NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an interesting issue worth discussing on an old topic in a new light!

Stem Cell Research

A recent Wallstreet journal report identified a new sientific procedure for producing embrionic stem cells without the need to destroy such embroys. It is a process by where embronic stem cells are fused with normal cells. The embronic stem cell then reconfigures the structure of the normal cell to act like a stem cell.

Many Scientists however oppose this research as they find it "unessesary" one scientists being qouted to say "there is no reason why we shouldn't continue to embronic stem cell research" complaining it would only delay the potential benifits.

Now, while its true changing the shift of this research will most likely have some delay on any potenial benifits, is not this delay worth avoiding the ethical and moral issues currently surrounding this topic ? Science is often moving faster then society is able to socially deal with (for example cloning). Scientists often never stop to say should we? , but rather can we?

Secondly, to use the argument it will cause delays sounds much like the argument made against embrionic stem cell research in the first case. Embronic stem cell research contrary to popular belif is unproven scientifically. We still today have no conclusive results showing its proven benifits, but only speculation. However, adult stem cell lines have show great progress and proven results. Why then should we slow down this research (as is inevidatble as new research funds would not be produced by federal backing of embrionic stem cell research but rather a shifting of funds from other projects like adult lines) from a proven method to an unproven one ?

Needless to say this new discorvery has caught the eye of many law makers and is being considered by the Administration as a possible solution to the ethical issues at hand.

So.. what do you think, should we be persuing alternative stem cell research..or only embrionic stem cell research ?

None of the above. I think we should investigate this method because it can produce embryonic stem cells with the right DNA for a specific patient. But I don't think we should stop research of how to use stem cells until this method is ready to take over all stem cell production. And you can't murder one cell.

Needless to say this new discorvery has caught the eye of many law makers and is being considered by the Administration as a possible solution to the ethical issues at hand.

there aren't any ethical issues at hand

there aren't any ethical issues at hand

Wheather or not you care to recognize them... the destruction of an embroy always poses an ethical issue aside from the idea, do we want to be playing god ?

Or do you argue there are no ethical issues connected to cloning as well ? Most Scientists would disagree if you feel there arn't

what happens to the original embryo? where did it come from? can you take one cell from an embryo and not hurt its development?

Wheather or not you care to recognize them... the destruction of an embroy always poses an ethical issue aside from the idea, do we want to be playing god ?

We play pretend all the time, why not play pretend about this imaginary figure?

Yes, Murder is not needed for the advancement of man

What murder? Do you even know what murder is?

what happens to the original embryo? where did it come from? can you take one cell from an embryo and not hurt its development?

No... to harvest embrionic stem cells.. the embroy has to be destroyed

Yes, Murder is not needed for the advancement of man

What murder? Do you even know what murder is?

Depends on what your definition of life is... those people voting yes will say the potential to be a human, and the termination of that potenial for the intent to kill the person is indeed murder. Obviously if you dont feel killing the embroy is an ethical issue, you will vote no because this procedure becomes unessesary

What, exactly, makes this "unethical"?

Oh, that's right: Your hopelessly skewed and out-of-touch view of "murder".

We take 'lives' to save them. Who cares? We may end up saving a lot more than we 'took.'

We play pretend all the time, why not play pretend about this imaginary figure?

quite a plausible position. Soon genetic engineering will be more fesiable for us. We will be able to create better humans and those not fiting the bill can be terminated. But then we are talking about a revolution in reproduction, because it will be more efficent and effective to produce children in labs then in a bed. This if course is not meant to paint a dark portrayal of the future, unless you personally find this picture dark.. but rather a reality of what would most likely come from following that line of thought.

Depends on what your definition of life is...

No, it depends on what the definition of "murder" is.

those people voting yes will say the potential to be a human, and the termination of that potenial for the intent to kill the person is indeed murder.

No, murder is illegal killing. None of that is illegal, or killing.

