NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple Poll: Are you for stem cell research? And if so, what type?

I am against embryonic stem cell research because it is ineffective and morally questionable, where as research into adult stem cells has shown great promise.

Where do you stand?

Simple Poll: Are you for stem cell research? And if so, what type?

I am against embryonic stem cell research because it is ineffective and morally questionable, where as research into adult stem cells has shown great promise.

Where do you stand?

I argue from a rather Utilitarian position.

I am for embryonic stem cell research, becaues stem cells are not sentient, much less sapient, beings. They have no personhood, thus very low moral consideration. The loss of a cell is no where near the moral significance as the loss of a person, prima facie. They have no interests, no desires, and they cannot feel pain/pleasure. They are like an organic version of rocks in moral consideration-terms. People are not important simply because they are members of homo sapiens, but for their rational attributes. Something so devoid of those attributes isn't a person.

Society can potentially benefit dramatically from the use of the more potent embryonic stem cells. They are simply more useful from what I have seen. The benefits of the large group of people outweighs, in my opinion, the deteriment to the masses of non-sentient clumps of biomass. I don't really see the huge moral quandry arising from this. It's not logical to make such a leap entailing: "all potential X's have the same rights/protections/privlidges as actual X's." Like an early fetus, an embroynic stem cell is not a person. It might be some day, if the conditions are right. However, the conditions of the agreement are not met. You don't HAVE to bring anything into existence, but moral obligation arises when you cause existent beings suffering.

Adult stem cells are useful, but embyronic ones have far more potential. Yes, there are problems with the research now, but that's because the research is rather in a stage of infancy. It needs to be developed and not held back.

If abortion is not a crime then why should utilizing the stem cells of an embryo be?

stem cells are pretty neat :)

i just think that adults are better harvesting sources than embryos because a lot of work goes into that dinky mass of cells, why waste it on science?

stem cells are pretty neat :)

i just think that adults are better harvesting sources than embryos because a lot of work goes into that dinky mass of cells, why waste it on science?
I just don't think I can take this much longer.

I just don't think I can take this much longer.

what's wrong with that comment?

what's wrong with that comment?


Well, we can begin with "utterly baffling to the point of I don't know what the hell you ment." ;)

Well, here lies the rub:

Adult stem cells are as potent as embryonic stem cells. New(ish) research indicates that adult stem cells harvested from bone marrow have the capability of being as effective as embryonic stem cells. On top of that, Adult stem cells do not form cancerous masses when used, and even better, are already used to treat diseases! With those in mind, why waste money on embryonic stem cells?

Linky: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1826

Well, here lies the rub:

Adult stem cells are as potent as embryonic stem cells. New(ish) research indicates that adult stem cells harvested from bone marrow have the capability of being as effective as embryonic stem cells. On top of that, Adult stem cells do not form cancerous masses when used, and even better, are already used to treat diseases! With those in mind, why waste money on embryonic stem cells?

Linky: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1826

I don't know about new research on it. Perhaps information has changed. I am basing my understanding of stem cells from my 2004-5 edition textbook from Biology I college edition. "Biology: Concepts and Connections" 5th edition.

I was taught that stem cells from embryonic sources are able to form almost infinite types of other cells, while adult ones are generally not.

If it's true. I would have to see more research. I don't know if the consensus of research is that. Thanks for the info, though.

PS: The article says the finding is yet to be confirmed. If so, it would be a boon, but they seem to be skeptical in the article.

I don't know about new research on it. Perhaps information has changed. I am basing my understanding of stem cells from my 2004-5 edition textbook from Biology I college edition. "Biology: Concepts and Connections" 5th edition.

