NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe it has a lot of promise to American society. Why is there such a big moral dilemma about it? It is for the good of the people?

because people want to believe that a bunch of cells created in a lab are more valuable than human life.

I believe it has a lot of promise to American society. Why is there such a big moral dilemma about it? It is for the good of the people?

Nothing against stem cell research, just where the stem cells come from. So long as they don't come from embryos, I'm okay with stem cell research.

Nothing against stem cell research, just where the stem cells come from. So long as they don't come from embryos, I'm okay with stem cell research.
Same here.

Nothing against stem cell research, just where the stem cells come from. So long as they don't come from embryos, I'm okay with stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells are infinitely more useful than adult ones. You are picking some cultivated stem cells from a protohuman over a living breathing person's life.

I believe it has a lot of promise to American society. Why is there such a big moral dilemma about it? It is for the good of the people?

*waves a bible*

Ur killing babies you bastard!

Ok followers, let's go support the execution at the prison!

Embryonic stem cells are infinitely more useful than adult ones. You are picking some cultivated stem cells from a protohuman over a living breathing person's life.

No, I'm choosing a valuable human life over a possible help to maybe find a cure to a handful of diseases.

I have to go (I have a meeting) or I would gladly stay and continue to debate this. The question comes down to what determines personhood. Since that is in question, I think there should be a moratorium on the use/abuse of those whose personhood is in question until the issue is resolved.

embryos and babies are entirely different in my opinion....but that has been a well traveled road these days.......



"dodges the bible and its gilded page corners"

I believe it has a lot of promise to American society. Why is there such a big moral dilemma about it? It is for the good of the people?

It's a big deal to Americans because Americans read articles like this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_re_us/rescued_embryos_2

And then they associate the frozen embryo with with the child and recognize that the child needs those stem cells themselves, why should we dissect the embryo and steal them for ourselves... Some of us would rather be sick then 'kill' someone else for our cure.

Other than that, I don't know anyone that has a problem with stem cell research, just a problem with embryo farming to harvest stem cells.

Some people think that anything that might one day become a human should have full human rights.

Plants are people too.

Some people think that anything that might one day become a human should have full human rights.

I've never heard anyone that was against embryo farming actually say that, I've only heard people who are pro harvesting say that about their opponent's point of view. In other words, I suspect your statement is actually a strawman, not an accurate portrayal of someone else's position.

The Religious Right has popularized the notion that unborn embryos should not die to cure crippling diseases when they could serve better dying in the Middle East to spread The Word of Gawd.

didn't they find an alternative to Embryonic Stem Cells?

because people want to believe that a bunch of cells created in a lab are more valuable than human life.

The argument is that they are human life and should be protected as such.

didn't they find an alternative to Embryonic Stem Cells?

Yes, in umbilical cords and the like, although, if I recall correctly, they are not as effective as those taken from embryos.

No, I'm choosing a valuable human life over a possible help to maybe find a cure to a handful of diseases.

You're choosing a human "life" that will never implant in a womb and thus never be a living, breathing human person over the best source of insight into early human development that we could ever hope for.

Note that the cells in question, as a general rule, are going to be incinerated if not used for research.

You're choosing a human "life" that will never implant in a womb and thus never be a living, breathing human person over the best source of insight into early human development that we could ever hope for.

Note that the cells in question, as a general rule, are going to be incinerated if not used for research.

That's true now because we have rules and laws about it, what happens if you remove those laws?

The OP asks for the specific American view of the issue and with that in mind I think we can safely say that the American vantage is different than in other places. Producing offspring in America is viewed differently than in other places...
"Americans like children. We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, 'Let's have another kid,' " Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University.

What about all the embryos frozen for in vitro that, when they aren't used, are just destroyed? I forget where I found the source, unfortunately, but I remember it read that nearly 50,000 embryos are destroyed every year in Australia alone. Would you guys object to them being used, since the alternative was destruction?

I've never heard anyone that was against embryo farming actually say that, I've only heard people who are pro harvesting say that about their opponent's point of view. In other words, I suspect your statement is actually a strawman, not an accurate portrayal of someone else's position.

Actually the catholic church's position(and I dare say the position of a number of other christian groups) is that life begins at conception. This is the basis of their objection to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells. Though I'll admit to some hyperbole.

Actually the catholic church's position(and I dare say the position of a number of other christian groups) is that life begins at conception. This is the basis of their objection to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells. Though I'll admit to some hyperbole.

We are in agreement :)

I support stem cell research, and I don't care where the cells come from.

Where do they get their stem cells from these days anyway?

I support stem cell research, and I don't care where the cells come from.

