NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm new here, so sorry if this has been talked about recently but, what are your views of stem cell research? Are you for it? Against it? If so why or why not?

I'm new here, so sorry if this has been talked about recently but, what are your views of stem cell research? Are you for it? Against it? If so why or why not?

The real "debate" is over whether or not it will be funded by the US federal government. But it's a moot point. Anyone doing research in this area now has two labs, one which meets the Federal funding guidelines, and one which relies on private funding. Banning federal funding has not inhibited any research. But it gives politicians something to wave flags about ;)

edit to add: No "Myrth" option on the poll? :(

im only against it if it comes from aborted fetus' rather than the adult kind other than that i think it's wonderful.

Just about all topics have been done to death here.

As to your question, yes I am for it. My wifes family has Hodgkin's, ALS, and Huntington's Chorea.

If it can eliminate those ugly diseases, I am all for it.....

im only against it if it comes from aborted fetus' rather than the adult kind other than that i think it's wonderful.
Who cares if its from an aborted fetus? In case you did not notice, its dead.

I support stem cell research of all kinds, as I would like to see a cure found for diseases.

I don't condone the use of Embryonic Stem cells if it is going to destroy the embryo. I support adult stem cell research because it has been used in various human medical treatments. On the other hand, embryonic stems cells have not been able to be used for any medical treatment.

I am not pro-abortion...but I am all for stem cell research. I mean I have never heard of a woman having an abortion just to donate stem cells so why not let something good come from something that isnt good(I didnt say it was...just not good).
The same people who bitch about stem cells come from abortion dont bitch about modern dentistry making advances because torture on prison camp inmates...your fancy root canal and other detal care courtesy of Nazi torture.

Certainly something as extreme as that deserves protesting...but it isnt. Because we as a community gain from it something good.

I am not saying abortion is like Nazi death camps...I am saying even if you think it is bad, why oppose the possibilty of that death bearing a fruit that save others lives?


I am for stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise.
I am also all for people being able to give over their unused embryos from fertility clinics if they so choose to do that, it beats them being just destroyed.

Who cares if its from an aborted fetus? In case you did not notice, its dead.

I support stem cell research of all kinds, as I would like to see a cure found for diseases.

Is stem cell research even performed on fetuses? I was under the impression you had to get those controversial stem cells from embryos, and that those embryos were typically created from IVF.

Is stem cell research even performed on fetuses? I was under the impression you had to get those controversial stem cells from embryos, and that those embryos were typically created from IVF.
The easiest way is to just get an aborted fetus I think, so yes, we perform research on fetuses.

Who cares if its from an aborted fetus? In case you did not notice, its dead.

I support stem cell research of all kinds, as I would like to see a cure found for diseases.

Obviously, i care...

even if they are dead, i just think it's so beyond wrong *shudders*

I'm totally for this. If the cells are just going to be destroyed anyway why not gain something from it.
However there is another option. You can create an embryo in a lab using donated sperm and egg cells and harvest the cells from that. This is the most viable wa of doing it as there is no need for a donation of aborted children

I'm in favor of stealing fetuses from the wombs of fundamentalist Christians just to get the stem cells, and then when we find cures for harmful diseases, denying them to those same fundamentalists.

Okay, not really. But I do strongly support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Yea we should be conducting stem cell research...fully developed people are more important than some damn fetuses (feti? fetusi? :confused:)

I'm new here, so sorry if this has been talked about recently but, what are your views of stem cell research? Are you for it? Against it? If so why or why not?

Depends on what it'd used for.

Depends on what it'd used for.

Dinner?

Dinner?

curried fetus?? :confused: with some rice?

Big supporter. In fact, I'm involved in stem cell research. =)

The real "debate" is over whether or not it will be funded by the US federal government. But it's a moot point. Anyone doing research in this area now has two labs, one which meets the Federal funding guidelines, and one which relies on private funding. Banning federal funding has not inhibited any research. But it gives politicians something to wave flags about ;)


This isn't actually true. Very few labs have the kind of funding necessary to do that, which means that most of us end up restricted to the federally approved lines - lines that have been damaged over years of culture, especially considering that we now have much better culture methods. Only a select few schools have been able to raise the kind of private funds necessary to create new lines. Anyone else who wants to do so in the US pretty much has to move to California and hope to get funded through their initiative.

im only against it if it comes from aborted fetus' rather than the adult kind other than that i think it's wonderful.[//quote]

What kind of stem cells do you think come from aborted fetuses? There certainly are certain types of fetal stem cells, but these are generally derived in animal models. Most abortion procedures wouldn't allow for such extraction and I'm not aware of any current use of any stem cells derived from abortions.

[quote=Leonidas and the 300 ] I don't condone the use of Embryonic Stem cells if it is going to destroy the embryo.

What if the embryo is slated for destruction anyways? Wouldn't it be better to use it for something?

I support adult stem cell research because it has been used in various human medical treatments. On the other hand, embryonic stems cells have not been able to be used for any medical treatment.

"Various human medical treatments" = the use of hematopoetic stem cells. Essentially, we're talking about bone marrow transplants or injections of such stem cells. Considering that we've been using these in therapies for decades and we've known about them for decades longer, it isn't surprising that they've been used in medical treatments. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were first derived from a human embryo in the late 90's. We're still in the basic science stage. Nothing makes it from discovery to medical treatment in that time span.

all for it, sadly we don't live in the dark ages as such: science > superstition

The easiest way is to just get an aborted fetus I think, so yes, we perform research on fetuses.

Wrong. The controversy surrounds embryonic stem cells, which can only be derived from an embryo at the blastocyst stage - before it even would have implanted in the womb. In other words, the stage at which embryonic stem cells could be derived occurs before a woman is even pregnant. It is impossible to derive them from any tissue obtained during an abortion.

Most of the current ES cell lines have been derived from discarded IVF embryos, with a few researchers looking into using donated eggs/sperm from those who carry certain genetic diseases in order to study the progression of the diseases.

Meanwhile, it is apparent that it is once again time to dig up my stem cell FAQ.

curried fetus?? :confused: with some rice?

now you're talking, though I'm more of a garlic naan man myself.

stem cells are tasty.

Wrong. The controversy surrounds embryonic stem cells, which can only be derived from an embryo at the blastocyst stage - before it even would have implanted in the womb. In other words, the stage at which embryonic stem cells could be derived occurs before a woman is even pregnant. It is impossible to derive them from any tissue obtained during an abortion.

Most of the current ES cell lines have been derived from discarded IVF embryos, with a few researchers looking into using donated eggs/sperm from those who carry certain genetic diseases in order to study the progression of the diseases.

Wow....I was actually right.

Big supporter. In fact, I'm involved in stem cell research. =)



This isn't actually true. Very few labs have the kind of funding necessary to do that, which means that most of us end up restricted to the federally approved lines - lines that have been damaged over years of culture, especially considering that we now have much better culture methods. Only a select few schools have been able to raise the kind of private funds necessary to create new lines. Anyone else who wants to do so in the US pretty much has to move to California and hope to get funded through their initiative.

[quote=Cookesland] im only against it if it comes from aborted fetus' rather than the adult kind other than that i think it's wonderful.[//quote]

What kind of stem cells do you think come from aborted fetuses? There certainly are certain types of fetal stem cells, but these are generally derived in animal models. Most abortion procedures wouldn't allow for such extraction and I'm not aware of any current use of any stem cells derived from abortions.



What if the embryo is slated for destruction anyways? Wouldn't it be better to use it for something?



"Various human medical treatments" = the use of hematopoetic stem cells. Essentially, we're talking about bone marrow transplants or injections of such stem cells. Considering that we've been using these in therapies for decades and we've known about them for decades longer, it isn't surprising that they've been used in medical treatments. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were first derived from a human embryo in the late 90's. We're still in the basic science stage. Nothing makes it from discovery to medical treatment in that time span.

