Stem Cell Research

[hrhomsar]

Opinions? Personally I dont see how anyone can be against it. The stem cells used for research are usually obtained from leftover embyos at in vitro clinics that would otherwise be thrown away. How can you be opposed if it can cure diseases like diabetes, Alztimers, parkinsons, and paralysis.

[pt9-9]

because of adult stem cells

[Makaio]

At 11/15/06 09:45 PM, pt9-9 wrote: because of adult stem cells

genious reply.

it's in the christians minds that if stem cell research is used, people will be getting pregnant to kill their babies for its purpose., its the only reason that makes sense, what else could it be?

[RedSkunk]

At 11/15/06 09:45 PM, pt9-9 wrote: because of adult stem cells

That's not a real response... To anything.

There isn't a reason to be against stem cell research. Viable, young stem cells can be had from the placenta after birth, as well as menstruation blood. These two sources seem plentiful.

[MindControlFun]

For starters... EVEN IF they ban the use of new, previously unharvested stem cells... what the FUCK. is the rationale for not using the stem cells we already have?? I mean, if we don't use them... they're getting thrown out! If the damage has already been done, you might as well do something potentially good with it!

As for the rest of the topic, that can be debated when the amount of stem cells we have now are gone.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/15/06 10:30 PM, MindControlFun wrote: As for the rest of the topic, that can be debated when the amount of stem cells we have now are gone.

If we never harvested a single stem cell again, we'd never "run out" because we can culture the existing lines. But therein lies the problem. Bush limited the amount of research in the US to a dozen or so lines. These lines that we currently have aren't the most promising in terms of breakthroughs. So it's handicapping research.

[MindControlFun]

At 11/15/06 10:34 PM, RedSkunk wrote: If we never harvested a single stem cell again, we'd never "run out" because we can culture the existing lines. But therein lies the problem. Bush limited the amount of research in the US to a dozen or so lines. These lines that we currently have aren't the most promising in terms of breakthroughs. So it's handicapping research.

Ah, in which new information (at least to me) surfaces.

If we are at that point, which it seems we are, that we have "run out" of at least good or promising cells to use, I think at the least we should be able to whip up a few batches to get some good lines going. The key though, to public acceptance of this, is to wean on it. Start a few lines (however they extract the cells), and then just use those for awhile. If more are needed later, we start a few more lines. We can still be productive and conservative about it at the same time, if that's what'll make everyone happy. I like to call them compromises, and it's not much of a compromise if the one's that are allowed to be used are crappy lines.

[RedSkunk]

The thing is, compromise is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. Stem cell research is being painted as some sort of "pro-life v. pro-choice" us versus them debate, but it's not. Nobody to my knowledge is saying that it's immoral to extract cells from used placentas / umbilical cords or menstrual blood. The whole issue is politicized and the science behind it is getting shitted on.

There's no issue here. Besides the fact that politics is interfering with science.

[Altarus]

At 11/15/06 10:55 PM, RedSkunk wrote: The thing is, compromise is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. Stem cell research is being painted as some sort of "pro-life v. pro-choice" us versus them debate, but it's not. Nobody to my knowledge is saying that it's immoral to extract cells from used placentas / umbilical cords or menstrual blood. The whole issue is politicized and the science behind it is getting shitted on.

Those types of stem cells are not the ones that are the subject of this controversy though. The controversy is over embryonic stem cells, yeah? I think it is immortal to kill an embryo for scientific research.

Also, from what I understand, embryonic stem cells are difference than the ones you mentioned.

[pt9-9]

At 11/15/06 10:25 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/15/06 09:45 PM, pt9-9 wrote: because of adult stem cells

That's not a real response... To anything.

His initial topic should've been titled Embryonic Stem Cell research. He talked nothing but of embryos. And his question really meant 'why are people opposed to embyonic stem cell research with all its potential?'.

my answer: adult stem cells

So i'm lazy, big deal.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/16/06 12:15 AM, Altarus wrote: Those types of stem cells are not the ones that are the subject of this controversy though. The controversy is over embryonic stem cells, yeah? I think it is immortal to kill an embryo for scientific research.

No. It's not necessary to kill the embryo to harvest embryonic stem cells. A single cell can be taken from an early embryo and then cultured in a petri dish. The reason this isn't done right now is because it's time consuming. It's much easier to create a four- or five-day-old group of cells in a petri dish to collect stem cells from.

Also, from what I understand, embryonic stem cells are difference than the ones you mentioned.

You're wrong. The stem cells in menstrual blood and placenta / umbilical cords are pretty much the same, in terms of quality and potential. I'll link to this article since for some odd reason it has a picture of a moderately attractive female attached to it.

At 11/16/06 12:21 AM, pt9-9 wrote: His initial topic should've been titled Embryonic Stem Cell research. He talked nothing but of embryos. And his question really meant 'why are people opposed to embyonic stem cell research with all its potential?'.

my answer: adult stem cells

So i'm lazy, big deal.

