NationStates Jolt Archive

...

psssh.

bump

Yay. As always.

Yay.

Yay/yes.

Why not?

Unfortunately, Abortion is currently legal now, so we might as well use stem cells from dead fetuses if the mom consents, just like donating a organ. In this way, we might save more lives.

There's better sources for stem cells than embryos. I don't see why all the debate, really.

yes

I support it for medical purposes and research. There is no reason to deprive ourselves of a useful tool because it involves something 'sacred'.

We spend billions on space research while the majority lives in misery but heading into a garbage bin for miracles is immoral? :rolleyes:

Why not?

Unfortunately, Abortion is currently legal now, so we might as well use stem cells from dead fetuses if the mom consents, just like donating a organ. In this way, we might save more lives.

You do know that none of the embryonic stem cell lines came from aborted fetuses, don't you?

Nor would they, really, as most embryos have gotten past the stage in which you can extract embryonic stem cells before an abortion occurs.

All but one of the lines I know of came from frozen IVF fetuses that were slated for destruction otherwise. The other came from a Korean experiment in therapeutic cloning.

There's better sources for stem cells than embryos. I don't see why all the debate, really.

There are no sources for embryonic stem cells other than embryos, hence the name.

And adult stem cells are not better, they are just different. In many ways, they are less useful.

Stem Cell Research may hold the key to my plan of growing a protective bone shell around my genitals. :)

Oh, and curing all sorts of awful diseases too.

Also, what few people realize is that Embryonic stem cells, being the easiest to manipulate are the best to experiment with... but that doesn't mean that they will be used in treatments! There are other, potentially larger sources of viable(if less efficient) stem cells. But using them only in research is like making the scientists all work with blindfolds on.

There are no sources for embryonic stem cells other than embryos, hence the name.

And adult stem cells are not better, they are just different. In many ways, they are less useful.
And yet, more useful as well... and there is umbilical cord stem cells.

The thing Im curious about it why people think it's being banned, when it's simply not being funded at a federal level.

Private sector.... or how bout some other country step up to the plate and take a swing....

I think harvesting stem cells from embroyos is unnecessary, though I support stem cell research.

And yet, more useful as well... and there is umbilical cord stem cells.

Possibly more useful in some applications.

Umbilical stem cells fall in between embryonic and adult stem cells. They are still not totipotent, nor are they as easy to grow.

The thing Im curious about it why people think it's being banned, when it's simply not being funded at a federal level.

(a) Bush wanted the general public to think it was being banned so that he would look good to his conservative base.

(b) Not funding at a federal level essentially bans it, as most basic science research occurs in the university research system - largely funded by institutions such as the NIH.

Private sector.... or how bout some other country step up to the plate and take a swing....

Private sector is useless for basic science - and anything basic science taking place there will take 2-3 times as long, as they do not fully publish their results.

Other countries are also working on it. However, do you really want the US to be the country that is behind in technology, especially when we are the best equipped to study it?

Possibly more useful in some applications.

Umbilical stem cells fall in between embryonic and adult stem cells. They are still not totipotent, nor are they as easy to grow.

(a) Bush wanted the general public to think it was being banned so that he would look good to his conservative base.

(b) Not funding at a federal level essentially bans it, as most basic science research occurs in the university research system - largely funded by institutions such as the NIH.

Private sector is useless for basic science - and anything basic science taking place there will take 2-3 times as long, as they do not fully publish their results.

Other countries are also working on it. However, do you really want the US to be the country that is behind in technology, especially when we are the best equipped to study it?
Now, don't go putting words or motives behind Bush's words that you don't know. That's not being very honest.

Private sector research can actually go faster than public sector... because there is that profit motive going on.... making it drawn out is counterproductive to the bottom line.

Whether or not I want the US to lag behind technology really is immaterial. I really don't believe in cloning of humans, so if the US lags behind cloning of other countries, I don't care. I do believe there needs to be a balance of ethics and science.

(b) Not funding at a federal level essentially bans it, as most basic science research occurs in the university research system - largely funded by institutions such as the NIH.

?

If we were talking about supercolliders, I would agree with you. Studying quantum mechanics is a huge investment with dudbious results in terms of something that can generate a profit.

Stem cell research is the opposite. Relatively little investment needed and potential windfall profits. I am sure there are tons of biotechs doing stem cell research right now on lines that arent federally funded. Im not sure how they will actually get the cells they need but when money is involved, they will find a way.

