NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_1

A new method that doesnt harm the embryo has been developed but some Christian groups are still against it. Why? Because the single cell that they take from the embryo could possibly split from the embryo and become another embryo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_1

A new method that doesnt harm the embryo has been developed but some Christian groups are still against it. Why? Because the single cell that they take from the embryo could possibly split from the embryo and become another embryo.
I don't know why people are wasting time trying to please the radical lunatics who oppose stem cell research due to the baby-killingness of it. If they don't want their children treated with the products of stem cell research, fine. If they don't want their embryos to be used for stem cell research, fine. Beyond that, they can shut the hell up until after they've passed a few developmental biology classes.

"Frozen Embryos? Guess what? They're not alive! They're frozen! ... There's nothing to debate! It's not up for discussion! Don't let that idiot in the White House go, 'Well maybe...' They're not alive! You could defrost one like a mini-pizza. It's still not alive! It has the potential for life. But otherwise, it's a mini-pizza. If frozen embryos are alive, then the government should send national guard troops to every supermarket in america to guard the frozen sections, going, 'Back off! The clam strips could come back to life!' "-Lewis Black

Y'know, Bottle, LG, I wish you'd just come out and say what you think on issues like this.

I desire to associate myself with those sentiments.

They should just find a way to grow stem cells on their own, separately from any embryo/etc. They might have to take some from an embryo to start with, of course.

I don't know why people are wasting time trying to please the radical lunatics who oppose stem cell research due to the baby-killingness of it. If they don't want their children treated with the products of stem cell research, fine. If they don't want their embryos to be used for stem cell research, fine. Beyond that, they can shut the hell up until after they've passed a few developmental biology classes.


Agreed.


They try to appease them and come up with somethign that addresses their concerns and they say it raises more questions than it does help anything. Screw them.

If God didn't want us to be scientific, he would not have given us such large brains.

Y'know, Bottle, LG, I wish you'd just come out and say what you think on issues like this.
You know, I do tend to be a bit too softspoken. It's a failing of mine which I have often lamented.

:D

They should just find a way to grow stem cells on their own, separately from any embryo/etc. They might have to take some from an embryo to start with, of course.
Just FYI:

If we could create fully functional pluripotent human cells out of nothing, stem cell research would be totally irrelevant. :)

Y'know, Bottle, LG, I wish you'd just come out and say what you think on issues like this.

I desire to associate myself with those sentiments.

I think that there are many ethical and possibly even moral question that should be asked in science. But I draw the line at scientific development being held hostage by the religious dogma of the church.

edit: I think I missed the sarcasm. :p

They should just find a way to grow stem cells on their own, separately from any embryo/etc. They might have to take some from an embryo to start with, of course.
That's what's happening now. There haven't been any embryonic stem cells harvested in the US for some time now - they're all taken from cultures grown from cells harvested several years ago, IIRC.

So they don't want us to kill babies, but it's ok to let the elderly suffer till their last breath?

They should just find a way to grow stem cells on their own, separately from any embryo/etc. They might have to take some from an embryo to start with, of course.


well according to the article:
The new technique takes just a single cell from an early-stage embryo and uses it to seed a line of stem cells. The rest of the embryo retains the potential to develop into a healthy human.

So they don't want us to kill babies, but it's ok to let the elderly suffer till their last breath?
Yep. Where have you been?

The new technique takes just a single cell from an early-stage embryo and uses it to seed a line of stem cells. The rest of the embryo retains the potential to develop into a healthy human.
But ... but ... what if that one cell was going to cure cancer ... or ... or ... write speeches for W? :rolleyes:

You know, I do tend to be a bit too softspoken. It's a failing of mine which I have often lamented.

:D

I know, you're such a quiet individual, it's shocking to see you actually take a stand on something...

*cough*

The new technique takes just a single cell from an early-stage embryo and uses it to seed a line of stem cells. The rest of the embryo retains the potential to develop into a healthy human.

Ya know, it's interesting. I don't know biology too well, but I assume the number of cell divisions is pretty set by evolutionary biology. If you take a single cell from...say...an embryo that has divided enough to have...say...200 or so cells, then wouldn't that embryo develop into a child missing a significant amount of body mass?