I was taught that stem cells from embryonic sources are able to form almost infinite types of other cells, while adult ones are generally not.

wrong - a stem cell is any cell that has not altered its chemistry to suit only one particular type. The problem with stem cells in general is that they require stimuli to engage in certain "fates" of cells, to become the target. Adult stem cells haven't had much success - not because they're hard to transform - but rather it's hard to convince adults to donate stem cells, whereas embryos are popped out as soon as people get in bed [well, not THAT easily...]. Embroynic stem cells are easier to manipulate because there isn't a tangled mass of "normal" cells getting in the way. The real glitch you get is whether you want to say an embryo is a human or not [or if human, whether it holds as much a "right" as an adult human does, or whatever the jargon you use]. Soooooo... science follows the rule of parsimony, meaning it's easier to use embroynic stem cells, ergo they are better - in truth, they're just as good.

If it's true. I would have to see more research. I don't know if the consensus of research is that. Thanks for the info, though.

PS: The article says the finding is yet to be confirmed. If so, it would be a boon, but they seem to be skeptical in the article.

I have no breakthrough research, but NIH has the best details on adult stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp [adult version]
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp [embryo version]

an article written by a proponent of adult stem cells:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

wrong - a stem cell is any cell that has not altered its chemistry to suit only one particular type. The problem with stem cells in general is that they require stimuli to engage in certain "fates" of cells, to become the target. Adult stem cells haven't had much success - not because they're hard to transform - but rather it's hard to convince adults to donate stem cells, whereas embryos are popped out as soon as people get in bed [well, not THAT easily...]. Embroynic stem cells are easier to manipulate because there isn't a tangled mass of "normal" cells getting in the way. The real glitch you get is whether you want to say an embryo is a human or not [or if human, whether it holds as much a "right" as an adult human does, or whatever the jargon you use]. Soooooo... science follows the rule of parsimony, meaning it's easier to use embroynic stem cells, ergo they are better - in truth, they're just as good.

I fail to see how I am largely off it here, since the sources provided seem to agree with me, generally. There are many types of stem cells, and not all have the same potentiality, as they admit in the sources you provide, again. You are also misunderstanding what parsimony means. It doesn't mean "if it's easier, do it! lolz!" Science doesn't use them simply because they are easier. THat's not what the principle of parsimony is. The Principle of Parsimony is a means of determining what theories are most likely more correct by choosing the one that is simplest, yet fits the evidence.

There's a fundamental difference in the overall utility between embryonic and adult stem cells. You repeating otherwise won't change that. However, I am not saying an embryo isn't human. Personhood and human species are not synonomous.


Even the article from New Scientist basically says what I am saying. I'll quote my book if you want for a full explanation of stem cells. Many adult stem cells cannot do what embryonic ones do, because they are not as malleable. From the source:

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use [...] adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. [...] Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent.. The same is not true for adult.



Essentially what I explained. Stem cells that come from embryonic sources are considered by most scientists more malleable. Certain types of THESE cells are able to form, potentially, vastly more functions than adult stem cells. Adult cells are often, as they explain, limited to merely reproducing their own type of cells, while stem cells from embryonic souces are not so limited. They have infinitely more use in that regard.

Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.. Although this is not 100% true, embryonic cells they claim are more plastic.

This is from the source YOU quoted. Adult stems cells ARE less useful because of their generally limited plasticity compared to their competitors. New research, however, has yet to be confirmed on the NEw Scientist article the OP mentioned.

I haven't found anything about the new research, though if it does end up working out, it will end the "embryonic stem cells are more potent than adult stem cells" debate. On top of that, there are the issues of cancerous lumps caused by embryonic stem cells, and the lack of current clinical treatments resulting from the use of embryonic stem cells(which, unlike adult stem cells, have not been used to treat any conditions). I also think that, no matter how controversial something is, if there is potential to make money off of it, private enterprise will invest in it. The lack of money in embryonic stem cells from private industry tells me that there is little future, while there is a large amount of money being put into adult stem cell research by private industry.

I did find a link on the university's website: http://www.stemcell.umn.edu/training/

Link for stem cell effectiveness: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031228-114541-5034r.htm

I haven't found anything about the new research, though if it does end up working out, it will end the "embryonic stem cells are more potent than adult stem cells" debate. On top of that, there are the issues of cancerous lumps caused by embryonic stem cells, and the lack of current clinical treatments resulting from the use of embryonic stem cells(which, unlike adult stem cells, have not been used to treat any conditions). I also think that, no matter how controversial something is, if there is potential to make money off of it, private enterprise will invest in it. The lack of money in embryonic stem cells from private industry tells me that there is little future, while there is a large amount of money being put into adult stem cell research by private industry.