Private sector research can actually go faster than public sector... because there is that profit motive going on.... making it drawn out is counterproductive to the bottom line.

Haha, just imagine the money to be made from patenting the manufacture of the final product ;)

But then, either way, the final product will end up belonging to some corporation even if the government does supply 90% of the lead up research. At the same time, lead up breakthroughs being locked into corporate patenting would stifle the development markedly.

I don't really understand what the deal with space exploration atm, if you want the private sector to start funding it, stop trying to find life on Mars, and start trying to find oil and then watch as space travel is made a million times more efficient ;)

I think one thing people mistake though is efficiency and research. Corporations generally stifle research breakthroughs as they work on a model system of one upping the opponent where jumping forward in leaps and bounds is counter productive to the profit motive. The only way you can really get advantageous breakthroughs is in industries like the aforementioned space travel where it would be impossible for one corporation to do it, and require the cooperation of many.

A reworking of the patent system and handing it over to the private market may prove beneficial *possibly* but with the current patent system in place, no chance in hell.

Whether or not I want the US to lag behind technology really is immaterial. I really don't believe in cloning of humans, so if the US lags behind cloning of other countries, I don't care. I do believe there needs to be a balance of ethics and science.

Yeah I don't partciularly like that argument either, take fixing up the crime rate, well if you want to go islamo-fascist in law enforcement, it would fix it up too.

Private sector research can actually go faster than public sector... because there is that profit motive going on.... making it drawn out is counterproductive to the bottom line.

Not in basic science research, which is the stage at which embryonic stem cells are currently being studied. The private sector does not publish their work, nor do they collaborate, as this would lose intellectual property. Thus, they do not have the structures necessary to truly move forward in science.
Private sector research is geared towards a specific application - and you need basic science to back that up.

Whether or not I want the US to lag behind technology really is immaterial. I really don't believe in cloning of humans, so if the US lags behind cloning of other countries, I don't care. I do believe there needs to be a balance of ethics and science.

Well, the US is currently lagging behind other countries in making reproductive cloning illegal, all because of idiotic politicians who are scared of the very word clone.

However, we weren't talking about cloning, now were we? We were talking about stem cell research.

I believe there needs to be a balance of ethics and science too, but what we currently have is one person's ethics at the expense of science.

Stem cell research is the opposite. Relatively little investment needed and potential windfall profits. I am sure there are tons of biotechs doing stem cell research right now on lines that arent federally funded. Im not sure how they will actually get the cells they need but when money is involved, they will find a way.

You have very little idea what you are talking about.

I, on the other hand, am in the biotech research community. I can assure you that, in the university system (where most basic science research occurs), NIH is the name of the game. Meanwhile, all of the "approved" lines have problems with them. Contamination with other animal products is only one of the many associated problems.

Not in basic science research, which is the stage at which embryonic stem cells are currently being studied. The private sector does not publish their work, nor do they collaborate, as this would lose intellectual property. Thus, they do not have the structures necessary to truly move forward in science.
Private sector research is geared towards a specific application - and you need basic science to back that up.

Well, the US is currently lagging behind other countries in making reproductive cloning illegal, all because of idiotic politicians who are scared of the very word clone.

However, we weren't talking about cloning, now were we? We were talking about stem cell research.

I believe there needs to be a balance of ethics and science too, but what we currently have is one person's ethics at the expense of science.
:shakes head:
I do not want to turn this into a "whos ethics is whos". We disagree on that point, and I will leave it at that.

Tell me however, do you believe in cloning? And since you believe in a balancing with ethics, what ethics would you apply to that subject? (I only ask this because I think I know your answer to the stem cell research question)

the other thing with medical research in the private sector, is in the private sector, since it's geared to profits, you primarily would be involved with pharmaceutical companies.

Now if I was the CEO of a pharmaceutical company and someone suggested I start throwing money into researching stem cells to help solve disease, illnesses etc.

I'd probably look at them funny, then I'd laugh, then I'd wonder how they slipped through Darwin's theory and are still breathing, then I'd blame our peaceful culture, then I'd laugh again ;)

Kepp this in mind : Keeping someone on a dialysis machine and related drugs for 40 years is better business sense than giving them a new kidney.