Don't Amniotic stem cells have possibly the same applications as embryonic stem cells?
Adult stem cells are also used in improving and or curing Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, anemia, leukemia, lymphomas, and other cancers, treating patients with abnormal heart conditions, and even somewhat restoring sight to the blind

Dinner?

With ham and hollandaise sauce *nods*

Wait, that's chicken fetuses . . . .

now you're talking, though I'm more of a garlic naan man myself.

any naan is awesome...with butter chicken...I'm sure you can have a fetus with that too.....:p

BTW what's the plural of fetus

With ham and hollandaise sauce *nods*

Wait, that's chicken fetuses . . . .

hollandaise?

Don't Amniotic stem cells have possibly the same applications as embryonic stem cells?

It's hard to tell at this point. Thus far, every type of later stem cell that has initially been claimed to be pluripotent has turned out not to be.

Anthony Atala, the PI in the lab which has derived and is working with amniotic stem cells, has been clear that he does not think they will replace embryonic stem cells in research.

Adult stem cells are also used in improving and or curing Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, anemia, leukemia, lymphomas, and other cancers, treating patients with abnormal heart conditions, and even somewhat restoring sight to the blind

I'm not aware of anything for Parkinson's, so you'll have to source that. Aall of the blood diseases you have listed are exactly what I have already talked about - bone marrow and hematopoetic stem cell treatments. Even the early studies (and these are in very, very early stages) into use in heart and eye conditions has generally used bone marrow-derived cells (once again, cells we've been studying for decades).

any naan is awesome...with butter chicken...I'm sure you can have a fetus with that too.....:p

BTW what's the plural of fetus

I'm more of saag paneer and paneer makhani man, myself.

I'm pretty sure it's fetuses.

Wow....I was actually right.

=)

There is so much misinformation on this topic out there. It's good to see that it isn't everywhere.

Sorry, I think I did jump the gun on the Parkinson's one, it's not been officially proven effective in treatment....yet.
Still, why not try and go around the ethical debate and get more federal funding by using more somatic stell reprogramming?

Sorry, I think I did jump the gun on the Parkinson's one, it's not been officially proven effective in treatment....yet.
Still, why not try and go around the ethical debate and get more federal funding by using more somatic stell reprogramming?

Why research new drugs when we already have aspirin?

If we're going to do our best to understand our own biology and do what we can for those with medical problems, we need to explore all avenues.

Let me tell you about a use for embryonic stem cells I bet you haven't thought of. One of my colleagues is currently studying the progression of fetal alcohol syndrome. We obviously can't get prospective mothers to drink and then test their embryos/fetuses. Instead, we use an in vitro model - cell culture. He's found out things about the effect of alcohol on growing ES cells and is currently researching its effect on differentiation into neurons. There is no human model we can use to do this but embryonic stem cells, and think of what it could do to prevent FAS.

Also note that the various studies with the use of stem cells in treating cardiac disease have turned up very mixed results - and no actually regenerated cardiac tissue. It actually doesn't seem to matter what type of cells are used - bone marrow, mesenchymal stem cells, embryonic stem cells, myoblasts, etc. Until we can replicate cardiac differentiation (which has been done in cell culture with ES cells), we won't be able to actually regenerate that tissue.

Why research new drugs when we already have aspirin?

If we're going to do our best to understand our own biology and do what we can for those with medical problems, we need to explore all avenues.

Let me tell you about a use for embryonic stem cells I bet you haven't thought of. One of my colleagues is currently studying the progression of fetal alcohol syndrome. We obviously can't get prospective mothers to drink and then test their embryos/fetuses. Instead, we use an in vitro model - cell culture. He's found out things about the effect of alcohol on growing ES cells and is currently researching its effect on differentiation into neurons. There is no human model we can use to do this but embryonic stem cells, and think of what it could do to prevent FAS.

Also note that the various studies with the use of stem cells in treating cardiac disease have turned up very mixed results - and no actually regenerated cardiac tissue. It actually doesn't seem to matter what type of cells are used - bone marrow, mesenchymal stem cells, embryonic stem cells, myoblasts, etc. Until we can replicate cardiac differentiation (which has been done in cell culture with ES cells), we won't be able to actually regenerate that tissue.


you're right, I haven't heard of that use. Btw, I have a debate tomorrow and I'm doing this partially because I want a tune, but mostly because of my beliefs.

There are plenty of avenues to explore outisde of embryonic stem cells aren't there?

I just don't think it's worth all of the time and money we'll already put into embryonic stem cell research, when we have other avenues. I just wish the $130 million dollars would have been used for advances in adult stem cells.

Aa I have tried to explain to my Republican friend many a time.... the fetueses are already passed on. In republican language: Just like Jesus there lives were given know like Jesus they can help people if only through little reasearch on 1 fetus.

There not making embryo farms or encouraging women to have abortions they're simply doing research. With a microscope not a chainsaw and hockey mask (reference to murder in case you didn't get that)

Embryoes aren't fetuses. So don't worry about it.

=)

There is so much misinformation on this topic out there. It's good to see that it isn't everywhere.

To be fair, I'm not nearly as well read up on the subject as I probably should be.

But largely due to my writing "skills" I tend to get asked to critique other people's essays and presentations a lot. I learn a lot of both side's views on a number of topics that way.

I support stem cell research.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows my position on stem cell research. ;)

I'm against in the sense it will create something...Unintended. How many damn moveis have you all watched, where they do something to benfit mankind, only to bite them in the ass.

Seriously though, it seems like a can of worms to me. Yes, I know many innocent people would benefit from it. Doesn't the possibility of it doing more harm, genetically speaking, enter anyone's mind?

Seriously though, it seems like a can of worms to me. Yes, I know many innocent people would benefit from it. Doesn't the possibility of it doing more harm, genetically speaking, enter anyone's mind?

That's what genetic engineering is for. Hit the problem from all sides and minimize the risk.

That's what genetic engineering is for. Hit the problem from all sides and minimize the risk.

exactly, there will always be that risk, and we all know that anything that can go wrong, could and will happen.

The image of a modern Frankenstien's monster always pops into my head when I think about gentic egineering.

The image of a modern Frankenstien's monster always pops into my head when I think about gentic egineering.
The monster was made from dead ADULT corpses remember?

you're right, I haven't heard of that use. Btw, I have a debate tomorrow and I'm doing this partially because I want a tune, but mostly because of my beliefs. If this is the topic, you're sure to lose.


There are plenty of avenues to explore outisde of embryonic stem cells aren't there? Not really, Adult stem cells are limited because they're pre-programmed. (Bone Marrow Stem cell will still be bone marrow no matter where you put it)
Embryonic cells however are blank... They could (In theory) be used for anything. Stick it by the heart, it assumes that it's supposed to be heart muscle, etc.


I just don't think it's worth all of the time and money we'll already put into embryonic stem cell research, when we have other avenues. I just wish the $130 million dollars would have been used for advances in adult stem cells. Like I said Adult stem cells will only get you so far. You can't cure a brain condition with the pre-programmed cells. You need something that will turn INTO nerve cells, for that you need the blank ones.

Are you against Organ donors?

Same thing.

Sadly most of your side is led to believe that they're murdering Embryos right and left to get their stem cells.

What you fail to realize is that they are going to die anyway. You stick an embryo in a freezer for 40 years, it's eventually going to damage it's cells and die anyway.

Here's the choice, let something sit until it's useless because of freezer burn on the off chance that someone MIGHT actually choose it... It's insane.

