NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that this could change modern medicine as we know it. Why not have it?

Morals are relative, but if you mean by my morals, then yes.

Full speed ahead with it.

yes.
period.
on many things I'm willing to at least consider the other side, but this is not one of those cases
Stem cell research is morally good and anyone who disagrees really hasn't thought it through (unless they are thinking from the we-need-to-let-people-die-because-there-are-too-many-already angle, which I've never heard)

I agree with Ronny on every point he made, which is unusual, myself being a liberal.

well the stem cell is like a mini-version of me right? I wouldn't mind subjecting my own minion to keep me alive at his own expense...

well the stem cell is like a mini-version of me right? I wouldn't mind subjecting my own minion to keep me alive at his own expense...
well, we're talking embryonic stem cell research
so no, it's not a copy of you....it's a mini-version of someone who will never become anything other than an embryo
unless of course, you cloned yourself
and then took stem cells from the embryo...

Using embryonic stem cells to save life is a no-brainer. It's no more "killing a potential life" than donating blood is.

well, we're talking embryonic stem cell research
so no, it's not a copy of you....it's a mini-version of someone who will never become anything other than an embryo
unless of course, you cloned yourself
and then took stem cells from the embryo...
so it's not a human...what's the problem here?

well, we're talking embryonic stem cell research
so no, it's not a copy of you....it's a mini-version of someone who will never become anything other than an embryo
unless of course, you cloned yourself
and then took stem cells from the embryo...

Actually, that's exactly what therapeutic cloning would be, if people would just stop whining about it and let the scientists figure out the best way to do it.

There are people who argue that a fertilized egg is alive--I say that until the fetus is viable, it's not. Why? Because there are millions of fertilized eggs that are sloughed off and never implant or begin to divide in the fallopian tubes and thus are unable to fully develop every day, and no one is crying out for these to be saved. There is a difference between undifferentiated cells and a human life. Stem cells belong to the former category. It's not like scientists are holding women down and ripping fertilized eggs from their womb in order to perform these experiments on them--they're using leftovers, essentially, fertilized eggs that will never be implanted and will never develop. I see no difference between those groups of cells and the group of cells that is removed and destroyed when a doctor takes care of an ectopic pregnancy.

the embryos get thrown out at the end of the day anyway. is it more morally right to have them end up in the landfill or have them cure alzthemiers? you be the judge.

Chop up the dead babies! Harvest their insides!!

No, it is not moral. It destroys an embryo, which I believe to be fully human, in order to harvest the stem cells.

Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades. I think one of the reasons people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is so corporations can patent their own line of stem cells and make a lot of many, when they can't do that with adult stem cells that are donated.

(unless they are thinking from the we-need-to-let-people-die-because-there-are-too-many-already angle, which I've never heard)
That's my angle :p

No, not seriously, although it is true that all of the world's problems stem from overpopulation. I'm all for stem cell research and I adored Ron's speech last night.

No, it is not moral. It destroys an embryo, which I believe to be fully human, in order to harvest the stem cells.

Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades. I think one of the reasons people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is so corporations can patent their own line of stem cells and make a lot of many, when they can't do that with adult stem cells that are donated.

First of all, those embryos would be throw out and destroyed anyway.

Read up about stem cells, embryonic cells show much more potential for repairing the central nervous system, even George Bush acknowledges that.

Look at this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades. I think one of the reasons people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is so corporations can patent their own line of stem cells and make a lot of many, when they can't do that with adult stem cells that are donated.
Decades? I thought in 1998, James Thomson isolated cells from the inner cell mass of the early embryo, and developed the first human embryonic stem cell lines. And yeah. Not much succes yet. Since, mostly, bible thumping lunatics stand in the way to preserve our god given rights to have cancer, Alzheimer, Parkinson etc....

First of all, those embryos would be throw out and destroyed anyway.

Read up about stem cells, embryonic cells show much more potential for repairing the central nervous system, even George Bush acknowledges that.