Tell me however, do you believe in cloning? And since you believe in a balancing with ethics, what ethics would you apply to that subject? (I only ask this because I think I know your answer to the stem cell research question)

Reproductive cloning, I believe, is absolutely wrong. You would be creating a human being either just because you can (which is not a good reason) or because you expect them to be something in particular which they will probably not be. Meanwhile, you would also be creating someone with an immediate stigma of being somehow lesser or different. In addition, based on even the best results in cloning lower order mammals, only about 1 in 100 implanted embryos would result in live birth. In other words, for every one clone, 99 women would have to be implanted and either lose the pregnancy early on or deliver stillborn. Not to mention the possible telomere problems...

Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, should absolutely be researched. Not only could it lead to possible therapies to repair injured tissues, but it could also lead to possible replacement therapies that could take the strain off of our current organ donation system. Now, to give you a little insight into my views on this issue, I'll have to tell you a little bit about the research I am involved in:

I am involved in an area known as tissue engineering. Bascially, tissue engineering is using a construct (usually biodegradable) in order to try and regrow a tissue. As a general rule (and this would be especially true with tissues that do not normally regenerate), the construct must be seeded with some sort of cell in order to induce it to form a new tissue. My particular area of interest within tissue engineering is the area of cell sourcing. Currently, I am trying to work on differentiating bone marrow progenitor cells to smooth muscle cells (presumably for the purpose of seeding a vascular graft). This could possibly work in the area of vascular constructs, as injuries to your arteries in vivo are most likely repaired by circulating bone marrow cells. However, even if I manage it, the real issue will be how to get enough progenitor cells to seed a graft without causing significant morbidity to the patient. ((I currently use mouse cells))

I personally believe that therapeutic cloning will lead to the most suitable cell seeding source, as it would allow a virtually unlimited amount of cells that could be differentiated down any line and, here's the best part, would invoke no immune response, as the DNA would belong to the patient.

the other thing with medical research in the private sector, is in the private sector, since it's geared to profits, you primarily would be involved with pharmaceutical companies.

Now if I was the CEO of a pharmaceutical company and someone suggested I start throwing money into researching stem cells to help solve disease, illnesses etc.

I'd probably look at them funny, then I'd laugh, then I'd wonder how they slipped through Darwin's theory and are still breathing, then I'd blame our peaceful culture, then I'd laugh again ;)

Kepp this in mind : Keeping someone on a dialysis machine and related drugs for 40 years is better business sense than giving them a new kidney.
Except that if some rival company did indeed develope the technology to grow that liver, your company would see all the income from those treatments disappear almost overnight. The bottom line is the motivating factor for companies, but they are not stupid about it.

Except that if some rival company did indeed develope the technology to grow that liver, your company would see all the income from those treatments disappear almost overnight. The bottom line is the motivating factor for companies, but they are not stupid about it.

Here's the problem, very few (if any) companies have the money to develop that technology.

Let me explain how private companies in biotech work. Someone does years and years of work in a publicly funded lab, publishing lots and lots of papers. Other people read those papers and go off in other directions and write lots of papers. People read those... Eventually, the research gets to the point when a full-blown application might be developed. Someone goes and gets funding for developing that one particular application. There are 3-5 years where the company spends millions of dollars on research and FDA trials but gets no revenue in return. There are five more years where the company tries to get accepted in the market and tries to get insurance companies to pay for their treatment, and they are still not in the black yet. Then, they start making profits.

Now, that means that even as things are now, there are ten years in which the company is dumping money into a product, and getting next to nothing out of it. Now, you seem to think that they would be willing to fund 10 more years on top of that with no revenue? I doubt it. The truth is, the private sector simply does not fund basic science research - it isn't profitable.

Here's the problem, very few (if any) companies have the money to develop that technology.

Let me explain how private companies in biotech work. Someone does years and years of work in a publicly funded lab, publishing lots and lots of papers. Other people read those papers and go off in other directions and write lots of papers. People read those... Eventually, the research gets to the point when a full-blown application might be developed. Someone goes and gets funding for developing that one particular application. There are 3-5 years where the company spends millions of dollars on research and FDA trials but gets no revenue in return. There are five more years where the company tries to get accepted in the market and tries to get insurance companies to pay for their treatment, and they are still not in the black yet. Then, they start making profits.

Now, that means that even as things are now, there are ten years in which the company is dumping money into a product, and getting next to nothing out of it. Now, you seem to think that they would be willing to fund 10 more years on top of that with no revenue? I doubt it. The truth is, the private sector simply does not fund basic science research - it isn't profitable.