Read this post.

[qygibo]

I find it sad the response to embryonic stem cell research, such as the companies that have sprouted up where you have women buying up embryos (paying about $20,000 for them) to implant them in their uterus. It seems sad to save these embryos when we have hundreds of thousands of children who need loving homes right now, and instead we choose to save potential rather than currently existing life.

(Of course, I laughed when I read the story of one woman who bought 8 of these embryos from such a company and had to implant all of them because the first 7 died before the last one took. I wonder if anyone's pointed out that in her zealous efforts to save life, that she "murdered" 7 people to save one :D)

[emmytee]

You don't have to get stem cells from dead babies, there are three or so other ways to get stem cells, and biologists recently managed to grow them in a lab without extracting them from anyone. Give it 5 years and they'll have it fine tuned.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 11:32 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/16/06 12:15 AM, Altarus wrote: Those types of stem cells are not the ones that are the subject of this controversy though. The controversy is over embryonic stem cells, yeah? I think it is immortal to kill an embryo for scientific research.

No. It's not necessary to kill the embryo to harvest embryonic stem cells. A single cell can be taken from an early embryo and then cultured in a petri dish. The reason this isn't done right now is because it's time consuming. It's much easier to create a four- or five-day-old group of cells in a petri dish to collect stem cells from.

That, and the embryo's being created were harvested from their respective donors, most likely 'extra' zygotes from a test tube pregnancy.

Solution? Add a check box on the form for sperm and egg donors. If they want the unused portions of their genes used for sceintific experiments, let them waive their rights over the unused portion. If the person has qualms, sate them by guaranteeing the destruction of the extra embryos.

What the government needs to avoid is polarizing the people in the way Roe v. Wade did. Leave it to the conscience of the donors.

Also, from what I understand, embryonic stem cells are difference than the ones you mentioned.

You're wrong. The stem cells in menstrual blood and placenta / umbilical cords are pretty much the same, in terms of quality and potential. I'll link to this article since for some odd reason it has a picture of a moderately attractive female attached to it.

At 11/16/06 12:21 AM, pt9-9 wrote: His initial topic should've been titled Embryonic Stem Cell research. He talked nothing but of embryos. And his question really meant 'why are people opposed to embyonic stem cell research with all its potential?'.

my answer: adult stem cells

So i'm lazy, big deal.

Read this post.

[Draconias]

At 11/15/06 08:59 PM, hrhomsar wrote: Opinions? Personally I dont see how anyone can be against it. The stem cells used for research are usually obtained from leftover embyos at in vitro clinics that would otherwise be thrown away. How can you be opposed if it can cure diseases like diabetes, Alztimers, parkinsons, and paralysis.

It's all a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" Scientists haven't really shown that stem cells actually can treat those diseases, and embryoes are not the only source of stem cells, just the easiest. I don't particularly object to the methods, but considering the opinion of a large percentage of the populace, I think stem cell research should not be pursued until alternate forms of stem cell line production are established.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/16/06 04:48 PM, Draconias wrote: It's all a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" Scientists haven't really shown that stem cells actually can treat those diseases, and embryoes are not the only source of stem cells, just the easiest.

No, embryos are not necessarily "easier" than other sources, but yes, science has shown the worth of stem cells. The byline of easily found article says, "Scientists have used stem cells from human bone marrow to repair defective insulin-producing pancreatic cells responsible for diabetes in mice."

One example.

[Altarus]

At 11/16/06 11:32 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/16/06 12:15 AM, Altarus wrote: Those types of stem cells are not the ones that are the subject of this controversy though. The controversy is over embryonic stem cells, yeah? I think it is immortal to kill an embryo for scientific research.

No. It's not necessary to kill the embryo to harvest embryonic stem cells. A single cell can be taken from an early embryo and then cultured in a petri dish. The reason this isn't done right now is because it's time consuming. It's much easier to create a four- or five-day-old group of cells in a petri dish to collect stem cells from.

Yeah, currently it is necessary, because all of the embryos in that study were destroyed to remove the single stem cell. The original publisher of that research later said that "we feel it necessary to explain that this paper demonstrates that human ES cells can be grown from single cells, but that the embryos that were used for these experiments did not remain intact." In other words, there isn't a technique that keeps the embryo alive; there is only hope that if you can keep the embryo alive while removing one cell, then you can use that one cell to spawn more cells.

However, the debate does not even end there, because it is also unproven that removing a single stem cell does not fatally harm the embryo. No one has actually allowed an embryo to continue growing after removing one of its, like, only eight or ten stem cells that it has at that early stage. For all we know, the embryo would grow into a severely deformed fetus/child, if it survived at all. Moreover, the Catholic Church and the Bush administration, from what I hear, is completely against this research because it currently involves killing the embryo.