And old sick people are in pain and going to die anyway, but I don't support euthanasia either.

And why do you assume I haven't read about stem cells? Because I don't agree with using embryonic stem cells?

Decades? I thought in 1998, James Thomson isolated cells from the inner cell mass of the early embryo, and developed the first human embryonic stem cell lines. And yeah. Not much succes yet. Since, mostly, bible thumping lunatics stand in the way to preserve our god given rights to have cancer, Alzheimer, Parkinson etc....

I said decades in reference to adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. There are papers from the seventies discussing the use of adult stem cells. I have seen a great article discussing the matter, but don't remember where it is, and the forum I found it linked off of isn't working at the moment. As soon as I find it, I'll post it in this thread.

And old sick people are in pain and going to die anyway, but I don't support euthanasia either.

And why do you assume I haven't read about stem cells? Because I don't agree with using embryonic stem cells?

A much better analogy than euthanasia would be organ donation. If youa re in an car accident, and are going to die no matter ehat happend is is wrong to remove your kidneys beofre you die? If abortion is legal, shouldn't stem cell research be legal as well? (I know, you support abortion either, but if tis going to happen, shouldn't medicine gain form it?)


Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades."


I assume you haven't read about stem cell because you claim that embryonic stem cells have not seen published results, which is not true.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040727084605.htm

Adult cells have clinical application because thay have been around and researched much more throughly, thanks to federal restrictions embryonic cells will take a lot longer to reach their full potential.

I'm not sure, but I don't care either, moral or not, I'd rather know that my life may be saved by someone's unwanted baby. What I know is wrong, is letting the embryos go to waste...

it's not like the stem cells are even human. They have no arms, no legs, no brain, no thoughts, and they feel no pain. So tell me what qualifies the stem cells as fully grown humans. I could see if it was an 8 month pregnant fetus they were doing experiments on, but come on!!! this is only on the cellular level.

Just one question. What is Stem Cell Research all about? Pretty sure I have heard of it, but english isn't my native language. Anyone mind explain?

A much better analogy than euthanasia would be organ donation. If youa re in an car accident, and are going to die no matter ehat happend is is wrong to remove your kidneys beofre you die? If abortion is legal, shouldn't stem cell research be legal as well? (I know, you support abortion either, but if tis going to happen, shouldn't medicine gain form it?)

Well, I'm not familiar with the normal procedure for organ retrieval from organ donors, but I thought that they wait until you're dead. It does remind me of an episode of MASH that was on last night. There were two wounded soldiers. One had been shot through his aorta (sp?) - one of the main vessels connected to the heart. They could save him, but needed a piece of another aorta to replace the part that had been damaged. In comes another soldier that had been shot in the head and lost most of his brain, but he was still alive in the sense that his heart was still beating. They decided to use him as a donor for the aorta graft, but they didn't know how long it would be until he actually died. Meanwhile, the other patient needed the graft soon, otherwise he ran the risk of being paralyzed, if not death. They thought the brain damaged soldier was going to die any minute, so they waited for him to die before they took the aorta. I think they made the right choice.

Besides, I do think abortion should be illegal, so why should I support the development of fetal stem cell research when I hope to see the end of abortion? Why should I support the harvesting embryonic stem cells from fertilized eggs that are bound for destruction when I also hope to see the practice abandoned? It would be stupid for me to support the development fetal and embryonic stem cell technologies at the same time I am working to abolish the source of those stem cells, especially when those researchers could be researching adult stem cells instead.