There are plenty of avenues to explore outisde of embryonic stem cells aren't there?

Of course (for some things), and no one is suggesting that we shouldn't explore them. The point is that we shouldn't close off any avenue of stem cell exploration. The study of embryonic stem cells opens up some avenues that just don't seem to be open with any form of adult stem cells. And adult stem cells, in areas where they can be used, seem to get around some of the as-yet-unsolved problems with embryonic stem cells. Cutting off either branch of research would be ludicrous.

I just don't think it's worth all of the time and money we'll already put into embryonic stem cell research, when we have other avenues. I just wish the $130 million dollars would have been used for advances in adult stem cells.

"All the time and money"? You seem to think that research in stem cells is overall focussed in embryonic stem cells. If so, you are wrong. There is a great deal of time and money - much more than that spent on embryonic stem cells - being spent in researching various types of adult stem cells.

Once again, your insistence on one or the other is like saying, "We have aspirin. We should focus on that instead of spending money researching novel drugs..."

I'm against in the sense it will create something...Unintended.

I suppose we should just stop all research then, as this is always a possibility.

How many damn moveis have you all watched, where they do something to benfit mankind, only to bite them in the ass.

Ah, if only I could get my sense of reality from the movies.

Seriously though, it seems like a can of worms to me. Yes, I know many innocent people would benefit from it. Doesn't the possibility of it doing more harm, genetically speaking, enter anyone's mind?

How?

There are plenty of avenues to explore outisde of embryonic stem cells aren't there?
For certain lines of research, no.

Think of science as a really big park. (Really really big.)

There are a whole lot of different paths through the park. There are various locations that you could reach by following one of many different paths. This is like how a lot of scientific fields converge and/or overlap in certain areas.

But there are also regions of the park that you simply can't reach unless you take a certain path. There are certain things you can't ever see unless you take a certain path.

Our research is limited by our abilities, our existing knowledge, and the technology we have available. Sometimes we really have only one way to get at a certain issue.

There are also areas where using ESCs is simply the best and fastest way to do research. Do you really want to tell patients who have serious medical conditions that they have to wait an extra 10, 20, 50 years for treatment? Do you want to tell patients that they should be content to die before a treatment is found, because we don't feel like trying the most promising avenue of research?


I just don't think it's worth all of the time and money we'll already put into embryonic stem cell research, when we have other avenues.

If anything, we have spent far too little on research. If we took our existing research budgets and multiplied them by a thousand (which could be easily done if we took a small portion of funding away from the military) we might be getting close to having the right priorities.


I just wish the $130 million dollars would have been used for advances in adult stem cells.
Why? Why do you want to use adult stem cells, but not embryonic stem cells? If ESC work better, why not use them?

Of course (for some things), and no one is suggesting that we shouldn't explore them. The point is that we shouldn't close off any avenue of stem cell exploration. The study of embryonic stem cells opens up some avenues that just don't seem to be open with any form of adult stem cells. And adult stem cells, in areas where they can be used, seem to get around some of the as-yet-unsolved problems with embryonic stem cells. Cutting off either branch of research would be ludicrous.

I think adult stem cells are already used to cure diseases. For me, the issue of embryonic stem cells is a thorny one, which I prefer sidestepped as much as possible. If the disease can be cured very effectively with adult stem cells, I see no reason to try to venture into embryonic stem cell research to cure that disease, unless there is a huge, real possibility that it might be better. Just as to sidestep the issue. I do agree there are many researches where adult stem cells cannot replace embryonic stem cells, those I think, shouldn't be closed off.

And the issue is very muddled in the media and politics. They like to sensationalize/rhetoricize everything. When they talk about the 'controversial stem cell research that can cure diseases', they might actually be referring to two things: adult stem cell research, which can now cure diseases (but not that controversial); and embryonic stem cell research, which is the controversial one (but still cannot cure diseases at this stage).

I think adult stem cells are already used to cure diseases.

Indeed. They have proven very useful in many applications. At this point, established medical use is confined to hematopoetic stem cells, which we've been using for decades (bone marrow transplants) and have been studying for decades longer. Progress is being made in the use of mesenchymal stem cells as well - which we've been studying for nearly as long as hematopoeitic stem cells.

Any guesses on how long we've been working with embryonic stem cells?

People need to realize that research isn't a fast process. Under the very best circumstances, a new discovery might make it to an actual clinical practice available on the market in 10-15 years. Under sub-par circumstances or when the discovery is a leap from what we've seen before (both true with embryonic stem cells), 20 years is a very optimistic goal (speaking of actual cell therapies here - some of the discoveries that have been made with ES cells are already making their way into medical practice).

For me, the issue of embryonic stem cells is a thorny one, which I prefer sidestepped as much as possible. If the disease can be cured very effectively with adult stem cells, I see no reason to try to venture into embryonic stem cell research to cure that disease, unless there is a huge, real possibility that it might be better. Just as to sidestep the issue. I do agree there are many researches where adult stem cells cannot replace embryonic stem cells, those I think, shouldn't be closed off.

Interestingly enough, there is very little research in the area of using embryonic stem cells in those applications where bone marrow transplants and the like are accepted medical practice. Most embryonic stem cell research either focuses on developmental issues or on diseases that we don't have cures for - like diabetes, Parkinson's, etc.

And the issue is very muddled in the media and politics. They like to sensationalize/rhetoricize everything. When they talk about the 'controversial stem cell research that can cure diseases', they might actually be referring to two things: adult stem cell research, which can now cure diseases (but not that controversial); and embryonic stem cell research, which is the controversial one (but still cannot cure diseases at this stage).

Adult stem cell research isn't controversial to most people. When the media talks about "controversial stem cell research that can cure diseases," they are talking about embryonic stem cell research. We may not have gotten to a clinical use for these cells (which is unsurprising, considering the fact that they were first isolated roughly ten years ago and we're largely still in the basic science stages with them), but they hold a great deal of promise for future therapies.

Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells are used for studies that may not lead to a cell therapy, but do increase our understanding of developmental and disease processes, leading to new or better therapies - even if the cells themselves are not used. The research I described above into fetal alcohol syndrome is an example. The end goal is not to develop a cell therapy to cure FAS, but to understand the mechanisms involved in FAS and come up with ways to prevent, halt, or reverse them.

In the end, we have no better model in order to study early development of human beings. Biologists generally know infinitely more about embryonic development in mice, chicks, or (maybe) pigs than they ever do about human beings. We obviously cannot do timed pregnancies with women and then pull out the embryo/fetus in order to do the type of research we can carry out in animal models. Instead, we have begun to use embryonic stem cells to further understand the processes of development - and to better understand how to protect the embryo/fetus and allow it to develop properly.

In the end, we have no better model in order to study early development of human beings. Biologists generally know infinitely more about embryonic development in mice, chicks, or (maybe) pigs than they ever do about human beings. We obviously cannot do timed pregnancies with women and then pull out the embryo/fetus in order to do the type of research we can carry out in animal models. Instead, we have begun to use embryonic stem cells to further understand the processes of development - and to better understand how to protect the embryo/fetus and allow it to develop properly.
(Bold mine)

Quite true. I study development in chicken embryos, and one of the most common questions I get asked about my research is "How closely does this match the pattern seen in humans?" And most of the time I have to admit that we know more about the developing chicken vestibular system (my field) than we do about the developing human vestibular system.

People are frequently surprised by that. :D

Science = Good

(Bold mine)

Quite true. I study development in chicken embryos, and one of the most common questions I get asked about my research is "How closely does this match the pattern seen in humans?" And most of the time I have to admit that we know more about the developing chicken vestibular system (my field) than we do about the developing human vestibular system.

