Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Moves Forward In The US
maniacdavid writes "President George Bush has finally made a clear and final decision on stem cell research. He will allow the existing 60 cell lines to continue their development in the hopes of curing a disease. He said the choice was difficult because of his stand on against stem cell funding during his campaign. But he allowed the 60 to continue because the choice between life and death was already made. This is good for both sides and many people are pleased. " Granted, there's the issue of these 60 lines viability, but at least it's not a total federal funding ban, as was widely expected. As well, there's increased funding on stem cells obtained from adults, umbilical cords, placentas and animals - 250$US million this year, which is still a pittance when you consider the potentials of stem cells.
What?? My girlfriend is a molecular biologist who works with the cDNA libraries of a lot of animals and she says human adult stem cells are nowhere near as easy to work with or productive as fetal tissue is. I'm not pro-abortion (but I am pro-choice), but the fact of the matter is: a stem cell, in its purest form is an undifferentiated cell. These "pure stem cells" are best found in undeveloped, terminated fetii (sp?).
Secondly, my girlfriend says 60 libraries isn't enough despite what Bush and his bio advisors say. She says there are hundreds out there. While I guess Bush acquiescing to a degree is a step in the right direction, there still is a way to go.
Regardless, most of the companies doing stem cell research don't need federal funding anyway. The private sector of Biotech has plenty of VC.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
"He said that you can have them regenerate, so in theory they should last forever. If you can keep making more from the ones you already have. And if that's the case, why does only having what they currently have an issue?" Short Answer: Bush is a moron. Stem cells are pluripotent (or, to some minds, totipotent), but not immortal. In other words, these undifferentiated cells have the potential to become many different specialized cells (i.e. bone, muscle, fat, skin, organ...). That's it. They grow and die in culture just like any other cells groups, save for cancers. Avg life span: 1-2 months, max. (Course, we can keep them alive by hybridizing them with hybridomas - otherwise known as cancers - but then they're not really stem cells anymore..). Moreover, it should also be noted that not all stem cells are "created equal", so to speak. That is to say, certain groups of stem cells have a predisposition to become, say, bone or fat cells, as opposed to muscle cells. As such, while said cells can be coaxed into taking on other specialized roles, the cell attrition rate is quite high, and the rate of successful progeneration of specialized cells quite low. Hence the need for a wide variety of fresh stem cell samples. (Incidently, even if frozen in liquid nitrogen or kept at -80 degrees C, these cells become unusable in about 1-2 years, tops). How do I know all this? Simple, really: it's job. As for Dubya's job...does mimmicing Pinnocchio real qualify as a job description?
You're not completely missing the point. Here are a few things you are missing that might help you understand the issue:
Even the staunch opponents of embryonic stem cell research would agree that your life is just as valid as any other -- even that cluster of cells they believe is human.
The difference in the cases you cite is that you are already dead before we do research with your corpse. The child is already dead before we do research with its corpse. We have to kill the embryo before we can do research on its corpse.
You noted that the embryo will be flushed anyway; killed in any case. That's another point the opponents dislike. They believe that flushing the embryo is a problem, too.
The US government itself just said that it won't spend people's money on research that involves killing an embryo. It also said that it would continue to fund research where the embryo is already dead, and it would increase research funding for stem cells obtained from sources where human life isn't an issue.
Note that the US government didn't say that it doesn't want research to happen. The House of Representatives may say such a thing later this month, but I'll hold comment on that until it happens.
Judebert
"We're out of explosives. What we need is a plan!"
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
> "You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
If you can find an original Pernkopf Anatomy Atlas and compare it with versions currently in print, you'll see that this is exactly what happened.
Here's a more detailed article on the issue. It's a bioethicist's nightmare.
I have to take issue with this. Christianity was not the cause of the dark ages. Rome's own decay and corruption brought it about, with the help of your local friendly Germanic barbarians. :)
Keep in mind that Christian monks preserved a lot of the ancient knowledge we still possess.
> For example, note that the Universe exhibits
> intelligent design. Explain how you can get
> complex life and thought from time + chance. The
> law of entropy states otherwise
"Violating entropy" is an old saw shot down by physicists time and again. "Overall entropy" says nothing about local entropy. To see another violation of entropy in exactly the same manner as life, take a look at your air conditioner. And no, that an AC unit is "intelligently designed" doesn't make the principal invalid.
> Why do we have [sexual reproduction] then? Just for pr0n?
Thank goodness! Moreover, if God were creating the universe, why make a male and a female? Why not an androgynous, peaceful, asexual society where men won't rage around fighting natural temptation to be the alpha male, leaving trails of orphans everywhere. Good one, God.
(Would Trout pr0n consist of masturbating to pictures of laid eggs? Discuss.)
Evolution is so powerful that if God were to create the universe as-is, we know enough that evolution would commence immediately on the then-existing species. God would have to take an active role in stopping evolution (which would then be detectable by science, BTW.)
Anyway, evolution is not at odds with religion except in the more fundamental sects (including TV preachers.) The older religions simply throw up their hands and say evolution is how God guided development. No more house-arrests for Galileo for them. If the Bible contradicts science, all the worse for the Bibie. (If you want to continue to believe in it, you must ascribe ever-larger portions to being allegory rather than actual description.)
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
X Files episode. In real life, most of what we know about the limitations of human endurance have are from Nazi doctors' notes. How long it takes to drown, how much blood you can lose, ability to recover from concussions, all of this is stuff the Nazis tested under laboratory conditions. Obviously, we would never replicate these experiments, so as grim as it is, it's useful data that is otherwise totally unobtainable.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The organized church in Europe most certainly held back science, but the organized Chrsitian church is as close to Christ's teachings as a fundamentalist is to a scientist. The organized church was so concerned with holding onto power that the first person to publish a bible in English was burned at the stake for his trouble. Couldn't have all those unwashed peasants actually going to source and cutting out the middle man.
Anarchists never rule
Without wanting to offend the PETA people, the thing that they are concerned about is that they are human embryos, and this is an extension of the whole abortion issue of "is it really a human life before it is born?" or not. There's really no debate about animal use other than the cruelty issue, which I don't think this covers.