Diseases are gifts from God. Those who resist them shall die, those who attempt to heal them shall die.

That is all, if you disagree you are a heathen and shall die.

Accept your ailments, murderers.

Diseases are gifts from God. Those who resist them shall die, those who attempt to heal them shall die.

That is all, if you disagree you are a heathen and shall die.

Accept your ailments, murderers.

Cancer cells are alive and reproduce, so wouldn't that make chemotherapy and surgery murder according to Church doctrine?

:D

I am suggesting that a cancer should NOT be cured if there was a cure.

You received cancer because God gave it to you and because of this you will accept it and die, for it is the will of god.

Pope Carnivore,
Msiehtonom.

Praise God, or feel his wrath, which you will praise.

The argument is that they are human life and should be protected as such.



Yes, in umbilical cords and the like, although, if I recall correctly, they are not as effective as those taken from embryos.



Also now we can use DNA from a person to create stem cells via some genetic engineering. Still needs some work however.

Oh, and the answer? Because Christians think that an embryo 1/10th the size of a fruit flies brain is a human life:rolleyes:

I am suggesting that a cancer should NOT be cured if there was a cure.

You received cancer because God gave it to you and because of this you will accept it and die, for it is the will of god.

Pope Carnivore,
Msiehtonom.

Praise God, or feel his wrath, which you will praise.

Your a troll or tool, I cant decide which.

didn't they find an alternative to Embryonic Stem Cells?

Not exactly. They've found a way to reprogram adult cells so that they behave similarly, but they do not behave exactly the same. Also, the reprogramming requires genetic changes.

Between those two things, the cells can be useful in some research, but the fact that they do not behave the same makes them less useful in developmental biology and the fact that they are genetically altered means that they will not be used in a clinical setting.


That's true now because we have rules and laws about it, what happens if you remove those laws?

We can do more research?

The OP asks for the specific American view of the issue and with that in mind I think we can safely say that the American vantage is different than in other places. Producing offspring in America is viewed differently than in other places...

I am American.

What about all the embryos frozen for in vitro that, when they aren't used, are just destroyed? I forget where I found the source, unfortunately, but I remember it read that nearly 50,000 embryos are destroyed every year in Australia alone. Would you guys object to them being used, since the alternative was destruction?

Bush vetoed a law that would have allowed expanded funding for ESC lines created out of embryos otherwise slated for destruction. So my guess is that, yes, they would still object.

I am suggesting that a cancer should NOT be cured if there was a cure.

You received cancer because God gave it to you and because of this you will accept it and die, for it is the will of god.

Pope Carnivore,
Msiehtonom.

Praise God, or feel his wrath, which you will praise.

I like you. You're silly. :)

Why would anyone object to killing a premature fetus? I mean, its not really a human. It has a nervous system, but so do jellyfish. Does anyone here object to killing jellyfish in the name of science? If not, then why not embryos? I think its a fair comparison. Plus there is really some seriously amazing stuff that we could potentially do with stem cells.

I've heard people argue that embryos should not be killed because they are potential humans. But that does not actually make them humans. A 64 cell blastocyte is potentially a human, so is sperm. If killing potential life is wrong, then masturbation is murder!

Why would anyone object to killing a premature fetus? I mean, its not really a human. It has a nervous system, but so do jellyfish.

Actually, when discussing embryonic stem cells, we aren't even talking about a fetus. We're talking about a pre-implantation embryo - at the blastocyst stage. There is no nervous system. The cells have not even begun to differentiate into the three germ layers, much less into specific tissues.

You're choosing a human "life" that will never implant in a womb and thus never be a living, breathing human person over the best source of insight into early human development that we could ever hope for.

Note that the cells in question, as a general rule, are going to be incinerated if not used for research.

And that's a problem, too. No artificial insemination. You're creating embryos which you know are going to be destroyed. Thus, you (not you specifically, but you the one performing this operation) are a serial killer.

And that's a problem, too. No artificial insemination. You're creating embryos which you know are going to be destroyed. Thus, you (not you specifically, but you the one performing this operation) are a serial killer.

Uh, what? No, she's not. I'm pretty sure those embryos are sourced from something else(Dem, you'll have to confirm this, but they're taken for the purpose of artificial insemination ect ect, right?) and all Dem is saying is that we should use the extras that would otherwise be destroyed for research.

Producing offspring in America is viewed differently than in other places...
"Americans like children. We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, 'Let's have another kid,' " Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University.

Never heard a greater idiocy. In Italy in the 15th century (Renaissance) the first reaction to prosperity was demographic expansion.