People are frequently surprised by that. :D

I wonder, are they surprised because they don't know how we study these things? I'm fairly certain people would be really up in arms (and rightfully so) if we used human beings in studies the same way we do animals. Just how do people think we can get the kind of information on human embryonic and fetal development that we can on animal development?

[QUOTE=Skibereen;12682230]I am not pro-abortion...but I am all for stem cell research. I mean I have never heard of a woman having an abortion just to donate stem cells so why not let something good come from something that isnt good(I didnt say it was...just not good).
The same people who bitch about stem cells come from abortion dont bitch about modern dentistry making advances because torture on prison camp inmates...your fancy root canal and other detal care courtesy of Nazi torture.

Certainly something as extreme as that deserves protesting...but it isnt. Because we as a community gain from it something good.

I am not saying abortion is like Nazi death camps...I am saying even if you think it is bad, why oppose the possibilty of that death bearing a fruit that save others lives?[/QOUTE/]



Actually many techniques for abortion were developed in Nazi death camps. Embroyonic stem cells are wrong for two reasons, it encourages the destruction of human life and it is so unsuccesful and unreliable that it will take so long for research to be succesful in it that we will probably simply use so called 'therapeutic cloning' (IN which DNA from a somatic cell of the patient is placed into an embroyo, which then takes on most of the characteristics of the patient, and then allow it to grow into a full person and destroy the clone for its kidneys,arms,legs, etc.) which uses the same techniques as those used in animal cloning.

Pro's and Cons:

Adult Stem Cells: Does not require destroying life.
Has been tested succesfully in humans.
Is not tumorgenic.
Recent finds suggest that some are just as maleable as embroyonic.
Is not immugenic.

Is not immortal (thus new cells are needed more often)
Are SOMETIMES more difficult to come across.
MAY not be as maleable as embroyonic cells.

Embroyonic: Immortal. (meaning they can continue to divide and create the same type of cells of the same quality)
Relatively easy to get.
Extremely maleable (believed to be able to be turned into any other kind of cell)


Requires destruction of human life.
Because of their immortality and maleability, they have a tendency of becoming tumors.
Since they would come from random donors (victims) they could and would very likely cause immugenic reactions.
Have not been succesful in any human testing.
Because of maleability they are difficult to mature at the rates needed, as well as to get a certain number of cells to do so at the same rate.

Another striking note against embroyonic research is that private corporations aren't doing much with it. They are not banned from doing this sort of research, and since corporations usually like to see results and returns, I think it is very unlikely that we will see returns from embroyonic stem cells in the foreseable future.

Adult stem cells I'm all for for both moral reasons, and just simple science.

My only real question at the moment is whether my final year project should be stem cell research.

Actually it's not, I've not really covered stem cells in much detail and I prefer studying cancer mechanisms, I just wanted to look cool because I can work in a controversial field :(

I wonder, are they surprised because they don't know how we study these things? I'm fairly certain people would be really up in arms (and rightfully so) if we used human beings in studies the same way we do animals. Just how do people think we can get the kind of information on human embryonic and fetal development that we can on animal development?
You'd be surprised how many people (including scientists from other disciplines!) simply haven't thought about it.

I guess it's a feather in our caps, that people are so confident in our ability to learn about the world that they just assume we have a way to investigate anything.

One other point is that people tend to over-estimate the value of subject reporting. They figure, "We can talk to people, but can't talk to animals, so we must be able to learn more about human bodies!" When it comes to something like the mechanics of your inner ear and vestibular ganglion, most people can't really give verbal reports that answer our remaining questions.

Question for Dem or Bottle: Isn't it true that the stem cell lines that stem cell researchers would be studying are generally IVF embryos that are going to be discarded anyway?

You'd be surprised how many people (including scientists from other disciplines!) simply haven't thought about it.

*Raises hand* though I'm only technically a scientist at this point.

I'd always looked at biology the way I look at Physics. You need observational data, but the vast majority of your work comes from analysis of that data in theoretical models, and the refinement of those theoretical models.

It's only recently (and mostly from actually discussing it with Chem/Bio folks) that I realized that it's not quite that simple for you folks.

Absolutely no reason not to use every type of stem cell research we possibly can.


End of debate, drive safely.

Embroyonic stem cells are wrong for two reasons, it encourages the destruction of human life

how so?

and it is so unsuccesful and unreliable that it will take so long for research to be succesful in it that we will probably simply use so called 'therapeutic cloning' (IN which DNA from a somatic cell of the patient is placed into an embroyo, which then takes on most of the characteristics of the patient, and then allow it to grow into a full person and destroy the clone for its kidneys,arms,legs, etc.) which uses the same techniques as those used in animal cloning.

Any type of research takes a long time to come to clinical practice. This is no different - and it would be faster if there weren't so many roadblocks.

Meanwhile, your description of therapeutic cloning is incorrect. Therapeutic cloning would not allow for the clone to "grow into a full human person." That would be reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning would involve creating a cloned embryo and then removing the embryonic stem cells at the blastocyst stage. Those cells could then be used in cell therapies.

Pro's and Cons:

Adult Stem Cells: Does not require destroying life.

Ok. Of course, depending on how you look at it, embryonic stem cell research doesn't either.

Has been tested succesfully in humans.

Some have, yes. We've known about hematopoetic stem cells for decades now - nearly a century, IIRC, and we have been using them for quite some time now. Mesenchymal stem cells, which have been in research for nearly as long as hematopoetic stem cells, are beginning to make their way into clinical trials.

Of course, most types of adult stem cells are more recently discovered, and have not yet been tested in any type of clinical practice.

Is not tumorgenic.

People really misunderstand what is meant when embryonic stem cells are said to be tumorgenic. In order to test the pluripotency of ES cells, they have been injected into immune-compromised mice. They then form cell masses like tumors (although not cancerous) which contain cells of all different types - from all three germ layers. The fact that adult stem cells do not generally do this is a product of the fact that they are not pluripotent, and instead home into the tissues in which they belong.

Recent finds suggest that some are just as maleable as embroyonic.

There is that suggestion. However, amniotic stem cells are a very recent discovery, and we cannot yet say if they are truly pluripotent or if they have the proliferative potential of ES cells. Anthony Atala (the PI working on these cells) has been very clear in his opinion that these cells will not replace ES cells in research.

And there's also the fact that, in early research, these cells are just as tumorgenic as ES cells....

Is not immugenic.

This is only true if autologous cells can be used. Most adult stem cell therapies have involved cell transplants, and immune suppression is sometimes necessary in these cases.

Meanwhile, if therapeutic cloning is achieved, there will be virtually no risk of immune rejection of the cells used, as they would carry the patient's own genetic background.

Is not immortal (thus new cells are needed more often)
Are SOMETIMES more difficult to come across.
MAY not be as maleable as embroyonic cells.

At this point, they are not as "malleable", by which I assume you are discussing differentiation potential, as ES cells.

Embroyonic: Immortal. (meaning they can continue to divide and create the same type of cells of the same quality)
Relatively easy to get.
Extremely maleable (believed to be able to be turned into any other kind of cell)

Replace "believed to be" with "shown to be" and you'll be pretty much right. Even germ cells have been derived from ES cells.

Requires destruction of human life.

"Human life" that is already slated for destruction, generally.

Because of their immortality and maleability, they have a tendency of becoming tumors.

I've already explained why this is a misrepresentation.

Since they would come from random donors (victims) they could and would very likely cause immugenic reactions.

Not if therapeutic cloning is completed. Besides, most adult stem cell therapies would involve "random" (this word really isn't correct, as they would be matched in much the same way that any donors are) donors. Research indicates that ES cells are actually less immunogenic than adult cells...

Have not been succesful in any human testing.