Also, from what I understand, embryonic stem cells are difference than the ones you mentioned.

You're wrong. The stem cells in menstrual blood and placenta / umbilical cords are pretty much the same, in terms of quality and potential. I'll link to this article since for some odd reason it has a picture of a moderately attractive female attached to it.

Let's see a source that shows that these CBEs can morph into any type of human cell like embryonic stem cells can. As far as I know, CBEs are less primitive than embryonic stem cells are and there is no published research proving that they are as versatile as embryonic stem cells. A few people claim that they are as good as embryonic stem cells, but that claim is not proven.

So, in short, there is a lot of hope floating around of alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, but none of them are viable right now. Thus, proponents of embryonic stem cell research are going to keep pushing embryonic stem cell research, not the alternatives, and, in the absense of currently viable alternative techniques, one cannot easily dismiss their arguments. The fight over this SC research will continue until an alternative method is demonstrated and proven, and we could be waiting decades for that to happen.

[Cybex]

I think it's stupid how when a dead human is cut up and stuff in the name of science, people think its sweet how they're being so kind by helping, but when a dead foetus is cut up in the name of science, people start going crazy.

[Elfer]

Adult stem cells are only the retarded cousin of embyronic stem cells.

[Draconias]

At 11/16/06 04:59 PM, RedSkunk wrote: No, embryos are not necessarily "easier" than other sources, but yes, science has shown the worth of stem cells. The byline of easily found article says, "Scientists have used stem cells from human bone marrow to repair defective insulin-producing pancreatic cells responsible for diabetes in mice."

I am completely aware of what stem cells are actually capable of-- I keep up with modern science. That wording was a lazy mistake on my part; to be more accurate, scientists have not yet shown that cures for diseases are necessarily possible or economical through the use of stem cells, nor have they shown that they can reliably create stem cell lines without taking a life to save a life.

[Memorize]

Me:

Stem Cell Research: FOR! (mine as well put them to use)
Abortion: AGAINST! (the aura of irresponsibility and stupidity)

[qygibo]

At 11/16/06 04:48 PM, Draconias wrote:

It's all a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" Scientists haven't really shown that stem cells actually can treat those diseases, and embryoes are not the only source of stem cells, just the easiest. I don't particularly object to the methods, but considering the opinion of a large percentage of the populace, I think stem cell research should not be pursued until alternate forms of stem cell line production are established.

Science hasn't been given enough of a chance to show one way or another what embryonic stem cells can do. People expect instantaneous results from scientists and that just doesn't really happen. Five years isn't that long of a time period when it comes to research, particularly when dealing with human biology and our genetic code.

[Leonardo-Da-Finchy]

At 11/17/06 03:25 AM, qygibo wrote:

At 11/16/06 04:48 PM, Draconias wrote:

It's all a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" Scientists haven't really shown that stem cells actually can treat those diseases, and embryoes are not the only source of stem cells, just the easiest. I don't particularly object to the methods, but considering the opinion of a large percentage of the populace, I think stem cell research should not be pursued until alternate forms of stem cell line production are established.

Science hasn't been given enough of a chance to show one way or another what embryonic stem cells can do. People expect instantaneous results from scientists and that just doesn't really happen. Five years isn't that long of a time period when it comes to research, particularly when dealing with human biology and our genetic code.

Very, very true. And, if we can't explore the means, how are we supposed to get to the results? You justify means through results. If the means are not used, there is nothing to justify, but as you do not know the results, there is plenty of reason to set out upon said means to discover what said results will be.

[Begoner]

It's a simple question. Is anyone getting hurt by the procedure? No. Is anyone getting helped? Yes, the people with diseases which can be potentially cured by pursuing various research options. Why shouldn't we do it? I don't care if we have to specifically breed 5-day-old fetuses only to kill them and employ their cells for the sake of science any more than I care about killing bacteria when I wash my hands with soap.

[Memorize]

At 11/17/06 07:49 PM, Begoner wrote: Why shouldn't we do it?

Because it's a waste of millions of dollars?

Oh oh, let me use the liberal logic here "That money could've been used to feed the starving and homeless...".

[Begoner]

Because it's a waste of millions of dollars?

Curing diseases which claim the lives of millions of people annually is a waste of millions of dollars? I'd hate to see what you think is actually worth money. Oh, oh, wait, I know; I'll use conservative logic. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is worth it, but saving their lives is not.

[Leonardo-Da-Finchy]

At 11/17/06 08:36 PM, Begoner wrote:

Because it's a waste of millions of dollars?

Curing diseases which claim the lives of millions of people annually is a waste of millions of dollars? I'd hate to see what you think is actually worth money. Oh, oh, wait, I know; I'll use conservative logic. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is worth it, but saving their lives is not.

Or even better, treating those people effectively will save billions in continuos healthcare.