Anyways. The opposition to stem cells research in the US comes mainly from the religious right wing minority that Bush and the republicans have used as a vote reservoir. If these polyticians percieved Jeovah Witnesses to have the same voting potential you'd be seeing laws against blood transfusion being proposed.

Cure diseases? Or stay in a make believe cloud-man's good books?
I know which one I'd pick. Thank God Stem Cell Research is still legal here (Yes, intended irony, don't panic)

(Also, if a sperm counts as a human life, then every man here has commited grand genocide more times than he count)

Nothing against stem cell research, just where the stem cells come from. So long as they don't come from embryos, I'm okay with stem cell research.

Taking in to account the other tread about this, what about if the embryos were clones of yourself?

Diseases are gifts from God. Those who resist them shall die, those who attempt to heal them shall die.

That is all, if you disagree you are a heathen and shall die.

Accept your ailments, murderers.

Umm strange that coz I thought because of the actions of Adam and Eve we where all going to die anyway.

I am suggesting that a cancer should NOT be cured if there was a cure.

You received cancer because God gave it to you and because of this you will accept it and die, for it is the will of god.

Pope Carnivore,
Msiehtonom.

Praise God, or feel his wrath, which you will praise.

Hahahahahahhahahahah!

(Also, if a sperm counts as a human life, then every man here has commited grand genocide more times than he count)


Yeah and sometimes twice a day!

Hey, if America doesn't want to lead, someone else will. We're not invincible, and scientific progress isn't going to wait for us; those technologies, those billions of Euros (do you think the dollar will be worth anything if our economy stagnates?) and most importantly those lives saved aren't going to be ours. We will have to play catch-up and it will be reflected in thousands of unnecessary deaths and untold economic losses.

Nobody here is going to wait for treatments for horrible diseases because demagogues are too busy promoting the same irrational debate ad infnitum...we're going to hop on planes for Europe, Asia, wherever, and we're going to get those treatments whether they like it or not. America has been blessed with considerable innovative power, and to squander it will be to squander the very thing that made us leaders in the first place.

Only a small portion of blastocyts ever implant in a woman's uterus. I believe it's less than 50 %, but every month a normal couple tries to have a baby they have about 22% chance of getting pregnant, so many embryo's are lost in the process, and only a minority of parents aren't serial killers following your logic. So no natural insemination too.

We have untold numbers of "shadow siblings" that died during our development. ..that's a natural fact, and it's one that really needs to be brought up in this debate. If God saw fit to allow this to happen, he should have no qualms about us using that same basic concept to save lives with ones that were already lost.

And that's a problem, too. No artificial insemination. You're creating embryos which you know are going to be destroyed. Thus, you (not you specifically, but you the one performing this operation) are a serial killer.

Only a small portion of blastocyts ever implant in a woman's uterus. I believe it's less than 50 %, but every month a normal couple tries to have a baby they have about 22% chance of getting pregnant, so many embryo's are lost in the process, and only a minority of parents aren't serial killers following your logic. So no natural insemination too.

We have untold numbers of "shadow siblings" that died during our development. ..that's a natural fact, and it's one that really needs to be brought up in this debate. If God saw fit to allow this to happen, he should have no qualms about us using that same basic concept to save lives with ones that were already lost.

Actually I think it has little to do with this debate and I couldn't care less what "god" sees fit. If IVF is the only way a couple can have children, something most people seem to find very important to become happy, and no happiness was reduced (a blastocyt can't be happy, and I'm using happy in a very broad sense here) I can't see any good reason why IVF could be considered bad.

No, I'm choosing a valuable human life over a possible help to maybe find a cure to a handful of diseases.

I have to go (I have a meeting) or I would gladly stay and continue to debate this. The question comes down to what determines personhood. Since that is in question, I think there should be a moratorium on the use/abuse of those whose personhood is in question until the issue is resolved.
So because it can be technically considered "human life" it should be just as protected as SENTIENT human life with a consciousness even thought it isn't sentient and doesn't have a consciousness?

Nothing against stem cell research, just where the stem cells come from. So long as they don't come from embryos, I'm okay with stem cell research.
Why shouldn't they come from embryos? Embryonic stem cell research has much more potential to find cures than non-embryonic because embryonic stem cells are unspecialized and can develop into different kinds of cells.

The argument is that they are human life and should be protected as such.
Even though they do not have a consciousness to lose by dying like the human lives ESCR has the potential to save are?

Bottom line is since medical research began it has involved some practices that many people find repugnant, but like it or not, the resultant advances have saved countless lives, possibly including many of those so opposed to current practices.

At the end of the day, now as back then, you can outlaw anything, but there will always be people who will continue regardless, and who knows what further advances that might bring.