[QUOTE=You Jerks] I assume you haven't read about stem cell because you claim that embryonic stem cells have not seen published results, which is not true.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040727084605.htm
[QUOTE]

That's funny, the article you linked used fetal stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. I still haven't seen evidence of clinical success of embryonic stem cells. In fact, embryonic stem cell researchers are still having major problems with cancerous cells and genetic instablity in animal tests, which aren't affected by Bush's halt on federal funding for human ESC lines:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

Meanwhile, I have seen successful clinical trials using adult stem cells:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec04/stemcell_7-14.html
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991826
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp

it's not like the stem cells are even human. They have no arms, no legs, no brain, no thoughts, and they feel no pain. So tell me what qualifies the stem cells as fully grown humans. I could see if it was an 8 month pregnant fetus they were doing experiments on, but come on!!! this is only on the cellular level.

No, stem cells aren't human, and I don't object to the use of all stem cells. However, almost all embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are cloned and grown specifically for the purpose of harvesting the ESC's. Not only does it destroy an embryo (which I believe to be fully human), but it paves the way for organ farms and eventually full blown reproductive cloning, IMO.

No, it is not moral. It destroys an embryo, which I believe to be fully human, in order to harvest the stem cells.

So you'd rather see the embryo incinerated with the rest of the biowaste?

What about embryos that are created without fertilizing an egg? Are those ok to you?

Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades.

Funny statement, considering that adult stem cells were not even known to exist decades ago. The concept of stem cells began in embryonic research with totipotent (can develop into anything) cells. Only fairly recently has research begun in earnest on adult pluripotent (can develop into some different things) cells. And there is still the problem that very few, if any, totipotent stem cells have been found in adults. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but your information is wrong.

In actuality, the few clinical studies that have been performed with embryonic stem cells (and there have not been many) have produced results and are leading research forward.

I think one of the reasons people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is so corporations can patent their own line of stem cells and make a lot of many, when they can't do that with adult stem cells that are donated.

Actually, if a company found a line of adult stem cells that was immortal, they could patent and sell it all they wanted. But the whole point of taking Bush's silly regulations off of embryonic stem cell research is so that corporations *don't* control it.

No, stem cells aren't human, and I don't object to the use of all stem cells. However, almost all embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are cloned and grown specifically for the purpose of harvesting the ESC's. Not only does it destroy an embryo (which I believe to be fully human), but it paves the way for organ farms and eventually full blown reproductive cloning, IMO.

No, most embryonic stem cells have come from unwanted fetuses. But even if this isn't true, do you understand how therapeutic cloning would actually work? It wouldn't be "organ farms" or reproductive cloning (which I support a ban on, but the idiot Congress is so tied up on the word cloning that they want to ban therapeutic cloning as well). Basically, if you needed a new organ, a cell would be taken from you and placed into an egg cell which has had the DNA removed. The cell is then given an electric shock that makes it start dividing. This "embryo" (in quotes because it was not formed from the fertilization of an egg) will most likely stop dividing on its own at the blastocyst stage, but stem cells for you can be retrieved from it. Any treatments developed in this way could not be "farmed out" because they would have to be tailored specifically to the person that needs them.

Well, I'm not familiar with the normal procedure for organ retrieval from organ donors, but I thought that they wait until you're dead.

Nope, the body is on life support as they take the organs. If it was dead, the organs would have already started degenerating and would be useless.

especially when those researchers could be researching adult stem cells instead.

This is an idiotic statement. Researchers (like me) *are* researching adult stem cells *as well*. Saying it should be instead is like saying we should only research bloodletting by leeches instead of researching both bloodletting and medicinal treatments. They are both useful, in different contexts, and tell us very different things about the workings of the human body.

That's funny, the article you linked used fetal stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. I still haven't seen evidence of clinical success of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research is still in the basic science stage, and thus has not moved much into clinical research. Why? Because scientists don't start putting things in humans until they have tried it in animals. But here are a few clinical-related animal studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15277190

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15272386

Here's a significant problem with adult stem cells:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15269166

And here's some basic science research that needs to be done before we can move to clinical applications:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15277698

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15277690

Everything I have listed is on the first page in a pubmed search for embryonic stem cells.

In fact, embryonic stem cell researchers are still having major problems with cancerous cells and genetic instablity in animal tests, which aren't affected by Bush's halt on federal funding for human ESC lines:

These same issues are a possible problem in adult stem cell research. What's your point?