Although I won't disagree that federal funding would speed things up....


In fact, there are at least nine private stem cell research centers across the country. The largest, at Harvard University, employs more than 100 researchers and recently unveiled 17 new stem cell lines.


And:

The vast majority of medical and scientific breakthroughs in this country's history have been accomplished by the private sector. There's no reason for stem cell research to be any different. Let's end the political debate, and get back to scientific research.


http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-29-04-2.html

Anyone who has spent time in academia knows that things move along at a snail's pace.

Stem Cell Research may hold the key to my plan of growing a protective bone shell around my genitals. :)

Oh, and curing all sorts of awful diseases too.

Also, what few people realize is that Embryonic stem cells, being the easiest to manipulate are the best to experiment with... but that doesn't mean that they will be used in treatments! There are other, potentially larger sources of viable(if less efficient) stem cells. But using them only in research is like making the scientists all work with blindfolds on.
but then how would you hehm party with the ladys in bed

Stem Cells may be the answer to many diseases, and medical conditions.
Everyone knows this.
Christopher Reeves might be alive and walking today if the research had been allowed to continue.

I dont think anyone has the right to deny research and development of these cures.
No one has the right to deny hope to anyone.

Fully funding and aiding the research is the only truly moral decision.

Stem cell research is something which would bring both good and bad to the world. If it can cure many diseases how else will we die? only 2 billion more people are needed before we over populate the world. That plus cloning adds bad shit to the population. On the good side you could clone people and get organs from them seeing as we are generally short, it could cure many diseases and help those who are infertile have children or single people have children. We could also clone extinct animals and let them walk again for example the Australian tasmanian tiger.

Genetically engineering plants can also have good and bad effects. It can help 3rd world countries which cannot grow food from pests, by genetically engineering something into them that the bugs don't like. It could be GREAT :p . Though negatively it could kill off many species of aniamls and make a general world inflation.

Other countries are also working on it. However, do you really want the US to be the country that is behind in technology, especially when we are the best equipped to study it?

Why shouldn't other countries have the lead, especially if they can do it more efficiently and more cheaply?

After all there are foreign countries that already come up with medical advances in other areas, the US is not the sole source of innovation for the world.

Except in crappy burgers, we definrtly lead in the crappy burger development field.

I think that the stem cell research should continue as long as it's safe and legal. It's a good idea to do research on new ideas, even if you don't need to at the moment, so if needed in the future you have all the information you need at your finger tips.

I voted yes.
I support stem cell research, always have, and always will.
The benefits that could come out of this, could help tens of thousands of people. I just wish governments would get their noses out of it, and stop using this research as a political football.

knowledge is power: arm yourselves

I don't really understand what the deal with space exploration atm, if you want the private sector to start funding it, stop trying to find life on Mars, and start trying to find oil and then watch as space travel is made a million times more efficient ;)


Sorry if someone said this already, but oil comes from life dumbass. They can't find oil till they not only find evidence of life, but also find shitloads of dead life.

re the topic:
1 - all stem cells good
2 - embryonic stem cells better

all other points of view are either ill-conceived, or are part of the whole "abortion bad" argument.

"abortion bad", incidently, is a valid argument. Even if I do disagree with it strongly.

Sorry if someone said this already, but oil comes from life dumbass. They can't find oil till they not only find evidence of life, but also find shitloads of dead life.

You do not find the plant fossils associated with the creation of oil which is why it's still only a theory.

And there are far more resources than oil.

It's a simple choice, personally I think that fully formed human beings are more important than a bunch of cells floating around in somebodys uterus.

Reproductive cloning, I believe, is absolutely wrong. You would be creating a human being either just because you can (which is not a good reason) or because you expect them to be something in particular which they will probably not be. Meanwhile, you would also be creating someone with an immediate stigma of being somehow lesser or different..
The same was said about test tube babies and IV. I dont think thats an argument. And the because you can thing. There are many couples who want kids but can't have them for whatever reason. IV sometimes takes years before your succesfull. If you are succesfull. Reproductive cloning could solve that problem.

Possibly more useful in some applications.

Umbilical stem cells fall in between embryonic and adult stem cells. They are still not totipotent, nor are they as easy to grow.

I remember a few weeks back that some scientists from the university of Bremen found that there a new source of stemcells. Which they harvested from, not sure if this is proper English, stomach gland. Or something like that. It had the word stomach in it. They believe that these cells can be used for many applications in the same way that embrionalic cells could possibly be used.