So to summarise, it's going to happen somewhere whether we like it or not, so why waste so much energy trying to stop the unstoppable.

Bottom line is since medical research began it has involved some practices that many people find repugnant, but like it or not, the resultant advances have saved countless lives, possibly including many of those so opposed to current practices.

At the end of the day, now as back then, you can outlaw anything, but there will always be people who will continue regardless, and who knows what further advances that might bring.

So to summarise, it's going to happen somewhere whether we like it or not, so why waste so much energy trying to stop the unstoppable.

Agreed. Also as Vetalia rightly points out, if America does not embrace this technology, then America losses out in the long run.

Where do they get their stem cells from these days anyway?
Well, depends on the type of cell, but the controversy is about embryonic stem cells, and I think they usually get those from embyros from in vitro fertilizations; they could get a lot more embryonic stem cells by cloning embryos, but I think there's even more controversy there.

So to summarise, it's going to happen somewhere whether we like it or not, so why waste so much energy trying to stop the unstoppable.

That's a pretty weak argument, why trying to stop murders if it's going to happen somewhere anyway? There are better arguments than that.

Diseases are gifts from God. Those who resist them shall die, those who attempt to heal them shall die.

That is all, if you disagree you are a heathen and shall die.

Accept your ailments, murderers.
:headbang: Damn it I am sick of the religious choke chain being pulled on people with diseases. Stop trying to justify these diseases based on your imaginary friend in the sky. Ok, fine, "god" might exist but according to what YOU'RE saying he is a worthless piece of shit and to obey him would be nothing short of appeasement.

By the way, to those who are against embryonic stem cell research, I hope you get type 1 diabetes.

Anyway, I'm going to my chemistry class now.

:headbang: Damn it I am sick of the religious choke chain being pulled on people with diseases. Stop trying to justify these diseases based on your imaginary friend in the sky. Ok, fine, "god" might exist but according to what YOU'RE saying he is a worthless piece of shit and to obey him would be nothing short of appeasement.

I think he was just trolling.

right wing loonies have filled joe sixpacks head with images of baby in a blender.

=^^=
.../\...

I believe it has a lot of promise to American society. Why is there such a big moral dilemma about it?

Because of the Myth of the Magic Sperm, wherein human personhood begins when the sperm has done it's part.


It is for the good of the people?
No.

embryos and babies are entirely different in my opinion....
I should hope so. I kill embryos routinely for my research, but I've never killed a single baby.

"They're not stems, they're babies! And they're not cells, they're babies! And it's not research, it's babies!"

- America's finest news source

This statement is not accurate.

Scientists BELIEVE that embryonic stem cells have greater potential, but adult stem cells (from bone marrow) have been used in practical treatments for YEARS.

*Raises hand* Scientist here.

We know, without a doubt, the embryonic stem cells have greater potential than adult stem cells in several areas. There are also areas where adult stem cells are just as useful as embryonic cells. There are even situations where adult stem cells are more useful than embryonic cells! (fancy that!). The one does not remove the others.


At this point, (I heard this on the radio last week) they have found a way to make adult stem cells mimic embryonic stem cells, so there's no longer reason to harvest such cells from embryos in any case.
Demi already addressed this, but the short version is that we can make adult stem cells MIMIC embryonic cells, to an impressive while limited extent, but this requires genetic changes which also impact the result. There are still many reasons why embryonic cells are needed, both for research and for clinical applications.

Embryonic stem cells are infinitely more useful than adult ones. You are picking some cultivated stem cells from a protohuman over a living breathing person's life.

This statement is not accurate.

Scientists BELIEVE that embryonic stem cells have greater potential, but adult stem cells (from bone marrow) have been used in practical treatments for YEARS.

At this point, (I heard this on the radio last week) they have found a way to make adult stem cells mimic embryonic stem cells, so there's no longer reason to harvest such cells from embryos in any case.

This statement is not accurate.

Scientists BELIEVE that embryonic stem cells have greater potential, but adult stem cells (from bone marrow) have been used in practical treatments for YEARS.

At this point, (I heard this on the radio last week) they have found a way to make adult stem cells mimic embryonic stem cells, so there's no longer reason to harvest such cells from embryos in any case.
The method isn't completely effective according to the news, so yeah, they do need to harvest such cells. As for adult stem cells being successful in treatments, there's things that adult stem cells probably wouldn't be successful in that embryonic stem cells probably would, therefore embryonic needs to be used as well as adult.

"They're not stems, they're babies! And they're not cells, they're babies! And it's not research, it's babies!"

- America's finest news source
o.o What news source?