Not completely true. There have been a few trials using ES cells in heart attack patients that have turned out pretty much exactly the same as the use of mesenchymal stem or bone marrow cells.

Of course, as I pointed out before, you wouldn't expect the use or ES cells to have made it to the clinic yet. They were first derived roughly a decade ago. That's no time at all in the world of research.

Because of maleability they are difficult to mature at the rates needed, as well as to get a certain number of cells to do so at the same rate.

It really isn't "because of malleability." Embryonic stem cells are difficult to control because we don't yet have a clear understanding of the mechanisms that will push them down one differentiation pathway vs. another. However, we are increasing our knowledge in this area by leaps and bounds.

Another striking note against embroyonic research is that private corporations aren't doing much with it. They are not banned from doing this sort of research, and since corporations usually like to see results and returns, I think it is very unlikely that we will see returns from embroyonic stem cells in the foreseable future.

Private corporations almost never do basic science research. They generally don't touch something until it is about to be profitable. The vast majority of research is carried out at the university level. So it is interesting that private corporations have already gotten involved in the research at all - and that they are holding very tightly to the stem cell lines they created and license out to university researchers...

Absolutely no reason not to use every type of stem cell research we possibly can.


End of debate, drive safely.

Silly Virginian. I'm from Jersey. We don't know what safe driving IS.

Silly Virginian. I'm from Jersey. We don't know what safe driving IS.

I'm sorry, I was being insensitive.

I'll be sure to hum a few bars of Bon Jovi next time. :3

Ah, if only I could get my sense of reality from the movies.



How?[/QUOTE]

I was actually refering to the literature. It's not my reality, but aren't cautionary tales something to at least consider?

I don't know how exactly, but the argument that the human race may one day rely on modern medicine, comes to mind. be it true or not doesn't logic dictate to consider every possible out come? Nothing in life is black and white. why should this be?

I'm sorry, I was being insensitive.

I'll be sure to hum a few bars of Bon Jovi next time. :3

Only if you complement it with some Springstein :D

You'd be surprised how many people (including scientists from other disciplines!) simply haven't thought about it.

I guess it's a feather in our caps, that people are so confident in our ability to learn about the world that they just assume we have a way to investigate anything.

One other point is that people tend to over-estimate the value of subject reporting. They figure, "We can talk to people, but can't talk to animals, so we must be able to learn more about human bodies!" When it comes to something like the mechanics of your inner ear and vestibular ganglion, most people can't really give verbal reports that answer our remaining questions.

It wouldn't really help in embryonic or fetal development either, considering the fact that we can't really ask the embryo or fetus any questions. =)

Of course, I tend to question studies that rely on subject reporting anyways. It's too subjective, in my mind. It's like pain studies - where they ask patients to rate their level of pain. Problem is, what is a 7 to me could be a 3 to you. If I'm in a bad mood that day, my pain might feel worse to me. And so on....


*Raises hand* though I'm only technically a scientist at this point.

I'd always looked at biology the way I look at Physics. You need observational data, but the vast majority of your work comes from analysis of that data in theoretical models, and the refinement of those theoretical models.

It's only recently (and mostly from actually discussing it with Chem/Bio folks) that I realized that it's not quite that simple for you folks.

Hehe. My husband studied computer science, and he gets frustrated talking about bio with me. It's all too complicated (and not clearly defined enough) for him. The idea that we get the kind of variance we do - even in controlled experiments - irks the hell out of him.

Question for Dem or Bottle: Isn't it true that the stem cell lines that stem cell researchers would be studying are generally IVF embryos that are going to be discarded anyway?

Yes, this is true. All of the current lines approved for federal research were obtained this way. The recently vetoed bill that would have expanded funding for research would have confined that research to discarded IVF embryos and laid out an informed consent process for the man and woman involved in the process.

There are a few researchers looking for volunteers with (or carrying) genetic diseases to create ES cell lines specifically to study those diseases, but very few labs can get the kind of money it would take to create any new ES cell lines - much less specific ones.


I was actually refering to the literature. It's not my reality, but aren't cautionary tales something to at least consider?

Sure, but I haven't seen many that focus on cell therapies or just general knowledge. They all focus on misuse of that knowledge and/or genetic tampering.

I don't know how exactly, but the argument that the human race may one day rely on modern medicine, comes to mind. be it true or not doesn't logic dictate to consider every possible out come? Nothing in life is black and white. why should this be?

It isn't. I'm just wondering why you seem to be more fearful of this research than you are of any other ongoing biological research.

I would argue that most of the human race already relies on modern medicine. Is that so awful? And how is it different from relying on modern physics? Or modern chemistry?

Hehe. My husband studied computer science, and he gets frustrated talking about bio with me. It's all too complicated (and not clearly defined enough) for him. The idea that we get the kind of variance we do - even in controlled experiments - irks the hell out of him.

I don't blame him. I don't think I'd have the patience or the sanity to deal with the amount of uncertainty and unpredictability in your experiments. We've got some nice, cozy models to map and refine, and an imager whose data is causing me no end of frustration, and I wouldn't trade that in a million years for chicken fetuses.

Yes, this is true. All of the current lines approved for federal research were obtained this way. The recently vetoed bill that would have expanded funding for research would have confined that research to discarded IVF embryos and laid out an informed consent process for the man and woman involved in the process.

There are a few researchers looking for volunteers with (or carrying) genetic diseases to create ES cell lines specifically to study those diseases, but very few labs can get the kind of money it would take to create any new ES cell lines - much less specific ones.

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up.

Only if you complement it with some Springstein :D

Borrrrrn in the USA, borrrrrrrn in the USA, and it's my life (and it's now or never), I ain't gonna live forever...



Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

I'm all for it, although my support lies in the realm of adult stem cells. Thus far, it has yielded the greatest success.

I'm sorry, I was being insensitive.

I'll be sure to hum a few bars of Bon Jovi next time. :3

Perfectly understandable for anyone who has ever had to drive in Old Town Alexandria :headbang:

I'm all for it, although my support lies in the realm of adult stem cells. Thus far, it has yielded the greatest success.

Being known about and studied for decades longer tends to have that effect.

Using the success of adult stem cell therapies as an excuse to oppose embryonic stem cell research really doesn't make sense when you consider the difference in time scale. None of the more recently discovered types of adult stem cells are in clinical use either. (I'm assuming you mean clinical success, because we have been very successful in furthering our knowledge of developmental biology using ES cells, in spite of the restrictions that keep many from doing the type of investigations they would like).

Perfectly understandable for anyone who has ever had to drive in Old Town Alexandria :headbang:

Lawl.

Old Alex isn't a bad place - it's weird, though, because it's kinda like DC. It'll be all upscale, uptown, upper-middle class area and then it'll have a strict cutoff point in the middle of the road that says "This building will be the last building in this direction to not make you want to sing 'In the Ghetto'. The building next to it will be the first that will." so it'll be like "nice building, nice building, nice building, I'm in the fucking projects, fucking projects, fucking projects, I've just passed four barbershops in the last ten minutes." weird.

[/politically incorrect]

Lawl.

Old Alex isn't a bad place - it's weird, though, because it's kinda like DC. It'll be all upscale, uptown, upper-middle class area and then it'll have a strict cutoff point in the middle of the road that says "This building will be the last building in this direction to not make you want to sing 'In the Ghetto'. The building next to it will be the first that will." so it'll be like "nice building, nice building, nice building, I'm in the fucking projects, fucking projects, fucking projects, I've just passed four barbershops in the last ten minutes." weird.

[/politically incorrect]

I'm fortunate enough to work in the nicer part, but sadly that in no way ensures my driving safety.