I'm all for stem cell research

I remember a few weeks back that some scientists from the university of Bremen found that there a new source of stemcells. Which they harvested from, not sure if this is proper English, stomach gland. Or something like that. It had the word stomach in it. They believe that these cells can be used for many applications in the same way that embrionalic cells could possibly be used.

There are stem cells in many places of your body. Most of them are already lineage-dedicated (such as the stomach stem cells). Some of them are pluripotent (meaning they can become more than one, but not all cell types). The only definitive proof we have of a totipotent (can become all cell types) cell is the embryonic stem cell.

Although I won't disagree that federal funding would speed things up....

Which would be a good thing. The lines in private areas are not available to all of the scienitsts trying to study these things.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-29-04-2.html

Depends on how you define medical breakthrough. Every "medical breakthrough" has years and years of basic science research leading up to it. We are still in the basic science stage with stem cells, especially with embryonic stem cells. And industry does not fund basic science research.

I'd say go for it. Let's just not get into the whole human cloning and what not. I'd be scared to have multiple mes running around. Tis a dangerous thing. Though I wouldn't mind having two of my girlfriend... ;)

Yep, But the government (US) should stay out of it. It's not there business to be there.

I voted yes.
I support stem cell research, always have, and always will.
The benefits that could come out of this, could help tens of thousands of people. I just wish governments would get their noses out of it, and stop using this research as a political football.


If the govt got their noses out of it, there would be no federal funding. As long as the govt is spending taxpayer money on something(stem cell research) they should represent the taxpayers views on the subject. As things stand, the country is pretty divided on some types of stem cell research.

You have very little idea what you are talking about.

I, on the other hand, am in the biotech research community. I can assure you that, in the university system (where most basic science research occurs), NIH is the name of the game. Meanwhile, all of the "approved" lines have problems with them. Contamination with other animal products is only one of the many associated problems.

Since you are in the industry, maybe you could tell us what the state of stem cell research was before the current administration.

Kepp this in mind : Keeping someone on a dialysis machine and related drugs for 40 years is better business sense than giving them a new kidney.
*feels very naive*

I honestly have to say that this had never occured to me, that people might be opposed to curing people of terrible diseases.

*feels very naive*

I honestly have to say that this had never occured to me, that people might be opposed to curing people of terrible diseases.

Yeah, you'd be surprised.

Yep, But the government (US) should stay out of it. It's not there business to be there.

Agreed.

As things stand, the country is pretty divided on some types of stem cell research.

Mostly because the majority of the country is completely uneducated on the subject and think it has to do with abortion or "making Frankensteins."

total support. furthermore, all persons currently opposing stem-cell research should be permanently denied use of any and all cures and treatments derived once that research is performed.

Since you are in the industry, maybe you could tell us what the state of stem cell research was before the current administration.

Well, before the current administration, I was in undergrad, so I wasn't really all that involved in it.

However, my impression is that - in the embryonic stem cell area anyways - things were starting up pretty well. Yes, there were several lines going, but people had begun to realize the problems with the way they are grown and were working to correct that problem so that new lines would not be messed up by poor culture procedure.

Unfortunately, most researchers can not make new lines at this point, because most researchers in the industry do receive some public funding. Thus, we are stuck with a small subset of lines, each of which has significant problems. It's not that research has stopped altogether, it is just that we know there are problems with the current lines, but do not know how much these problems affect our results without something to compare to.

As a for instance:
My lab works with oxygen levels in cell culture. Ever since scientists began culturing cells, they have been doing it in room levels of oxygen. However, the levels in your body are *much* lower than that. High levels of oxygen cause all sorts of problems, both metabolic and mutations. We are currently planning on obtaining some ES cells and growing them at physiologic oxygen levels. However, it is likely that enough damage has already been done that we will not be able to recover it all. The problem is that, without forming a new line that is grown in physiologic oxygen from the start, we won't really have a good comparison.

This is the same with those trying to figure out how to grow ES cells without the mouse feeder layer. Sure, we can experiment with it - but the cells being used have already been grown on a mouse feeder level for many, many passages and may have already been irreversibly altered. It just isn't good science to not have better controls than that.

And as for moving into clinical applications, which is what everyone is wanting to see, *none* of the approved cell lines (or, to my knowledge, *any* current lines in this country) can ever be used in human therapies. They are all too contaminated with products from other animals.