Ya know, it's interesting. I don't know biology too well, but I assume the number of cell divisions is pretty set by evolutionary biology. If you take a single cell from...say...an embryo that has divided enough to have...say...200 or so cells, then wouldn't that embryo develop into a child missing a significant amount of body mass?
That's a good question, one I imagine the people working on this have considered before announcing it. Like the cold fusion guys did, you know. Depends on how early is "early-stage," I guess.

Ya know, it's interesting. I don't know biology too well, but I assume the number of cell divisions is pretty set by evolutionary biology. If you take a single cell from...say...an embryo that has divided enough to have...say...200 or so cells, then wouldn't that embryo develop into a child missing a significant amount of body mass?
No. The others compensate and divide as necessary. It's one of the things that make stem cells so interesting.

Frankly I think this shows what the true problem is.

Life-Nazis are really just pro-death. They don't want the treatment to be available at all. Next they'll be faulting scientists for losing skin cells when they brush against something.

I say that once stem-cell treatments are found, anyone who was "Pro-Life" on stem cell research can go without treatment. After all, if it's so morally wrong to find a treatment to save real lives, clearly they don't need the treatment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_1

A new method that doesnt harm the embryo has been developed but some Christian groups are still against it. Why? Because the single cell that they take from the embryo could possibly split from the embryo and become another embryo.

ive see other moves like this.. while some christian groups still oppose it.. so do many scientific and research groups.. claiming this is an unesseary step, that there is no reason not to work off of embrionic stem cells.. even though society has clearly identified ethical and moral questions. There are two sides to this coin.

Ya know, it's interesting. I don't know biology too well, but I assume the number of cell divisions is pretty set by evolutionary biology. If you take a single cell from...say...an embryo that has divided enough to have...say...200 or so cells, then wouldn't that embryo develop into a child missing a significant amount of body mass?
Nah, it's not as if the child has only one stem cell per pluripotency (produces all cells in one of three germ layers, or different groups of cells making up the body). There are 128 cells before the three different germ layers begin to even position themselves for differentiation. Taking one won't harm the whole, there're too many similar cells willing to take over the process.

Just FYI:

If we could create fully functional pluripotent human cells out of nothing, stem cell research would be totally irrelevant. :)

I think I know what you mean, but I'm no biologist. I had to look "pluripotent" up in the dictionary.

For these zealot groups, taking a stance means throwing rational thought out the window. They just cover their ears and scream "U R BABYKILLAs !!!!111oneonene" and write to their Republican Senator until they get their way.

Frankly I think this shows what the true problem is.

Life-Nazis are really just pro-death. They don't want the treatment to be available at all. Next they'll be faulting scientists for losing skin cells when they brush against something.

I say that once stem-cell treatments are found, anyone who was "Pro-Life" on stem cell research can go without treatment. After all, if it's so morally wrong to find a treatment to save real lives, clearly they don't need the treatment.
You'd need to enforce that with anti-vivisection protestors and most modern pharmaceuticals first.

Nah, it's not as if the child has only one stem cell per pluripotency (produces all cells in one of three germ layers, or different groups of cells making up the body). There are 128 cells before the three different germ layers begin to even position themselves for differentiation. Taking one won't harm the whole, there're too many similar cells willing to take over the process.

Ah ok, I wasn't sure if an embryo would "adapt" to losing some of its cells, or would that just mean that that cell, and all its future divisions, would be missing when it develops fully.

Although I shouldn't have assumed the process would be so delicate, I imagine some embryodic cells just die in the process, without having duplicated, and the embryo doesn't suffer much for it.

Life-Nazis are really just pro-death.
I have wondered what the religious would do if someone invented a way for humans to be immortal.

You'd need to enforce that with anti-vivisection protestors and most modern pharmaceuticals first.

Works for me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_1

A new method that doesnt harm the embryo has been developed but some Christian groups are still against it. Why? Because the single cell that they take from the embryo could possibly split from the embryo and become another embryo.