Obviously if you dont feel killing the embroy is an ethical issue, you will vote no because this procedure becomes unessesary

No, disposing of a few cells isn't killing. Common sense supports me on that one.

We take 'lives' to save them. Who cares? We may end up saving a lot more than we 'took.'

The ends not justifying the means is always a concern of many. War strife and revolution almost always eventually lead to peace. Are the innocent lives lost a nessesary cost for the result ?

I wonder if your position on stem cell research carries to the Iraq war ? and beyond

We take 'lives' to save them. Who cares? We may end up saving a lot more than we 'took.'

The ends not justifying the means is always a concern of many. War strife and revolution almost always eventually lead to peace. Are the innocent lives lost a nessesary cost for the result ?

I wonder if your position on stem cell research carries to the Iraq war ? and beyond

We take 'lives' to save them. Who cares? We may end up saving a lot more than we 'took.'


The ends not justifying the means is always a concern of many. War strife and revolution almost always eventually lead to peace. Are the innocent lives lost a nessesary cost for the result ?

I wonder if your position on stem cell research carries to the Iraq war ? and beyond

Wheather or not you care to recognize them... the destruction of an embroy always poses an ethical issue aside from the idea, do we want to be playing god ?

ebryonic stem cells are/would be gotten from the excess embryos that are already created in fertilization clinics. hundreds of thousands of these things are already in cold storage and the overwhelmingly vast majority will never develop further, and will eventually be thrown away. and hundreds of thousands more were never frozen in the first place and were disposed of immediately. so the 'ethical dilemma' is one of advancing medical knowledge and quite probably saving many lives by taking the stem cells from some of these already expendable tiny clusters of cells, or refusing to do so and just throwing the whole lot away. in other words, there is no ethical dilemma in embryonic stem cell research.

this whole thing is stupid.

The ends not justifying the means is always a concern of many. War strife and revolution almost always eventually lead to peace. Are the innocent lives lost a nessesary cost for the result ?

I wonder if your position on stem cell research carries to the Iraq war ? and beyond

I dislike the Iragi war with a passion. Truthfully I couldn't think of a way to voice my opinion, so I just blabbed something out. I don't know why I'm for embryonic stem cell research, all I know is I'm not going to say God is the reason why we can't work to save lives.

For you Christians out there advocating against stem cell research. Think of it this way without turning this into a heated religious debate:

Jesus Christ died to get rid of our sins. So technically, he was dying to save everyone else. Correct?

So the embryo is dying to save someone else. Now, it might not be so huge as saving millions of people, but Jesus wasn't an embryo was only human potential.

It isn't murder in the first place. If they're going for Totipotent cells, the cells are used during the first few divisions of the egg. As for embryotic stem cells, the embryo is only, I believe, 50 to 150 cells. It's tiny, it's so undeveloped you can't make literal head or tail out of the thing.

But think about this, folks. Isn't it practically murder to know that you can save someone who is suffering from a, say coronary artery blockage, from dying from heart attack prematurely? At least in this case, the human being is actually developed, has a nervous system and can think for himself.

If you're going to make this specific to murder, STOP TALKING ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH IN GENERAL. One day, we'll all come to terms with the whole 'oh no! they killed a potential human being!' business. But until then, think about the stem cells that come from teh umbilical chords. What are YOU going to do with them?

Personally, I think stem cell research is the way to go. That's my second choice as a job right now.

The ends not justifying the means is always a concern of many. War strife and revolution almost always eventually lead to peace. Are the innocent lives lost a nessesary cost for the result ?

I wonder if your position on stem cell research carries to the Iraq war ? and beyond

War is mass murder (Kind of like your name), stem cell research can hardly be called murder at all. See Free Soviet's post.

But if you won't buy that. Then no, it doesn't extend to the war in Iraq (I'm going to assume you mean the one the American boys and girls are fighting in). Why? Because there was no real reason to head off and bash off someone's leader.

War is different. Very different.