One morning the sound of honnking horns followed me the last few blocks to work. No, the honking wasn't at me, it was at the guy who was hugging my bumper to slide through the stopsigns right behind me, rather than just wait his turn. This all the way down the last few blocks of Duke street toward the river.

Was that you, Szanth?

I have no problem with stem cell research, I don't think it should be government funded, but not for any reason to do with the actual research.

I'm fortunate enough to work in the nicer part, but sadly that in no way ensures my driving safety.

One morning the sound of honnking horns followed me the last few blocks to work. No, the honking wasn't at me, it was at the guy who was hugging my bumper to slide through the stopsigns right behind me, rather than just wait his turn. This all the way down the last few blocks of Duke street toward the river.

Was that you, Szanth?

You got me. I follow all the NSG'ers in the tri-state area and honk at them as often as possible.

Being known about and studied for decades longer tends to have that effect.

Using the success of adult stem cell therapies as an excuse to oppose embryonic stem cell research really doesn't make sense when you consider the difference in time scale. None of the more recently discovered types of adult stem cells are in clinical use either. (I'm assuming you mean clinical success, because we have been very successful in furthering our knowledge of developmental biology using ES cells, in spite of the restrictions that keep many from doing the type of investigations they would like).

The time difference isn't so dramatic. In fact, there's significant overlap in the timelines of the historical stages of development.

An "excuse?" Well clearly you're ready to be objective in a discussion like this one :p

You got me. I follow all the NSG'ers in the tri-state area and honk at them as often as possible.

I KNEW it!

The time difference isn't so dramatic. In fact, there's significant overlap in the timelines of the historical stages of development.

Yes, it is. We've been performing adult stem cell treatments (bone marrow transplants) for decades longer than we've even known about embryonic stem cells. Hematopoetic stem cells have been under study for the better part of a century, with mesenchymal stem cells not that far behind. Human embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were first derived roughly a decade ago. Add to that the significant opposition to ES cell research and the time difference gets even more important.

As I pointed out, the types of adult stem cells that have been known for about the same time (or less time) than ES cells haven't been used clinically either - at least not in accepted medical practice.

An "excuse?" Well clearly you're ready to be objective in a discussion like this one :p

Considering the time differences that you seem to simply want to ignore, it cannot be a logical reason to oppose research. It's like opposing research into alternative fuels because we've had more success with gas and alternative fuels haven't made it into large-scale use yet. Thus, the options are either ignorance, or another underlying reason that you don't want to bring out.

It's not a matter of objectivity. It's a matter of knowing the facts. Frankly, I'm not worried about opinion-based issues. A person can be in favor of or opposed to any type of research they wish to. I just prefer that their support or opposition is based in the facts, rather than ignorance of them.

You got me. I follow all the NSG'ers in the tri-state area and honk at them as often as possible.

That was you?! :mad:

That was you?! :mad:

Gotta get my jollies somehow.

Yes, it is. We've been performing adult stem cell treatments (bone marrow transplants) for decades longer than we've even known about embryonic stem cells. Hematopoetic stem cells have been under study for the better part of a century, with mesenchymal stem cells not that far behind. Human embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were first derived roughly a decade ago. Add to that the significant opposition to ES cell research and the time difference gets even more important.

As I pointed out, the types of adult stem cells that have been known for about the same time (or less time) than ES cells haven't been used clinically either - at least not in accepted medical practice.



Considering the time differences that you seem to simply want to ignore, it cannot be a logical reason to oppose research. It's like opposing research into alternative fuels because we've had more success with gas and alternative fuels haven't made it into large-scale use yet. Thus, the options are either ignorance, or another underlying reason that you don't want to bring out.

It's not a matter of objectivity. It's a matter of knowing the facts. Frankly, I'm not worried about opinion-based issues. A person can be in favor of or opposed to any type of research they wish to. I just prefer that their support or opposition is based in the facts, rather than ignorance of them.

..all based upon the assumption that those facts are accurate. I find it interesting though, that your approach is to assume I'm ignoring the facts as opposed to having a source that disagrees with yours. Must every person who disagrees with you be a liar, (which is an arrogant position to take) or can you accept the possibility that honest people can come to a different conclusion than you have?

First of all, hematopoetic stem calles have only been seriously researched since the 60s, hardly "the better part of a century" as you put it. (Since research that began in the decade of the 60s can be at most 47 years old.)

Second, mesenchymal stem cells were seriously researched only into the 70s. Now, you said that isn't "that far behind." Okay, well what about 1981, when embryonic stem cells were ALREADY being harvested from mice?

I mean, c'mon... You accuse me of ignoring facts when this whole post is full of deliberate distortions in an obvious attempt to dramatically portray adult stem cell research as being drastically more advanced chronologically than embryonic.

So how is my post any more opinino based than yours? I pointed out that adult stem cells are useful in medical treatments. That's a fact. At least as of this moment, they are the only ones that are. Another fact.

And your gasoline analogy would be okay except that it ignores the fact that there are moral/ethical issues related to embryonic stem cells that don't carry over. Oversimplification is another form of logical fallacy.

...as opposed to having a source that disagrees with yours...

*blink blink*


Where?

Completely against.

Completely against.

That's actually surprising.

*blink blink*


Where?

mine.

mine.

Well did you white out the link? Because I don't see it anywhere.

Well did you white out the link? Because I don't see it anywhere.

I left it out to deliberately prove a point. Why am I the only one asked for a link? Why not both sides of this particular discussion?

Don't worry you don't have to answer. I think it's obvious enough.

And since I wouldn't want anyone to go off on a soapbox about me avoiding the issue:

From the NIH (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter5.asp)

I left it out to deliberately prove a point. Why am I the only one asked for a link? Why not both sides of this particular discussion?

Don't worry you don't have to answer. I think it's obvious enough.

And since I wouldn't want anyone to go off on a soapbox about me avoiding the issue:

From the NIH (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter5.asp)

....It says more than 50 years. Twice. You don't have a source that disagrees with her.


Incidentally, it doesn't seem the give much about when mesenchymal reasearch started, much less 'started seriously' which is where you put the mark for some reason....which is weird, cuz then you'd do the same for embryonic cells, right?

....It says more than 50 years. Twice. You don't have a source that disagrees with her.


Incidentally, it doesn't seem the give much about when mesenchymal reasearch started, much less 'started seriously' which is where you put the mark for some reason....which is weird, cuz then you'd do the same for embryonic cells, right?

I'm not the one distorting the facts.

I find it telling that you failed to include the context for the phrase "more than 50 years" considering what's at issue is when one could pin a date on the beginning of true stem cell research. (Mind you, we're still only talking about Hematopoietic Stem Cells. The other types come from similar articles with their own timelines.)

Now, if you want to be HONEST about this, you'll cite the more useful and precise part of the article that says, in part:


In the early 1960s, Till and McCulloch began analyzing the bone marrow to find out which components were responsible for regenerating blood [56]. They defined what remain the two hallmarks of an HSC: it can renew itself and it can produce cells that give rise to all the different types of blood cells


What does that tell you, that prior to the early 1960s these researchers didn't know what components in bone marrow were responsible for regenerating blood. That's less than 50 years on my calendar, not more.

Ask yourself this: What are you trying to prove? What issue have I raised that you disagree with, beyond the fact that I've differed with another poster about facts that aren't even involved with any ethical or moral considerations. Ask yourself why you have such a need to disprove me on such a trivial issue that you're willing to selectively read an article and try to draw out bits to make it look like I'm wrong.

I'm not the one distorting the facts.

I find it telling that you failed to include the context for the phrase "more than 50 years" considering what's at issue is when one could pin a date on the beginning of true stem cell research. (Mind you, we're still only talking about Hematopoietic Stem Cells. The other types come from similar articles with their own timelines.)