This whole thing is bullshit. It's like saying that every person is a murderer a billion times over, because every cell in their body has the genetic potential to become an entire human being.

This is why I don't buy that bullshit about "science needs religion to provide it with an ethical direction." In my experience, athiests and scientists have a far greater grasp of ethics and morality than religious devotees.

This whole thing is bullshit. It's like saying that every person is a murderer a billion times over, because every cell in their body has the genetic potential to become an entire human being.
It's not quite the same as that; if the early stage stem cell taken is totipotent (could potentially become anything) then it could technically still become a whole human, much like twins. Most cells in an adult human body are terminally differentiated and so have no external potential - they'd die on their own, unsupported by the whole. Even the later, pluripotent cells taken couldn't form a whole human, as they could only form some (but not all) of the later differentiated cells. If it involves harvesting totipotent cells, this new technique really makes no bearing on the ehtical debate surrounding stem cells.

Frankly I think this shows what the true problem is.

Life-Nazis are really just pro-death. They don't want the treatment to be available at all. Next they'll be faulting scientists for losing skin cells when they brush against something.

I say that once stem-cell treatments are found, anyone who was "Pro-Life" on stem cell research can go without treatment. After all, if it's so morally wrong to find a treatment to save real lives, clearly they don't need the treatment.
I think everyone who wants do stem-cell research should all move to someplace where it is legal (read: South Korea) and just cure the fuck outta all the deseases, and hold out on giving the technology to the countries that banned the research.:p

Ah ok, I wasn't sure if an embryo would "adapt" to losing some of its cells, or would that just mean that that cell, and all its future divisions, would be missing when it develops fully.

Although I shouldn't have assumed the process would be so delicate, I imagine some embryodic cells just die in the process, without having duplicated, and the embryo doesn't suffer much for it.
Biology has to be at least somewhat spontanious. The right conditions can never be garanteed, so it has to adapt on the fly to survive.

LG's first elaborate post quoting LB pretty much sums it up for me.

What's more interesting - stemcell research in Germany is very restricted because of the sanctity of human life; that's why German scientists often use adult stem cells to do their research without harming or destroying embryos.

I don't consider an embryo a life, though - it only gets to have the person's rights once it is born (or close to be born), other than that it's just a heap of cells. Hell, I crap out more cells every time I go to the John than what an embryo has as a basis of existence in the beginning. Potential doesn't mean anything.

Now, what I don't get is how one can argue about "the lives destroyed" when at the same time, they blatantly disregard those lives already in existence which could be helped and healed by stemcell research.

On those 'Christian Groups', well, they really ought to shut the fuck up.

I don't consider an embryo a life, though - it only gets to have the person's rights once it is born (or close to be born), other than that it's just a heap of cells. Hell, I crap out more cells every time I go to the John than what an embryo has as a basis of existence in the beginning. Potential doesn't mean anything.

Now, what I don't get is how one can argue about "the lives destroyed" when at the same time, they blatantly disregard those lives already in existence which could be helped and healed by stemcell research.
There's a huge difference between the cells you crap out and the cells in an embryo. On the other hand, I sort of agree with you. An embryo has no rights - it can't think, feel, emote...all it has is that probability it will come to term. The potential of an embryo and the potential of a viable foetus are very different though, in my book at least.

As for the lives destroyed thing. To someone against ESC testing, the embryo may as well be another human. It only follows that the 'human' embryo shouldn't be forced to give up its life to save another, or even many. It all hinges around that definition of humanity.

There's a huge difference between the cells you crap out and the cells in an embryo. On the other hand, I sort of agree with you. An embryo has no rights - it can't think, feel, emote...all it has is that probability it will come to term. The potential of an embryo and the potential of a viable foetus are very different though, in my book at least.

As for the lives destroyed thing. To someone against ESC testing, the embryo may as well be another human. It only follows that the 'human' embryo shouldn't be forced to give up its life to save another, or even many. It all hinges around that definition of humanity.
Totally agree with your post.
(And while I do know of the difference between stemcells and specialized cells like those in my intestines - it was too good a phrase to not use it.)