Anyway, that's ridiculous. To call a pile of unspecialized cells "babies" is thoroughly retarded. I can't help but think that they aren't really educated on the subject. And if that's the case, their views on the subject aren't as important as of those who are.

The method isn't completely effective according to the news, so yeah, they do need to harvest such cells. As for adult stem cells being successful in treatments, there's things that adult stem cells probably wouldn't be successful in that embryonic stem cells probably would, therefore embryonic needs to be used as well as adult.

That's an awful lot of 'probably' to enforce public policy on.

What we know is that adult stem cells work. We have successful and useful treatments that involve them.

Embryonic stem cells do not work. (Scientists believe there's potential, but nothing has been proven.) There are no practical applications for them at this time.

Embryonic stem cells do not work. (Scientists believe there's potential, but nothing has been proven.) There are no practical applications for them at this time.
Um, wrong?

Embryonic stem cells "work" for a whole crapton of applications in research. It's true that we don't have clinical applications for human use of human embryonic stem cells, but that might have to do with it being illegal. It's kind of hard to get through the clinical trial stage if your work is illegal.

Here's just one recent article I found with a quick Google. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051012084443.htm

"For the first time, stem cell researchers at the University of Minnesota have coaxed human embryonic stem cells to create cancer-killing cells in the laboratory, paving the way for future treatments for various types of cancers (or tumors).

...

"We hear a lot about the potential of stem cells to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. This research suggests it is possible that we could use human embryonic stem cells as a source for immune cells that could better target and destroy cancer cells and potentially treat infections," Kaufman added.

The results also provided the researchers with a model of how the immune system develops.

Next, the researchers will test whether the human embryonic stem cell-derived natural killer cells can target cancer cells in animal models.

This research was done on two of the federally approved embryonic stem cell lines. Kaufman said, however, that if the research would lead to a treatment for people, new lines would have to be developed. The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the American Society of Hematology."

I'd say that's a pretty good example of embryonic stem cells working. But, as the article says, we can't make this research into clinical treatment, because we aren't allowed to develop new stem cell lines. It's bullshit to say that embryonic stem cells don't work if you aren't going to allow researchers to actually do what it would take to make them work.

Embryonic stem cells do not work. (Scientists believe there's potential, but nothing has been proven.) There are no practical applications for them at this time.

There is evidence coming out (often from private researchers or other countries) confirming that there are practical applications and that they are becoming increasingly broad with each new breakthrough... the thousands of companies, governments, and individuals involved in this research aren't pouring billions in to the field because they think it's a pipe dream. The thing is, we won't know what their applications are unless we research them further. So, unless the US is willing to gamble and risk completely falling behind on a major medical field for the slim chance that embryonic stem cells are a dead end, more opportunities for research are required.

It seems that there's a misconception for way, way too many people that embryonic stem cells are supposed to be some kind of instantaneous panacea for ailments when in fact, when it comes to understanding the complex roles that stem cells play in various disorders and how they can be applied, we've only begun to uncover their potential.

The technology necessary for in-depth analysis of embryonic stem cells has only really become available in the past decade, and a bundle of key technologies (such as lab-on-a-chip analysis and nanoscale manipulation, among others needed for the kind of control necessary to successfully test and observe stem cell techniques) are just becoming available now. We haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to embryonic stem cells, let alone the broader category of regenerative and personalized medicine, so arguing against ESC research when their potential is not only already significant but has not even begun to be examined in-depth just doesn't make sense.

"They're not stems, they're babies! And they're not cells, they're babies! And it's not research, it's babies!"

- America's finest news source

The Onion?

There is evidence coming out (often from private researchers or other countries) confirming that there are practical applications and that they are becoming increasingly broad with each new breakthrough... the thousands of companies, governments, and individuals involved in this research aren't pouring billions in to the field because they think it's a pipe dream. The thing is, we won't know what their applications are unless we research them further. So, unless the US is willing to gamble and risk completely falling behind on a major medical field for the slim chance that embryonic stem cells are a dead end, more opportunities for research are required.

It seems that there's a misconception for way, way too many people that embryonic stem cells are supposed to be some kind of instantaneous panacea for ailments when in fact, when it comes to understanding the complex roles that stem cells play in various disorders and how they can be applied, we've only begun to uncover their potential.

The technology necessary for in-depth analysis of embryonic stem cells has only really become available in the past decade, and a bundle of key technologies (such as lab-on-a-chip analysis and nanoscale manipulation, among others needed for the kind of control necessary to successfully test and observe stem cell techniques) are just becoming available now. We haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to embryonic stem cells, let alone the broader category of regenerative and personalized medicine, so arguing against ESC research when their potential is not only already significant but has not even begun to be examined in-depth just doesn't make sense.