Meanwhile, I have seen successful clinical trials using adult stem cells:

Of course there have been trials with adult stem cells. No one is trying to block them.

conceiving embryos in order to use their cells to save someone else is evil

using "unwanted" embryos is well.....do they have to extract the emrbyo in a certain way in order to make it usable? its kinda creepy

anything else is just fine. what ron reagan was talking about was specifically not embryonic. who could argue with what he was suggesting?

conceiving embryos in order to use their cells to save someone else is evil

No one said it isn't. I don't know anyone who would go out and have sex just to give their embryo away. This sounds like the people who swear that abortion numbers will go up if we allow embryonic stem cell research because doctors will convince women to have an abortion just to steal their stem cells MUAHAHAHAHA. This is, of course, untrue.

using "unwanted" embryos is well.....do they have to extract the emrbyo in a certain way in order to make it usable? its kinda creepy

No, the "unwanted embryos" that are used are usually embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization but were not used. The parents no longer want to keep them frozen, because they already had their child (or decided that they can't.

anything else is just fine. what ron reagan was talking about was specifically not embryonic. who could argue with what he was suggesting?

I didn't actually see Ron Reagan's speech, but I know what he advocates *is* embryonic stem cell research, so I think you're probably wrong here.

What about embryos that are created without fertilizing an egg? Are those ok to you?

I'll have to think about that for a bit. Are stem cells regularly extracted from these types of embryos, or could they be? Can these embryos theoretically grow into an adult human if implanted in a surrogate mother?

Funny statement, considering that adult stem cells were not even known to exist decades ago. The concept of stem cells began in embryonic research with totipotent (can develop into anything) cells.

You're right. I was referring to an article that I read at least two months ago, and after rereading it (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38633) I realized that I was incorrectly remembering tissue differentiation with stem cell differentiation.

Only fairly recently has research begun in earnest on adult pluripotent (can develop into some different things) cells.

Why does one type of adult stem cell need to be pluripotent if we can get all the types of tissue we need from ASC's from different sources, ie bone marrow, blood, etc.?

Chop up the dead babies! Harvest their insides!!

they're not babies and if they had insides, they wouldn't be useful for stem cell research.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Nope, the body is on life support as they take the organs. If it was dead, the organs would have already started degenerating and would be useless.[QUOTE]

Thank you for that information. However, there is a difference in that embryos are not in the process of dying or destroyed until the stem cells are harvested, while organ donors are in the process of dying when the organs are removed. It makes no difference to me that the embyros were slated to be destroyed regardless, because IVF is another practice that I feel should be done away with.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]This is an idiotic statement. Researchers (like me) *are* researching adult stem cells *as well*. Saying it should be instead is like saying we should only research bloodletting by leeches instead of researching both bloodletting and medicinal treatments. They are both useful, in different contexts, and tell us very different things about the workings of the human body.[QUOTE]

Imagine for just a moment that abortion and IVF were suddenly illegal (as I indicated I am for in one of my earlier posts). All of a sudden, the source of embyronic stem cells is now illegal. Instead of spending years developing technology that would become unpracticable because it's sources are illegal, ESC researchers could have been working with ASC's (which would not be illegal) and furthering knowledge of them instead.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Embryonic stem cell research is still in the basic science stage, and thus has not moved much into clinical research. Why? Because scientists don't start putting things in humans until they have tried it in animals. But here are a few clinical-related animal studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15277190

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15272386[QUOTE]

Thank you. You've shown me that ESC's are not as close to application as ASC's.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Here's a significant problem with adult stem cells:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15269166[QUOTE]

Since I'm a chemist and not a biologist or physician, could you translate the jargon of the abstract so I can understand what the actual problem is?

I'll have to think about that for a bit. Are stem cells regularly extracted from these types of embryos, or could they be? Can these embryos theoretically grow into an adult human if implanted in a surrogate mother?