As for revolution, I don't know how I can carry my stem cell research position for something like that seeing as how in no way do they relate to one another. But I like to think that the stem cell research could possibly help someone who was paralysed during the course of the 'strife'.

I don't see what's unethical about the way it is now, seeing as how many of those embryos scientists want to use for stem cell research would be destroyed anyway.

Why argue it?

If the americans want to get more ignorant in the name of religion so be it.

All it means is that americans who want treatment from the discoveries that will arrive; they will fly to Canada, Europe, or where ever.

I am for stemcell research. My wifes family dies rather nasty. Hodgkins, Hunningtons?, and Lou Gerings.

My mom has MS.

So if it cures then what the hell.

many of those embryos scientists want to use for stem cell research would be destroyed anyway.

change that to "all"

i want to see the anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-sex "pro-life" movement take on fertility clinics as evil. it's the only logical thing for them to do, after all. so come on you loonies, get out there and call women who wouldn't otherwise be capable of having children "baby killers". lord jeebus commands it.

Here is an interesting issue worth discussing on an old topic in a new light!

Stem Cell Research

A recent Wallstreet journal report identified a new sientific procedure for producing embrionic stem cells without the need to destroy such embroys. It is a process by where embronic stem cells are fused with normal cells. The embronic stem cell then reconfigures the structure of the normal cell to act like a stem cell.

And once again we see why the media should not be able to report on science - they have no idea what they are talking about.

Stem cells can fuse with adult cells - this is known. However, if they were fusing embryonic stem cells with normal cells, they still had to get the embryonic stem cells!. Thus, to do this, embryos still have to be destroyed!

Embronic stem cell research contrary to popular belif is unproven scientifically.

Nothing can ever be "proven scientifically". However, there is quite a bit of evidence for the use of embryonic stem cells, even a few clinical trials in the works in other countries using them in cardiac ischemia patients.

Why then should we slow down this research (as is inevidatble as new research funds would not be produced by federal backing of embrionic stem cell research but rather a shifting of funds from other projects like adult lines) from a proven method to an unproven one ?

First of all, your assertion that research into embryonic stem cells would necessarily divert funds from research into the uses of adult stem cells is ludicrous. It could be accomplished that way, but there is no reason to assume that it would be.

Second of all, you make the completely erroneous assumption that adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are being researched for use in the same diseases. That is true of a select few diseases, but most embryonic stem cell research involves diseases for which there are no known adult stem cells that can be used.

Third, you assume that embryonic stem cell research can only be used in the curing of disease. In fact, quite a bit of embryonic stem cell research has to do with finding ways to cure cancer. Of all the cells in human development, embryonic stem cells are the closest to cancer cells - but they have mechanisms to block cancerous growth. If we can figure out those mechanisms, cures for cancer may be forthcoming.

So.. what do you think, should we be persuing alternative stem cell research..or only embrionic stem cell research ?

The fact that you make it either or is ludicrous. It is like saying, "Should we research other drugs, or only aspirin?" The potential uses for the two types of stem cells are quite different. There is no reason at all not to put money into both.

Wheather or not you care to recognize them... the destruction of an embroy always poses an ethical issue aside from the idea, do we want to be playing god ?

You are aware, I assume, that, with the exception of therapeutic cloning - which is really only going on in Korea at the moment, the embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are already slated for destruction? You are aware that, if they are not used for research, they are instead incinerated, with no potential to help anyone at all?

what happens to the original embryo? where did it come from? can you take one cell from an embryo and not hurt its development?

Not to get stem cells. I believe it is possible at earlier stages - before the blastocyst is formed, but embryonic stem cells can only be obtained from a blastocyst.

There are scientists working on being able to do this with a blastocyst, but currently they can't really work on it in the states...

Personally, I think stem cell research is the way to go. That's my second choice as a job right now.

It's pretty interesting. I currently work with mouse bone marrow cells, but I may work with embryonic stem cells towards the end of my thesis.