Very well said.

o.o What news source?

Anyway, that's ridiculous. To call a pile of unspecialized cells "babies" is thoroughly retarded. I can't help but think that they aren't really educated on the subject. And if that's the case, their views on the subject aren't as important as of those who are.

Ah. Perhaps you will be enlightened if I tell you that this (http://www.theonion.com/content/) is America's finest news source.

Ifreann beat me.

No stem cell research! Fuck me and the wheelchair I rode in on! :rolleyes:

The embryonic stem cells used in research are from excess embryos at fertility clinics and the like, and were never going to be implanted. Despite the Fundie horror stories, researchers are not inducing abortions for their own nefarious plot.

Very well said.

My thanks. I take that as quite a compliment.

No stem cell research! Fuck me and the wheelchair I rode in on! :rolleyes:

The embryonic stem cells used in research are from excess embryos at fertility clinics and the like, and were never going to be implanted. Despite the Fundie horror stories, researchers are not inducing abortions for their own nefarious plot.

This is actually what upsets me the most about the resistance to ESR, these embryos are basically leftovers. If theyre not used for research, they're going into the trash. For some reason the fundies think that the trashcan is a better place for these "babies" then in a research lab...

For some reason the fundies think that the trashcan is a better place for these "babies" then in a research lab...

I doubt even the fundies themselves could give you a reason for that. At least one that wouldn't make your ears bleed upon hearing it.

Um, wrong?

Embryonic stem cells "work" for a whole crapton of applications in research. It's true that we don't have clinical applications for human use of human embryonic stem cells, but that might have to do with it being illegal. It's kind of hard to get through the clinical trial stage if your work is illegal.


Stop right there. Before I can address the rest of your post I have to call you out for this blatant falsehood. (Not calling you a liar. You might just have bought into the rhetoric.)

It is NOT illegal to work with the embryos that had already been harvested. The moratorium laid down by the Preisdent prevents new embryos from being harvested for the purpose of this research. There ARE such embryos available for research and they ARE funded. In fact, George W. Bush is the first President in American history to approve funding for this research. (Clinton could have and didn't.)

Uh, what? No, she's not. I'm pretty sure those embryos are sourced from something else(Dem, you'll have to confirm this, but they're taken for the purpose of artificial insemination ect ect, right?) and all Dem is saying is that we should use the extras that would otherwise be destroyed for research.

All of the ESCs currently approved for use with federal funds in the US are derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization. The bill that Bush has vetoed twice now would still have restricted research to that source, but would have allowed for new lines.

There are a few researchers who have managed to get other funds to create embryos specifically for ESC research - either through an in vitro process or attempts at therapeutic cloning.

This statement is not accurate.

Scientists BELIEVE that embryonic stem cells have greater potential, but adult stem cells (from bone marrow) have been used in practical treatments for YEARS.

Indeed. One type of treatment - bone marrow transplants. Hematopoeitic stem cells are the most well-understood stem cells we know of.

But arguing that this means we should not research a new technology that could provide amazing insight into developmental biology and potential cures for diseases involving tissue types that cannot be derived from hematopoeitic stem cells is ridiculous. It's like saying, "Well, we've got penicillin, and we've been using it for years. This means that there is no reason to research any other drug."

At this point, (I heard this on the radio last week) they have found a way to make adult stem cells mimic embryonic stem cells, so there's no longer reason to harvest such cells from embryos in any case.

Wrong. First of all, cells in question mimic ESCs - to a point. Differences in cell behavior have already been noted, meaning that actual ESCs are still much more useful when studying developmental biology. Second of all, the cells in question have been genetically altered to reprogram them. Those genetic alterations make them an incredible cancer risk, which means that such cells cannot be used in a clinical setting.

Stop right there. Before I can address the rest of your post I have to call you out for this blatant falsehood. (Not calling you a liar. You might just have bought into the rhetoric.)

It is NOT illegal to work with the embryos that had already been harvested.

Before you say something is a falsehood, make sure you're actually talking about what you think you are talking about.

It is not possible to progress to the clinical stage using what we have now. The article I stated addressed that specifically. The existing lines are enough for limited purposes, but if you want to actually have any chance of using embryonic stem cells for the range of clinical applications they probably can be used for then we must have new lines.

In other words, it's not legal for researchers to do what would have to be done in order to make it to the clinical trials with a novel treatment.

The moratorium laid down by the Preisdent prevents new embryos from being harvested for the purpose of this research. There ARE such embryos available for research and they ARE funded. In fact, George W. Bush is the first President in American history to approve funding for this research. (Clinton could have and didn't.)
Demi has addressed this already, I believe.

