policy for
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not even destruction of embryos that was prevented. It's federal funding of same.
This is an oft-used, idiotic talking point.
The insinuation is, that if some lab is doing stem cell research, the feds won't pay for the stem cell experiments. Yes, that is true.
They also won't pay for anything else that lab does. The lab will no longer get a federal grant for anything.
If there are any research institutions affiliated with the lab, the pox infects them too. If anyone in a laboratory affiliated with a teaching hospital or a major university -or any other research institution even partially dependent on federal grant money- goes near an embryonic stem cell, or even writes a paper detailing a meta-analysis of embryonic stem cell experiments done in other countries, the entire institution will have to shut down.
Anyway, so that's all over. In the meantime, we've been far surpassed on this front by countries with no government restrictions, and say, hundreds of millions of couples constantly conceiving their second, forbidden children.
Basically the "federal funding" thing was just an essentially meaningless qualifier to make it more lawfully palatable in order to aid it through the legislature. Think "medical" in "medical marijuana". :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious about this--do you have references I can look into?
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's destruction of embryos.
While technically true, the term "embryo" can be misleading: it could lead some to think that the thing being destroyed is something close to a fetus---i.e., something with a central nervous system and a beating heart. But typically, "Embryonic stem cell research" only involves the destruction of a blastocyst [wikipedia.org]. We're talking about a tiny cluster of cells that has *no neurons*. (If left to grow into a late-stage embryo then some of the cells in a blastocyst will have been the *distant ancestors* of the first neurons.)
And the anti-ESCR crowd objects to said destruction because...well it's not clear. I gather that some of them think a "soul" is injected into a zygote at the moment of its formation. (Of course, the meaning of that sentence hinges on what you think a "soul" is, and I rarely get a satisfactory definition out of religious types.)
But if there is such a thing as a human soul---loosely defined here as the mind of a person---then findings in neuroscience seem to suggest that a human soul is something generated by a human brain. In that case a common housefly would have greater capacity to bear a soul than a blastocyst, because at least a housefly has a brain!
So while I recognize that the anti-ESCR crowd has some deep emotional feelings about this, I also feel that the respect paid to them by policy-makers was not earned legitimately. How could it have been? The foundation of their argument is superstition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it's based on the idea that all human beings should be protected the same way, regardless of size or level of development?
Why is "possessing neurons" the criterion? The ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming that an egg or sperm is "a human being".
I'm assuming there's no difference between "human being" and "human organism". And an egg or sperm is not a distinct organism. They are parts of an organism. When they combine, they form a new organism--and that organism only requires nourishment and a friendly environment, in order to develop into an adult.
See
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
And the article seems to indicate that the treatment was done with adult stem cells.
Dr. Hu - "In 2004, after three years of clinical studies observing more than 100 cases, I decided to build a company to supply and work on safe adult stem cells."
Dr. Hu - "As of February 2009, Beike has treated over 5,087 patients with cord blood stem cell injections"
Dr. Hu - "After all these years of observation and practice, I consider adult stem cell-based therapy to be safe."
Dr. Hu - "We will set the standard and criteria for R&D in developing adult stem cells and iPS."
Dr. Hu - "The adult stem cells we use are safe."
Dr. Hu's only mention of embryonic stem cells is the following....
Dr. Hu - "I think Geron's FDA clearance to begin the world's first human clinical trial of embryonic stem cell-based therapy is great news for the entire stem cell industry. More competition is inevitable."
The significance here is that China doesn't have the same restrictions regarding human testing that the US does. They've jumped into it faster, and Dr. Hu has been using adult stem cells rather than embryonic. According to this article, the only negative side effect to having an embryonic stem cell ban is that it reduces competition.
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Interesting)
The fist treatment that actually uses embryonic SC is scheduled later this year.
I really wish people would stop acting like we are so far behind because of Bush he only stopped research on embryonic not adult.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I remember it, he didn't even stop federal funding on new lines of ESC per se. There was no funding to begin with, and they OK-ed funding stem cell research, with the caveat that you couldn't use embryos developed from new lines. That restriction put several real limits on the research, but at the same time its not even close to a ban. Private and state level funding were two perfectly viable options if you simply needed to create new lines.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've not liked much Obama has done so far, with the exception of him turning over the Bush ban on federal $$'s going to stem cell research that uses cells from enbryos that were gonna be destroyed anyway.
I'm fiscally conservative, but, I think that pretty much any avenue for research in science is fair and open game.
I guess I don't fit into any real party around tho.
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Playing god" is vague & ill-defined. Talking about it that way abstracts the issue away from the actual concern of those who oppose destruction of embryos. Why not be specific?
Namely: It's about legalized organlegging [wikipedia.org]. As treatments emerge, we'll find out whether they're willing to sacrifice other human beings for their own health & longevity.
Or, we'll find out whether or not they really believe embryos are human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am willing to do what it takes to live as long as possible.
However, in the case of stem cells, or even human cloning to some degree....you'd not be going out and killing 'natural' people for their organs, but, merely growing more copies of your own organs for use later. I could deal with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Namely: It's about legalized organlegging [wikipedia.org]. As treatments emerge, we'll find out whether they're willing to sacrifice other human beings for their own health & longevity.