The eventual goal is to be able to make stem cells in this way, but research in this country is currently mostly at a standstill, since no one can get funding but private companies.

Theoretically, it *might* be possible for these embryos to grow into an adult as a clone. However, it would be in about 1 out of several hundred attempts, and would thus pretty much be unethical.

However, with parthenogenic embryos, it would never be possible for them to grow into a fully viable organism. They may present a possible source of embryonic stem cells.

Why does one type of adult stem cell need to be pluripotent if we can get all the types of tissue we need from ASC's from different sources, ie bone marrow, blood, etc.?

(a) We haven't found stem cells for all types of tissues (in fact the bone marrow and blood stem cells you are referring to are the same except the blood ones are circulatin).

(b) These cells cannot be forced to divide as many times as embryonic stem cells (ie are not practically immortal cell lines).

Imagine for just a moment that abortion and IVF were suddenly illegal (as I indicated I am for in one of my earlier posts). All of a sudden, the source of embyronic stem cells is now illegal. Instead of spending years developing technology that would become unpracticable because it's sources are illegal, ESC researchers could have been working with ASC's (which would not be illegal) and furthering knowledge of them instead.

As I have said, there are other possible sources of embryonic stem cells. IVF and abortion are not the sources that clinicians will eventually want to use - as they will not have the same DNA as the recipient.

Besides, having most researchers all studying down the same path is generally a bad thing. If a dead-end is hit, we have basically been set years behind.

Thank you. You've shown me that ESC's are not as close to application as ASC's.

Actually, as far as actual understood application, they're equally close. The difference is that the FDA at the moment is more prone to approve adult stem cell studies and therefore people are trying to jump ahead into clinical trials without being sure what is going on.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Here's a significant problem with adult stem cells:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15269166[QUOTE]

Since I'm a chemist and not a biologist or physician, could you translate the jargon of the abstract so I can understand what the actual problem is?

Telomeres basically are the age determinant in a cell. Every time the cell divides, the telomeres (on the end of the DNA) are shortened. Eventually, this shortening cuts into actual useful DNA and the cell can no longer function, thus dieing. In cell culture, this means that the cells stop dividing. Embryonic stem cells contain telomerase, which allows them to keep dividing without shortening the telomeres. Thus, without genetic changes, they can divide as close to indefinitely as any cell we have thus found. Adult stem cells cannot do this, which means that we would have to isolate a whole lot more cells for any therapy (and this is often not possible).

Bush never said that embryonic stem cell research was illegal, he just said that taxpayer money would not be used to research new stem-cell lines. There has been very little promise shown with embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells have been shown to help with many illnesses. The focus should not be on embryonic, but adult stem cells that show the most promise.

If it destroys something that has the potential to be a life (a fertilized fetus) then it should be protected as all human life is. Is it ok to murder babies just because it would be interesting to see how long you can neglect them for before they die?

Bush never said that embryonic stem cell research was illegal, he just said that taxpayer money would not be used to research new stem-cell lines. There has been very little promise shown with embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells have been shown to help with many illnesses. The focus should not be on embryonic, but adult stem cells that show the most promise.
I always hear that it's the adult cells that have the least promise in all the shows I watched about this. Embryonic cells on the other hand have more promise cause they can be used for a wider range of applications then adult cells.

No one said it isn't. I don't know anyone who would go out and have sex just to give their embryo away. This sounds like the people who swear that abortion numbers will go up if we allow embryonic stem cell research because doctors will convince women to have an abortion just to steal their stem cells MUAHAHAHAHA. This is, of course, untrue.
nevertheless it would be evil. you seem to agree with me on this.



No, the "unwanted embryos" that are used are usually embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization but were not used. The parents no longer want to keep them frozen, because they already had their child (or decided that they can't.

oh well then this is evil too. those "formerly wanted" embryos really should be given a chance at life. if their "owners" no longer want them, they should be given to couples who cant produce their own embryos for whatever reason with the purpose of trying to create a living child.