*snip*

Part of the problem people have is that they are looking for cell-based cures and they think such applications are the only way ESCs research can be useful. Such cures are one goal (and quite a bit of progress is being made on it - particularly in spinal injury research), but they are hardly the sum total of ESC research.

These cells are giving us a completely new window into developmental biology - one that is already informing clinical practice elsewhere and one that we cannot get from anything else. In animals, we can do timed pregnancies and watch the development of an embryo very closely by doing so. Such a practice would be horribly unethical in human beings, though, so ESCs are truly the best resource we have for such studies.

For instance, two of the projects in my lab involve looking at the effects of various anesthetics and of ethanol on ESCs, both in ESC culture and as we differentiate them into other cell types. This research isn't going to provide a cell-based cure for anything. What it will do is inform anesthesiologists on the safest methods of anesthetizing a pregnant woman while trying to preserve the embryo/fetus and help us to understand the mechanism behind fetal alcohol syndrome, so that we might be able to prevent/treat it.

I'd say that's a pretty good example of embryonic stem cells working. But, as the article says, we can't make this research into clinical treatment, because we aren't allowed to develop new stem cell lines. It's bullshit to say that embryonic stem cells don't work if you aren't going to allow researchers to actually do what it would take to make them work.

To be completely clear, deriving new stem cell lines is only actually illegal in select states in the US. What we cannot do is use federal funds to do so. It is still quite a functional barrier, as it is difficult to find a lab that isn't working off of some sort of NIH grant, and use of any non-approved lines would require keeping the finances and facilities completely separate.


The technology necessary for in-depth analysis of embryonic stem cells has only really become available in the past decade, and a bundle of key technologies (such as lab-on-a-chip analysis and nanoscale manipulation, among others needed for the kind of control necessary to successfully test and observe stem cell techniques) are just becoming available now. We haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to embryonic stem cells, let alone the broader category of regenerative and personalized medicine, so arguing against ESC research when their potential is not only already significant but has not even begun to be examined in-depth just doesn't make sense.

In fact, we've only been able to work with human ESCs at all for a decade - and there have been substantial barriers to the research the entire time. They were first derived, IIRC, in 1997.


It is NOT illegal to work with the embryos that had already been harvested. The moratorium laid down by the Preisdent prevents new embryos from being harvested for the purpose of this research. There ARE such embryos available for research and they ARE funded. In fact, George W. Bush is the first President in American history to approve funding for this research. (Clinton could have and didn't.)

And those cells have all been kept in sub-optimal conditions (after all, they were some of the first attempts at deriving ESCs) and have been grown with animal products and animal cells. Because of these two things, they cannot be used in human clinical applications. Hence the reason that both Bottle and the researcher she was quoting made it clear that we need new lines before we can move into cell-based clinical applications.

Part of the problem people have is that they are looking for cell-based cures and they think such applications are the only way ESCs research can be useful. Such cures are one goal (and quite a bit of progress is being made on it - particularly in spinal injury research), but they are hardly the sum total of ESC research.

These cells are giving us a completely new window into developmental biology - one that is already informing clinical practice elsewhere and one that we cannot get from anything else. In animals, we can do timed pregnancies and watch the development of an embryo very closely by doing so. Such a practice would be horribly unethical in human beings, though, so ESCs are truly the best resource we have for such studies.

For instance, two of the projects in my lab involve looking at the effects of various anesthetics and of ethanol on ESCs, both in ESC culture and as we differentiate them into other cell types. This research isn't going to provide a cell-based cure for anything. What it will do is inform anesthesiologists on the safest methods of anesthetizing a pregnant woman while trying to preserve the embryo/fetus and help us to understand the mechanism behind fetal alcohol syndrome, so that we might be able to prevent/treat it.

Indeed!

I'm a developmental biologist too, and while I don't work on stem cells I do end up reading a crapton of literature that relies on stem cell research. I study embryos (not human ones) in my own research.

On our lab wall we have a framed quotation which reads, "Our real teacher has been and still is the embryo-who is, incidentally, the only teacher who is always right." (It was said by Viktor Hamburger, whose work on developmental neuroembryology pretty much defined the field as we know it.)


To be completely clear, deriving new stem cell lines is only actually illegal in select states in the US. What we cannot do is use federal funds to do so. It is still quite a functional barrier, as it is difficult to find a lab that isn't working off of some sort of NIH grant, and use of any non-approved lines would require keeping the finances and facilities completely separate.