Wasn't this about study? Like right at the top, where it says "With more than 50 years of experience studying blood-forming stem cells called hematopoietic stem cells". I don't get where the confusion is. Is there something you consider to not be 'true' research? I mean, if you and the page disagree on the definition of 'study' or something...

Wasn't this about study? Like right at the top, where it says "With more than 50 years of experience studying blood-forming stem cells called hematopoietic stem cells". I don't get where the confusion is. Is there something you consider to not be 'true' research? I mean, if you and the page disagree on the definition of 'study' or something...

Deriving a therapy that is later dioscovered to be based upon the existence of stem cells is not the same as researching stem cells. The line you're quoting is from the abstract at the beginning of the article. For details, you READ the article.

But you are making my point for me, so by all means carry on...

Deriving a therapy that is later dioscovered to be based upon the existence of stem cells is not the same as researching stem cells.

Okay, so what that page considers study, you do not. That'd explain that much...Still, even going with your timeline, there's quite a difference in the amount of time 'true' research has been done, no?

..all based upon the assumption that those facts are accurate. I find it interesting though, that your approach is to assume I'm ignoring the facts as opposed to having a source that disagrees with yours. Must every person who disagrees with you be a liar, (which is an arrogant position to take) or can you accept the possibility that honest people can come to a different conclusion than you have?

I said nothing about lying. It is certainly possible to come to a different conclusion - hence the fact that I said I have no problem with opinions. It isn't possible to ignore the facts, however.

First of all, hematopoetic stem calles have only been seriously researched since the 60s, hardly "the better part of a century" as you put it. (Since research that began in the decade of the 60s can be at most 47 years old.)

Define "seriously researched". The first papers on the subject came out well before the 60's. Even your own source puts the beginning of such research - and involving human subjects - at 1945 - over 60 years ago. This is admittedly a little later than I had been told in the past, so I'll have to look into the actual literature, but it is still decades longer than embryonic stem cell research - and with little to no regulatory issues standing in the way.

Your own source also claims that bone marrow transplants have been carried out for more than 40 years - and the date on the source is 2001. This means that bone marrow transplants - actual adult stem cell therapy - was in medical practice for nearly that long before the very first human embryonic stem cells were isolated.

Second, mesenchymal stem cells were seriously researched only into the 70s. Now, you said that isn't "that far behind." Okay, well what about 1981, when embryonic stem cells were ALREADY being harvested from mice?

Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in the late 90's and the differences between them and mouse stem cells - in both isolation and in maintenance - are huge.

I mean, c'mon... You accuse me of ignoring facts when this whole post is full of deliberate distortions in an obvious attempt to dramatically portray adult stem cell research as being drastically more advanced chronologically than embryonic.

That's because it is drastically more advanced chronologically than embryonic. I'm not distorting anything. I'm being honest. We had adult stem cell therapies for about 4 decades (according to your own source - I was actually under the impression that they did not begin until the 70's) before we even first isolated human embryonic stem cells.

So how is my post any more opinino based than yours? I pointed out that adult stem cells are useful in medical treatments. That's a fact. At least as of this moment, they are the only ones that are. Another fact.

And without acknowledging the time difference, those facts are useless. It is intellectually dishonest to make such a comparison when the idea of anything making it to clinical practice in 10 years or less is pretty much completely unheard of. Clinical trials alone will likely take at least half that amount of time.

And your gasoline analogy would be okay except that it ignores the fact that there are moral/ethical issues related to embryonic stem cells that don't carry over. Oversimplification is another form of logical fallacy.

Actually, those moral issues were exactly my point. At least you are actually bringing them up now. It demonstrates exactly what I've already suggested - that your opposition to embryonic stem cell research is not based in a measure of success, but instead in moral/ethical considerations. So, as I suggested at the beginning, it would appear that the measure of clinical success was an excuse, while your true reason for opposing the research is moral/ethical.

I have no problem with moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research - once again - so long as it is based in facts rather than misconceptions. Those who say, "I'm opposed to abortion and I don't want them using aborted babies in research," to oppose embryonic stem cell research are expressing moral opposition that is based in misinformation, as embryonic stem cells are not obtained from abortions. However, if you have a true moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research as it is actually carried out, that is your business.

You know, I decided to double check my own understanding of this source, on the off chance that I was talking out of my arse. It's good to be objective, no?

So I looked at other articles onthe same site and I found the following:


Adult stem cells, such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs), are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years.


See for yourself (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/health.asp)

That coincides nicely with what I've been saying since the beginning, when I challenged Dempublicents1's assertion that this had been going on for the better part of a century.

(Remember, if you read the first article carefully, you'll see that the transplanting of bone marrow actually predates the stem cell research, since it wasn't known at first exactly what the mechanism was.)

Okay, so what that page considers study, you do not. That'd explain that much...Still, even going with your timeline, there's quite a difference in the amount of time 'true' research has been done, no?

More distortions.

If you study the medical treatments and symptoms of sunburn, can you HONESTLy say it's equivalent to studying the nature and constitution of UV light? No. But if you want to apply different standards of intellectual honesty, don't let me stop you.

*snip*

Actually, those moral issues were exactly my point. At least you are actually bringing them up now. It demonstrates exactly what I've already suggested - that your opposition to embryonic stem cell research is not based in a measure of success, but instead in moral/ethical considerations. So, as I suggested at the beginning, it would appear that the measure of clinical success was an excuse, while your true reason for opposing the research is moral/ethical.

I have no problem with moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research - once again - so long as it is based in facts rather than misconceptions. Those who say, "I'm opposed to abortion and I don't want them using aborted babies in research," to oppose embryonic stem cell research are expressing moral opposition that is based in misinformation, as embryonic stem cells are not obtained from abortions. However, if you have a true moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research as it is actually carried out, that is your business.

I've addressed those points in other posts already, so I see no need to repeat myself.

I know what your point was, but you're still attributing the "opinion" argument to me even though I've made no moral assertion on the matter one way or another. Of course, anyone whose debated with me can probably guess what my moral stance is on this issue, but I've chosen to focus entirely on the medical and scientific aspects.

By trying to argue against my point by addressing issues I haven't even brought into the discussion (except as a passing, third person reference) you're using a red herring.

"Neo Bretonnia is wrong because he is arguing from the opinion that stem cell research is immoral."

Which is baseless. I realize that a lot of people on here are incapable of separating their opinions from their factual arguments, but it's not fair to presume that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically guilty of it.

I mean, why did you even bring up the business about abortions and such? If you're addressing that to someone else who has used that argument that's fine, but at this point it looks suspiciously directed at me, even though I've said nothing of the kind.

I've addressed those points in other posts already, so I see no need to repeat myself.

"Neo Bretonnia is wrong because he is arguing from the opinion that stem cell research is immoral."

Sure you're reading her right? You can argue from a moral position all you like. Just make sure your facts are right.

Sure you're reading her right? You can argue from a moral position all you like. Just make sure your facts are right.

You've utterly missed my point, and you ask if *I* am reading posts right?

I've addressed those points in other posts already, so I see no need to repeat myself.

I know what your point was, but you're still attributing the "opinion" argument to me even though I've made no moral assertion on the matter one way or another.

You certainly implied one by making the statement that your support only goes to adult stem cell research. That would, you know, imply that you are opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

By trying to argue against my point by addressing issues I haven't even brought into the discussion (except as a passing, third person reference) you're using a red herring.

Eh? Originally I said that the "success" issue was an excuse - that it was brought up either out of ignorance or because there was another underlying reason for opposition. You have demonstrated this to most likely be true by agreeing that the fuel analogy would work. You made it clear that your problem with the analogy was that it didn't bring in the moral/ethical issues - pretty demonstrating the actual nature of your support for adult stem cell research and opposition to embryonic.