I didn't actually see Ron Reagan's speech, but I know what he advocates *is* embryonic stem cell research, so I think you're probably wrong here.
i did see his speech and he specifically talked about taking the nucleus of a living person, placing it in a hollowed out human egg cell, and creating a personalized stem cell from that.
if he really supports embryonic stem cell research i guess he's just a stinking liar trying to fool people into supporting a program he thinks they otherwise wouldnt support.

Personally, I believe that stem cell research should begin, especially since it doesn't involve an embryo anymore. However, the issue is a prickly one in politics, and one that no presidential candidate can effectively take sides on. Regardless of his personal beliefs, Bush needed to satisfy both scientists and bioethicists. And despite John Kerry's pledge, as long as Congress is divided on the issue, research funding won't be approved.

two people with conflicting ideals conducting themselves in a civil manner! i don't believe it! i commend this thread's participants and thank them for providing me with a wealth of information on the topic

from what i've seen so far, i'm inclined to say that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research offset the immoralities behind it.

everyone is whining about no stem cell research why not?

there are THOUSANDS probably MILLIONS of embryos THROWN AWAY each year because of envitro fertilization, they pick the hunmber of fertilized eggs to put back into the woman and jsut get rid of the rest, BRILLIANT.
and what about umbilical cords, wouldnt they have stem cells in them

[QUOTE=Biimidazole] Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades.

1. Its hard to publish results when the research has been banned.
2. The discovery of adult stem cells was not several decades ago, and therefore makes it impossible to show positive results for several decades.
3. Adult stem cells do however seem to be more useful in the animal they were harvested from rather than a generic embryonic stem cell.
4. Normal adult cells can be made to regress to a stem-cell state, and therefore as there are hypothetically unlimited sources of stem cells without needing to harvest from embryos, this fact makes this discussion rather pointless

i did see his speech and he specifically talked about taking the nucleus of a living person, placing it in a hollowed out human egg cell, and creating a personalized stem cell from that.
if he really supports embryonic stem cell research i guess he's just a stinking liar trying to fool people into supporting a program he thinks they otherwise wouldnt support.

Honey, I hate to break it to you, but that *is* embryonic stem cell research. That is exactly what most scientists who wish to study embryonic stem cells want to do and government funding of it is currently banned. If you think this is ok, then you think most (and definitely the end result) of embryonic stem cell research is ok.

Bush never said that embryonic stem cell research was illegal, he just said that taxpayer money would not be used to research new stem-cell lines. There has been very little promise shown with embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells have been shown to help with many illnesses. The focus should not be on embryonic, but adult stem cells that show the most promise.

Um, it's all theoretical, but embryonic stem cells actually show the most promise. Why? Because they are both totipotent and (close enough) immortal stem cell lines. Adult stem cells are not. Not to mention the fact that with *any* stem cells, we are unsure as to how to isolate them, differentiated them, and ensure that they are safe. That is what research is all about.

Regardless of his personal beliefs, Bush needed to satisfy both scientists and bioethicists.

And yet the only people he has even come close to satisfying are fundamentalist idiots who don't even know what the research they want to ban is all about. Good job again, Bush.

3. Adult stem cells do however seem to be more useful in the animal they were harvested from rather than a generic embryonic stem cell.

Actually, in humans, they would most likely *only* be useful in the person they were taken from. The only reason they can be transfered between different animals is because those animals have been bred to have the exact same genetic structure.

4. Normal adult cells can be made to regress to a stem-cell state, and therefore as there are hypothetically unlimited sources of stem cells without needing to harvest from embryos, this fact makes this discussion rather pointless

This is purely theoretical. Some cells have been suggested to de-differentiate, but definitely not all, or even most. Those that do are cells that already can change phenotype and serve different purposes in the body. And even when they do, they are not totipotent.