I realize (belatedly) that non-scientists probably don't know much about the process for getting research funding. That's my bad. Hell, I've been in science for years, with a Dad who was applying for grants since I was an infant, and I still don't fully get the process.

There's also no particular reason why a non-scientist would know that funding sucks right now. There was a period in the 90s when it seemed like money was raining from the sky in research, but nowadays trying to get funding is crappy beyond words. To be denied any shot at NIH money pretty much shuts the door on a project. There are exceptions, of course, but if nothing else it really narrows the field and hugely reduces the number of people who can pursue embryonic stem cell research.


And those cells have all been kept in sub-optimal conditions (after all, they were some of the first attempts at deriving ESCs) and have been grown with animal products and animal cells. Because of these two things, they cannot be used in human clinical applications. Hence the reason that both Bottle and the researcher she was quoting made it clear that we need new lines before we can move into cell-based clinical applications.
It's not a matter of politics, in this sense, it's a matter of science. If you want to see clinical applications, you have to let us develop new lines because otherwise it's just not going to work. If you refuse to allow new lines to be developed, then you lose the right to complain about the lack of clinical applications. If you strip funding from people who want to develop the new lines, you can't then turn around and complain that research isn't proceeding fast enough or providing enough evidence for the applicability of the lines.

It's not a matter of politics, in this sense, it's a matter of science. If you want to see clinical applications, you have to let us develop new lines because otherwise it's just not going to work. If you refuse to allow new lines to be developed, then you lose the right to complain about the lack of clinical applications. If you strip funding from people who want to develop the new lines, you can't then turn around and complain that research isn't proceeding fast enough or providing enough evidence for the applicability of the lines.

Indeed.

It is also disingenuous to continually compare hematopoietic stem cells to embryonic stem cells. It's comparing apples to oranges. We've had research into and therapies with bone-marrow derived stem cells (usually hematopoietic) for over 50 years. We first derived embryonic stem cells 10 years ago. Even under the best of conditions, you wouldn't expect accepted clinical uses of ESCs to be in place yet.

Research isn't an instant process. We don't discover something today and start putting it in people tomorrow. First, we do the basic science research. Then, we move to clinical animal tests. Then on to humans. A decade is a very short period of time in the world of research - especially when even the basic science research suffers from significant impediments.

I believe it has a lot of promise to American society. Why is there such a big moral dilemma about it? It is for the good of the people?

There are two basic reasons for opposition. One is the religious crap about life being sacred from contraception. The other reason is some form of slippery slope argument fearing that if stem cell research can produce clones or aid in the research of cloning, and cloning is possible, and the ability is given to the wrong hands, there may be dire consequences. Some may fear that people will exploit research to create "designer babies", effectively a program of eugenics, also.

Nothing against stem cell research, just where the stem cells come from. So long as they don't come from embryos, I'm okay with stem cell research.

So you would rather aborted embryos are simply thrown away instead of being used to help find a cure for cancer?

So you would rather aborted embryos are simply thrown away instead of being used to help find a cure for cancer?

or the leftovers from IVF? There are a whole lot of embryos that are just sitting in cold storage, waiting to be thrown out. Why not put the to good use, like saving lives? (And if you mention snowflake babies, I'll have to hit you upside the head. There aren't enough women in the US willing to bear someone else's baby.)

So you would rather aborted embryos are simply thrown away instead of being used to help find a cure for cancer?

Not aborted embryos. When talking about embryonic stem cell research, abortion has nothing to do with it. The blastocyst stage - the stage at which ESCs are isolated - is a pre-implantation stage. If the blastocyst happened to be inside a woman, she wouldn't even be pregnant yet. As such, it is patently impossible to get ESCs from "aborted embryos."

Not aborted embryos. When talking about embryonic stem cell research, abortion has nothing to do with it. The blastocyst stage - the stage at which ESCs are isolated - is a pre-implantation stage. If the blastocyst happened to be inside a woman, she wouldn't even be pregnant yet. As such, it is patently impossible to get ESCs from "aborted embryos."

I blame two things for my misstatement. The right wing babble about abortion in relation to embryonic stem cell research, and sleep deprivation.

At any rate this whole sideline has me wanting to sing . . .

Cue the band!

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate . . ."

I blame two things for my misstatement. The right wing babble about abortion in relation to embryonic stem cell research, and sleep deprivation.

At any rate this whole sideline has me wanting to sing . . .

Cue the band!

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate . . ."

For the sake of all that is holy (and my ears), please, please, PLEASE don't ever induce redwulf to sing. It tends to be painful.

Yeah and sometimes twice a day!

Only twice?

*waves a bible*

Ur killing babies you bastard!

Ok followers, let's go support the execution at the prison!

/thread