I did find a link on the university's website: http://www.stemcell.umn.edu/training/

Link for stem cell effectiveness: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031228-114541-5034r.htm
A big part of the reason for that is because the scientists involved can't use any government money or equipment donated by the government in the use of studying embryonic stem cells. That means, not even so much as a microscope. The money, in the current climate of the United States, is used more effectively when dealing with adult stem cells.

It's simple for me. I use the Bill Hicks theorem: "Until you're in my phone book, you're not a person."

Of course, he's joking to make a point.

My point would be this: since the embryonic cells that are on ice are NOT going to be implanted as intended pregnancies, and are going to be thrown away ("murdered", for all you pro-life lunatics...a trash can's as good as any other way to die), why not find out what good can come of them?

This superstition baffles me in the same way as the one most humans still seem to have about the body after death. It's an empty shell. Even if you believe in souls, it's gone at death, ain't it? Why are we wasting land and money on burying them? And what, then, is the objection to donation for either viable organ transplant or scientific research or cadaver practice for student doctors? I'll never understand the adherence to that superstition, just like I can't understand couples who aren't happy with God's pronouncement of infertility which led to this whole surplus-of-embryos mess to begin with.

GOD SAID YOU'RE BARREN! Who are you to play God and impregnate yourself in an artifical way? See how DUMB that sounds? And then, just because Mr. & Mrs. No-Child simply MUST have mewling cabbages that look like them, kids who desperately NEED parents are left without. Artificial fertility is one of the most unenlightenedly self-interested uses of science ever.

Whoa. Off topic a bit there. Sorry.

It's simple for me. I use the Bill Hicks theorem: "Until you're in my phone book, you're not a person."

Of course, he's joking to make a point.

My point would be this: since the embryonic cells that are on ice are NOT going to be implanted as intended pregnancies, and are going to be thrown away ("murdered", for all you pro-life lunatics...a trash can's as good as any other way to die), why not find out what good can come of them?

This superstition baffles me in the same way as the one most humans still seem to have about the body after death. It's an empty shell. Even if you believe in souls, it's gone at death, ain't it? Why are we wasting land and money on burying them? And what, then, is the objection to donation for either viable organ transplant or scientific research or cadaver practice for student doctors? I'll never understand the adherence to that superstition, just like I can't understand couples who aren't happy with God's pronouncement of infertility which led to this whole surplus-of-embryos mess to begin with.

GOD SAID YOU'RE BARREN! Who are you to play God and impregnate yourself in an artifical way? See how DUMB that sounds? And then, just because Mr. & Mrs. No-Child simply MUST have mewling cabbages that look like them, kids who desperately NEED parents are left without. Artificial fertility is one of the most unenlightenedly self-interested uses of science ever.

Whoa. Off topic a bit there. Sorry.

OH SHIT! NS GENERAL IS ON FIRE FROM ALL THE FLAMING!

That being said, (directed at Desperate Measures) I'm willing to bet that Phizer would have no problem setting aside a few hundred million dollars for research into embryonic stem cell research (the amount spent on adult stem cells total).

OH SHIT! NS GENERAL IS ON FIRE FROM ALL THE FLAMING!

That being said, (directed at Desperate Measures) I'm willing to bet that Phizer would have no problem setting aside a few hundred million dollars for research into embryonic stem cell research (the amount spent on adult stem cells total).
I really don't know enough about that specific company to talk about what they would do with their massive amount of money.

Although this particular issue has been debated thoroughly here, i still want Dempublicents1 to have a swing at it.

Not bad though.

Simple Poll: Are you for stem cell research? And if so, what type?

I am against embryonic stem cell research because it is ineffective and morally questionable, where as research into adult stem cells has shown great promise.