And adult stem cells are far from "unlimited sources." I work with bone marrow in mice and, even taking the whole bone marrow rather than selecting for the possible stem cells for my application (which are a very small percentage), I take all bone marrow from both hind legs of the mice (thus having to kill them first) and still only get enough cells for a few cell culture plates.

I always hear that it's the adult cells that have the least promise in all the shows I watched about this. Embryonic cells on the other hand have more promise cause they can be used for a wider range of applications then adult cells.

Theoretically, yes, that is the idea. However, we won't know if we can't get funding to study it.

Should Embryotic Stem Cell research be legal?

Yes.

Should Embryotic Stem Cell research be legal?

Yes.

It is legal (at least in the US, if that's where you are).

Now, do you think current restrictions on funding should be removed? Or should it pretty much just be a privately funded area? ((I have my own opinions on this but I'll share them after other people do))

Of course it should be legal. Anyone who doesn't think so has obviously never had a family member die of a potentially cureable disease.

embrionic stem cell research is wrong

it takes a human life

and don't tell me it will save others, if you want stem cells for that you can extract them from ambilical cords, there is no excuse to kill innocent human beings when you could get the same results without having blood on your hands

just for those who can't be bothered to read the first 3 pages...
Harvesting embryonic stem cells does NOT require the killing of anything.
Many of the stem cells are taken from embryos that will without a doubt never be used- they no longer have potential to become human
They are "left-over" from in-vitro fertilization
If you say they should not be used for stem cell research they WILL be thrown away. With the other organic waste.
Although I can see how some might say IVF is immoral, why would you prefer them be thrown away than used for good?

just for those who can't be bothered to read the first 3 pages...


And, in addition, (as was mentioned on the first 3 pages) you do not necessarily need a normal fertilized embryo in the first place. A Korean research team has recently isolated a line of stem cells from an embryo created through nuclear cell transfer.

The results of this poll so far are surprisingly one sided.

It's more wasteful and inhumane to throw the embryos out (or burn them or whatever they do with medical waste) then to use them for medical purposes.
CBS should have broadcast Ron Reagan's remarks.

It's more wasteful and inhumane to throw the embryos out (or burn them or whatever they do with medical waste) then to use them for medical purposes.
CBS should have broadcast Ron Reagan's remarks.

Apparently, it wouldn't have mattered if they had. I've had people tell me that Ron Reagan's speech was great, but that it wasn't about embryonic stem cell research. Of course, they were wrong, but only because people *want* to believe that anything Bush says is bad, is bad cuz God told him so.

Apparently, it wouldn't have mattered if they had. I've had people tell me that Ron Reagan's speech was great, but that it wasn't about embryonic stem cell research. Of course, they were wrong, but only because people *want* to believe that anything Bush says is bad, is bad cuz God told him so.
I had forgotten that god spoke to Bush.
It seems to me that most people that are against embryonic stem cell research just have no clue....and that is unfortunate. For that reason, I think threads like this are the most important...something might actually be accomplished
I don't get to start my research for like a month or so... :( and even then I don't get to do anything with stem cells because my school made all the cool teachers mad and now they're gone...
I'm jealous, Demp!

I'm jealous, Demp!

You should come to my school! hehe Of course, I'm not actually working with embryonic stem cells *yet.* My project focuses mainly on bone marrow progenitors.

You should come to my school! hehe Of course, I'm not actually working with embryonic stem cells *yet.* My project focuses mainly on bone marrow progenitors.
what school do you go to?
We have some people here doing some great research with adult stem cells...but I'm not really sure what's going on as to embryonic stem cell research at my school. I really only know what's up in the neuroscience department (and in the Biomedical engineering department- but as I said, all my good teachers left- 5 of the 12 BME teachers :( )

No, it is not moral. It destroys an embryo, which I believe to be fully human, in order to harvest the stem cells.