Let's be clear on three things:
1. You get ESC from 5 day old blastocysts. Not embryos from pregnant women. These embryos have to come from in vitro fertilization, by the time you can tell you're pregnant, even with a blood test, you can't extract ESC from that embryo: they've already turned used up their ESC. This will not lead to abortions, because if you know you have an embryo, it's useless as far as ESC goes.
2. ESC lines have been established. You won't need to destroy an embryo each time you need E
Conservatives are always dying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conservatives are always dying (Score:4, Insightful)
All other answers are philosophical in nature.
Or legal in nature, such as when does this life get rights and what rights does it get.
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
I guess it's going to be a true test of ideals as Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research ... as they approach age 75.
With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad.
From TFA:
As of February 2009, Beike has treated over 5,087 patients with cord blood stem cell injections for diseases like ataxia, autism, ALS, brain trauma, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, diabetics, Guillain-Barre, encephalatropy, and spinal cord injury â" many of these are considered incurable diseases.
Cord blood stem cells was NOT under any restrictions from the previous administration. For that matter, the Bush administration was the first US administration to fund this type of stem cell research.
I understand your desire to blame everything on Republicans, but you should really try to give credit where credit is due and stop making stuff up to make them look bad.
If there is genuine life extension... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it's going to be a true test of ideals as Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research ... as they approach age 75.
This is why there will probably be genuine life extension, because the elderly and soon-to-be elderly in our society control so many resources.
Once there is an upsurge in life extension, this should be followed by an upsurge in curing cancer. Why? Because if you extend the lifespan of a mammal long enough, it's going to die of cancer.
http://www.sens.org/ [sens.org]
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html [ted.com]
Re:If there is genuine life extension... (Score:5, Funny)
More money is currently spent on research into skin treatments, breast augmentation, and penile enlargement/enhancement treatments, than neurodegenerative disease (like alzheimer's) treatments.
In other words, in 20 years' time the world is going to be full of 80-year-old people with firm skin, perky tits, big throbbing erections, and absolutely no fucking memory of what to do with them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now if only we could prevent access to those people, the problem would work itself out in a few decades!
You know, the same way we should prevent Creationists from getting flu shots.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad.
Actually, immortality has always been a big deal in Chinese mythology and history. Many real life Chinese Emperors tried everything from drinking mercury to sending out massive expeditions searching for mythical islands or legendary items in hopes to live forever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
"SH: Osiris in the U.S. is our biggest competitor. We are way ahead of most of the Chinese stem cell companies."
Also from reading the article, they don't seem to be doing anything terribly scientific. They are basically injecting stem cells into patients, along with "holistic" treatment like accupuncture. And the head guy seems like more of a business-guy than an actual researcher. So this all smells like a lot of BS to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I like this sentence:
...and cure baldness, eliminate belly fat, treat "ugly," pay off credit cards, clean up oil spills, and repopulate the dodo.
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
I believe that China's success in this field may be the result of much less oversight and fewer regulations. We don't know how many "patients" died or were mutilated in the process of supposedly perfecting this treatment. That sort of thing wouldn't fly in the US.
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that China's success in this field may be the result of much less oversight and fewer regulations.
Or maybe less scrutiny/peer-review on their results? Untying a researcher's hands and letting them do whatever they want could let them advance more quickly (I'd cite a couple of counter-examples, but I don't want to Godwin the thread). But, I suspect that what we're seeing isn't a huge banner showing success due to Chinese freedom, but a big PR campaign. As soon as Chinese doctors start hiring on at the Mayo Clinic to fix people using these techniques, I'll apologize for my skepticism.
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Informative)
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
You know that, and I know that, and you can say this until you're blue in the face, but the hard core Bush bashers probably aren't going to listen. They'll still believe and repeat the lie that Bush "banned" all "stem cell research" to the day they die, just as a good many of them actually believe Sarah Palin really said "I can see Russia from my house" - when in fact it was comedian Tina Fey who said that in a skit on SNL.
Vitriol flows better when truth doesn't get in it's way.
I'm not even a "pro-life" conservative, for that matter; I'm just sick and tired of hearing this disinformation repeated ad nasueum.
The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
Further, he didn't even ban federal funding for research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells, only on new lines.
And all other forms of stem cell research, and their funding (cord, adult) were not restricted whatsoever.
bwhahahahaa (Score:3, Informative)
>To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which
>preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
Crock. Of. Shit. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. The Bill of Rights does not enshrine religion, it neuters it, and rightfully so.
Yes, you have the right to worship whatever you like. Of course I also have the right to point out it's all fairy tales and magic worship.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the reality of the treatment may not live up to the claims. It isn't exactly peer-reviewed, and its not uncommon for the media and companies to talk up the benefits to generate interest.
From what I've heard, banning embryonic stem cells would slow research, because they are the most useful in doing theoretical work in what treatments are promising. Of course, when developing the actual treatments, adult stem cells are greatly preferable, because they have far less cancer and rejection risks.
But the iss
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of another country that would have a higher supply of fetuses.
Are you certain it is not fetii?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the poster was referring to anything from two thousand years ago. Today, if you know the right people and places to go you can buy all sorts of endangered species "parts" for natural cures. Most of the "right places" are Chinese herbal medicine shops.
This is a very current problem], today. Not two thousand years ago.