Totally agree with your post.
(And while I do know of the difference between stemcells and specialized cells like those in my intestines - it was too good a phrase to not use it.)
:D

I get too serious with stuff like this; my sarcasm-o-meter and comedy monitors lose all power.

If God didn't want us to be scientific, he would not have given us such large brains.

Yes, but just because he gave us gunds doesn't mean He wants us to use them.

Yes, but just because he gave us gunds doesn't mean He wants us to use them.
Unless you mean Ron Burgundy-style guns, he didn't give us those.

I'm pretty ambivalent over stem-cell research - got a foot in each camp - but as this everyone's been in favour so far, I'll play devil's advocate (if it had been the other way round, I'd probably be posting in favour of it myself :))

I think one of the objections to any form of stem cell research where the 'donor' is an embryo is that it violates the sanctity of human life; regardless of whether you have frozen the embryo, or whether you've harvested a cell from a living one, you're treating the little lifeform as an object rather than a human life. Given that the belief that a foetus, an embryo, is a person rather that a thing is one of the main tenets of most of the religious objectors to stem cell research, you'd have to expect them to object, surely?

It's not quite the same as that; if the early stage stem cell taken is totipotent (could potentially become anything) then it could technically still become a whole human, much like twins.

But that's just the thing: a totipotent cell could potentially become anything...including one person, or two people, or three people...that's how identical twins come about, after all. They start as a single cell just like the rest of us. So when the anti-stem-cell crowd says that a fertilized egg or early zygote is "a person," then what happens when it splits into twins? Or tripplets? It's one person broken in half? or thirds?

If you try to define the value of something based on what it may (or may not) one day become, you run into a whole pile of trouble. Especially when you're talking about totipotent cells!

(I realize you probably know most/all of this already, since you seem to know quite a bit about stem cells, so this post is really addressed more generally and not just at you. :))


Most cells in an adult human body are terminally differentiated and so have no external potential - they'd die on their own, unsupported by the whole.

So will a totipotent stem cell. Try sticking one in a dish by itself, and see how far it gets. Totipotent cells aren't actually totipotent all by themselves; by themselves, they will never become anything other than what they are, because they must be "told" to divide and/or differentiate.

That, indeed, is the whole problem right now: we can't figure out how to send exactly the right signals to pluripotent or totipotent cells. We want to be able to take a stem cell and "tell" it to become the kind of cell we need (like using a stem cell to grow a new liver, or something). But we can't yet do that, and the cells won't do all by themselves.


Even the later, pluripotent cells taken couldn't form a whole human, as they could only form some (but not all) of the later differentiated cells. If it involves harvesting totipotent cells, this new technique really makes no bearing on the ehtical debate surrounding stem cells.
A lot of research is focused on figuring out how to make pluripotent (or even mere multipotent) cells capable of "turning back the clock" on their own differentiation. Hell, in theory it might even be possible to "reverse engineer" stem cells from non-stem cells. All the DNA is there, we would just have to figure out what to do with it!

:D
I get too serious with stuff like this; my sarcasm-o-meter and comedy monitors lose all power.
No harm done at all, my hard-rockin' amigo! It's actually good to know that others have their stuff down as well. :p

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_1

A new method that doesnt harm the embryo has been developed but some Christian groups are still against it. Why? Because the single cell that they take from the embryo could possibly split from the embryo and become another embryo.

We already have another procedure that's doing the same thing (taking a blastomere) and it doesn't harm the fetus. Proven over 10 years.

And if splitting is bad...

hey, how is two worse than one?

A new method that doesnt harm the embryo has been developed but some Christian groups are still against it. Why? Because the single cell that they take from the embryo could possibly split from the embryo and become another embryo.

The new technique takes just a single cell from an early-stage embryo and uses it to seed a line of stem cells. The rest of the embryo retains the potential to develop into a healthy human.

Except for the fact that it's frozen and destined for the sewer?

It's not quite the same as that; if the early stage stem cell taken is totipotent (could potentially become anything) then it could technically still become a whole human, much like twins.

But what are the actual chances? Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is worth preparing for that scenario.