Besides, embryonic stem cells have not had any published successful results in however many years scientists have been studying them, while adult stem cells have been showing positive results for several decades. I think one of the reasons people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is so corporations can patent their own line of stem cells and make a lot of many, when they can't do that with adult stem cells that are donated.

Hang on, I was under the impression that stem cells were cells that did not yet have a designated purpose, and so could be programmed to become any kind of cell? If this is true, then it would mean that adult could not have them, as their cells are created with their purpose already set. If I'm misinformed, please correct me.

I see no problems whatsoever with stem cell research. I have lots of friends who would be helped if it was researched, so I have a personal reason to support it.

what school do you go to?
We have some people here doing some great research with adult stem cells...but I'm not really sure what's going on as to embryonic stem cell research at my school. I really only know what's up in the neuroscience department (and in the Biomedical engineering department- but as I said, all my good teachers left- 5 of the 12 BME teachers :( )

I'm at Georgia Tech / Emory University. Where are you, out of curiosity?

Hang on, I was under the impression that stem cells were cells that did not yet have a designated purpose, and so could be programmed to become any kind of cell? If this is true, then it would mean that adult could not have them, as their cells are created with their purpose already set. If I'm misinformed, please correct me.

I see no problems whatsoever with stem cell research. I have lots of friends who would be helped if it was researched, so I have a personal reason to support it.

There are two terms that are used to describe "types" of stem cells. One is totipotent - this means that they can become any type of cell in the body. As of yet, this has only been seen in embryonic stem cells and *maybe* in a very tiny percentage of bone marrow cells in mice.

The other is pluripotent - this means that the cell is somewhat determined, but can become several types of more differentiated cell. For instance, your entire complement of blood cells can be derived from one bone marrow stem cell.

Some scientists refer to these things in "degrees of stemness," but I find using the totipotent and pluripotent terms much easier.

Also, some tissues have stem cells that are there and do nothing until there is an injury. For instance, you have satellite cells in your skeletal muscle that pretty much just sit there and look pretty. However, if your muscle is injured, differentiated muscle cells cannot proliferate to fix it. INstead, the satellite cells proliferate and then differentiate into new muscle.

Does that clear things up? If not, feel free to ask more questions.

I'm at Georgia Tech / Emory University. Where are you, out of curiosity?
I applied to GT, and considered applying to Emory.
My mom did her first two years at the oxford campus there...didn't stay because she thought the people there were weird ;)
not like....bad weird....just like.....ivy league weird

I'm currently about to start my 3rd year at Tulane...and I feel like a total bum for waiting this long to start researching...though I know like...none of the other kids in my class have done anything yet. But I've gotta get lots of research in...so I can figure out what I like, and get to know some teachers- so I might be able to talk to them about this sort of stuff- and hopefully get a good rec. or two (or three preferably)
So what kind of research are you doing with bone marrow...or is this not the appropriate place to ask that?
My research next year is in "neuron plasticity"... so I get to watch motor neurons grow under a microscope...should be pretty exciting...

I'm currently about to start my 3rd year at Tulane...and I feel like a total bum for waiting this long to start researching...though I know like...none of the other kids in my class have done anything yet.

So are you undergrad then? You're getting a head-start on most people even now if you are. Otherwise, I would say you're in a pretty weird program. =)


So what kind of research are you doing with bone marrow...or is this not the appropriate place to ask that?

Briefly, I am interested in cell sourcing for tissue engineered vascular grafts. I think bone marrow progenitor cells might be a good source for smooth muscle, if I can figure out the most important differentiation cues.

My research next year is in "neuron plasticity"... so I get to watch motor neurons grow under a microscope...should be pretty exciting...

Sounds interesting, my thesis advisor has done a lot of neural work. Anyways, telegram me if you want to discuss stuff further, otherwise we're just hijacking the thread =)

If you had the answer to the cure for Cancer, wich could save millions of lives, would'nt it be immoral NOT to use it, no matter what its made from?

whats a little bit of genetic material compared to that?