"Neo Bretonnia is wrong because he is arguing from the opinion that stem cell research is immoral."

Nice strawman you built there. Of course, I never said any such thing. You're wrong because you are trying to suggest that the chronological difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research and treatments makes no difference. While I admit I had thought the research began a bit earlier, it is still true that the successes we've had with adult stem cell therapies began about 20 years before the first mouse embryonic stem cell line was begun and nearly 40 before the first isolation of human embryonic stem cells - the earliest point at which we could even begin to study them.

To try and compare the two in terms of clinical success is intellectually dishonest. It's a bit like trying to compare kidney transplants - which have been going on for quite a while - to face transplants, which we have just begun to attempt and then say, "We've had success with kidney transplants, so we shouldn't research face transplants."

So there must be an underlying reason - one that you brought up a couple of posts ago when you said that any analogy must include moral/ethical issues.

I mean, why did you even bring up the business about abortions and such? If you're addressing that to someone else who has used that argument that's fine, but at this point it looks suspiciously directed at me, even though I've said nothing of the kind.

I never claimed that you did. It was an addition to my assertion that, whatever your (you being the universal "you" here) opinion of stem cell research is, I want it to based in the facts. I then brought in a common example of an opposition that is based in misinformation. There was never any suggestion made that it was a position you personally held. In fact, I even started the reference with "Those who say...." clearly suggesting that it was not you personally.

I've done a little bit of work in this area, and one of the main things I've noticed is how much misinformation there is out there. My thesis advisor is regularly asked to speak at various gatherings - often churches - so that they can get a clear idea of what ES cell research is before they make a decision on it. I recently had an email exchange with a senator who was woefully misinformed on the subject - and yet was trying to write legislation that would regulate it. This was a man who accused my advisor - no joke - of "wanting to take human embryos and stick them in pig fetuses and then cut their heads off." He said this completely out of the blue one day - and ended up quoted in the local newspaper. He also couldn't understand the fact that, while the use of umbilical cord blood is fairly new in the realm of clinical treatment, it is essentially the same treatment as bone marrow therapies - as both are sources of hematopoeitic stem cells.

In my experience, the more someone finds out about ES cells (as long as they are willing to actually research it), the more likely they are to support the research - unless they have underlying moral objections to the destruction of embryos at the blastocyst stage, in which case they are probably never going to support the research. Which is fine. The only thing I can't figure out about such people is why they are rarely opposed to the practice of in vitro fertilization.

Make me the 95th person to say yes.

Its a misconception to believe that embroyo's not used in stem cell research would be destroyed anyways, there are always the current stem cell lines, which are immortal, and there are many ways to keep embroyo's alive.

Its a misconception to believe that embroyo's not used in stem cell research would be destroyed anyways,

Is it? The options for a couple who have undergone in vitro fertilization is either to have them destroyed, to donate them (to research or, if available, an adoption-type program), or to pay lots and lots of money to keep them frozen. The embryos that have been used to create these lines were either going to be used for research, or destroyed. Any further embryos used for this type of research (if the bill had not been vetoed and we were talking federal funding, anyways) would have been specifically donated for that purpose, with a strict informed consent process.

Meh, I read your original comment wrong, but everything I said above is true. Of course, no one has been arguing that all embryos not used in stem cell research will be destroyed. They were simply pointing out that the embryos that have been used in ES cell research have been slated for destruction, and therefore would otherwise have been destroyed.

there are always the current stem cell lines, which are immortal,

...and have been grown with animal products, making them unsuitable for human use; and have been grown in high oxygen environments, making them prone to karyotype changes and thus not suitable for use in humans; and pretty much all come from rich white people, meaning that the genetic diversity is low (and thus the variances we get in research will likely be underestimated); and are all essentially healthy cell lines, so that they are of little to no use in the study of genetic disease processes; and so on...

The fact that the lines are essentially immortal is far from solving all of our problems.

and there are many ways to keep embroyo's alive.

You mean freezing? You certainly can freeze them down, but it is an expensive process and the maintenance is expensive. Many people spend pretty much everything they have just achieving a pregnancy through in vitro fertilization and thus don't have the money to keep embryos they might one day use frozen. Very little research has been done on how long they can be kept frozen and still be viable. And many couples who undergo in vitro actually feel morally compelled to donate their excess embryos to research.

haven't embryonic stem cells been researched for half of the time of adult stem cells? So shouldn't they have yielded at least half of the results? Adult stem cells are currently being used to treat 100 medical conditions. Embryonic:none.

I forget who it was who said why do you try and eliminate a branch of research? You eliminate it because it is either not producing like the other brands or you make sure it will be able to compete with the other lines. So, the fact that I'm becoming impatient with embryonic stem cells is at least somewhat understandable.

haven't embryonic stem cells been researched for half of the time of adult stem cells? So shouldn't they have yielded at least half of the results? Adult stem cells are currently being used to treat 100 medical conditions. Embryonic:none.

I forget who it was who said why do you try and eliminate a branch of research? You eliminate it because it is either not producing like the other brands or you make sure it will be able to compete with the other lines. So, the fact that I'm becoming impatient with embryonic stem cells is at least somewhat understandable.

Gravity waves have been research for probably half the time as other atmospheric effects as the cause of ESF. We still have absolutely jack shit to link Gravity waves to ESF aside from some models and theories, and are still in the process of refining those models and trying to see if a predictive pattern can be found relating gravity wave formation and the generation of an ESF plume.

Scientific research is not by any reasonable means a predictable and linear process.

haven't embryonic stem cells been researched for half of the time of adult stem cells?

No. This was just discussed. Adult stem cell therapies (ie. bone marrow transplants) have been in use for over 40 years. Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated about a decade ago.

So shouldn't they have yielded at least half of the results? Adult stem cells are currently being used to treat 100 medical conditions. Embryonic:none.

One type of adult stem cells is currently in use - hematopoetic stem cells. Trials have recently begun that use mesenchymal stem cells. Yes, hematopoetic stem cells have been used to treat many conditions, but the underlying treatment is essentially the same.

Guess how many medical treatments currently use other types of adult stem cells? The answer is: none. These things haven't reached clinical use yet.

Meanwhile, with the opposition to embryonic stem cell research and the differences in control, it would be ludicrous to suggest that they would be on even par even if they had been studied for the exact same length of time. Quite a bit of research that could have been done has been blocked by the lack of funding. And ES cells are quite different from any other cell type that has been worked with. Human ES cells are quite different from any other type of ES cells that has been worked with.

I forget who it was who said why do you try and eliminate a branch of research? You eliminate it because it is either not producing like the other brands or you make sure it will be able to compete with the other lines. So, the fact that I'm becoming impatient with embryonic stem cells is at least somewhat understandable.

You're becoming impatient with embryonic stem cell research because you want it to do the impossible? Even once a treatment possibility has been found and study has begun in animal models, you won't see it get to medical clinical trials for years. Those trials can take years. Several more years will pass before it becomes standard medical treatment. You apparently want embryonic stem cells to have gone from discovery to clinical use in less time than most treatments spend in animal and human trials. How interesting. Methinks there must be another underlying reason. Either that or you are incredibly irrational.

Meanwhile, you keep limiting the success of research to cell therapy, as if that is all that research can lead to. You are ignoring the huge amounts of information we can get (and are getting) about developmental biology that we really can't get from any other source - information that can lead (and has already begun to do so) to changes in medical treatment that will help ensure the health of babies that are born - and information that can lead to a new understanding of something that seems as different as cancer biology.

Embryoes aren't fetuses. So don't worry about it.

I thought it was zygotes that were used.