Where do you stand?

Ineffective? How so?

Have any FDA-approved therapies yet come out of embryonic stem cell research? No. Of course, we've been researching adult stem cells for much, much longer and they are much, much easier to work with. Of course, they also are more limited in their uses.

Well, here lies the rub:

Adult stem cells are as potent as embryonic stem cells. New(ish) research indicates that adult stem cells harvested from bone marrow have the capability of being as effective as embryonic stem cells. On top of that, Adult stem cells do not form cancerous masses when used, and even better, are already used to treat diseases! With those in mind, why waste money on embryonic stem cells?

Linky: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1826

MAPCs, if these researchers have really found them in human adults, are interesting - and may be useful. However, even in mice - in which cells are generally much easier to work with - they are much more difficult to isolate in useful numbers and to keep undifferentiated long enough to obtain a larger number of cells. They represent an infinitesimally small number of cells within the body, have not - even in mice - been shown to be truly totipotent (although they are very multipotent), and do not have the proliferative potential of embryonic stem cells.

In other words, they are not actually as potent as embryonic stem cells.

And, it is interesting that you bring up cancer. Embryonic stem cells are the closest healthy cells in development to cancer cells. Another big research area for embryonic stem cells is cancer research. If we can figure out exactly how embryonic stem cells turn off the tumor-causing elements they contain, we can use that to help treat cancer. In addition, tumors are caused if you simply inject untreated embryonic stem cells into an animal. There is no evidence that tumors form if some differentiation is achieved before use.

And yes, adult stem cells are already used to treat disease. Have been since the 70's, IIRC. That does not, however, mean that we should not research all possible therapies for a given disease. It's like saying, "Penicillin has been used to treat disease, therefore we should never research any other drugs for any disease."

I haven't found anything about the new research, though if it does end up working out, it will end the "embryonic stem cells are more potent than adult stem cells" debate.

No, it won't. It would suggest that embryonic stem cells are not the only totipotent stem cells, but as far as therapies go, would not end the entire debate. There are other issues to consider in how potent a given treatment can be for a disease.

On top of that, there are the issues of cancerous lumps caused by embryonic stem cells,

If they are injected untreated, yes. If they are differentiated first, no.

and the lack of current clinical treatments resulting from the use of embryonic stem cells(which, unlike adult stem cells, have not been used to treat any conditions).

(a) You wouldn't expect equal numbered clinical treatments from something that has been researched for ~15 years vs. something that has been researched for well over 50.
(b) Lack of funding has led to much less reserach into embryonic stem cells - especially in the US.
(c) Actually, embryonic stem cells have been used in cardiac therapies - although this has not yet been tested in the US.

I also think that, no matter how controversial something is, if there is potential to make money off of it, private enterprise will invest in it.

Wrong. Private enterprise will generally not invest in basic science research at all. The returns on such an investment are generally too far down the road for private enterprise to worry about it. They want something that will make money within a relatively short period of time.

Meanwhile, relegating any basic science research to private industry will stunt it. Private industry is too secretive - meaning that scientists in one lab cannot benefit from the results of another. As it is, you might get 3 or 4 major labs that try out a given hypothesis and separately disprove it. They publish on it, and everyone else knows that such a line of research is a dead end. With private industry, every company would have to hit the same dead end - as they do not communicate accross companies.

The lack of money in embryonic stem cells from private industry tells me that there is little future, while there is a large amount of money being put into adult stem cell research by private industry.

Wow, you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, do you? Nearly every available embryonic stem cell line comes from private industry. And while private industry isn't necessarily involved, private investors are investing heavily in embryonic stem cell research - leading to entire centers for research in places like Harvard.

Private industry generally won't fund the actual research - but they don't fund basic science research in adult stem cells either. The difference here is that embryonic stem cell research is largely still in the basic science stage, while adult stem cell research has been around long enough to move a great deal of it into more advanced stages.

Once again, this is like arguing that we already have penicillin, and should thus cease all research into further medications.