Baby Teeth Are A Source Of Stem Cells

Makarand writes "A pediatric dentist at the National Institutes of Health has found that baby teeth can be a rich source of stem cells. Just like the stem cells found in embryos from which all organs arise, the stem cells in baby teeth could be encouraged to grow into nerve cells, fat cells and the precursors to tooth cells. This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research."

Comments

The world today....

[pnjman]

Time to replace the tooth fairy with the multi-billion dollar medical companies.

Re:The world today....

[dacarr]

And just think. All this time I only got a quarter for my primaries until I was older., then I got... nothing....

Re:The world today....

[stefanlasiewski]

Bah, it's time to find the tooth fairy and find out what's she's been doing with your teeth all these years.

Man, she's been running this racket for hundreds of years!

Tooth Fairy = Never seems to age
Stem Cells = Stops the aging process
Baby Teeth = Stem Cells

Re:The world today....

[PD]

The business plan

1) Collect baby teeth
2) ???
3) Profit!

Use teeth instead of blood from the umbilical cord

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone who has recently had a baby, you're probably aware of the expensive procedure where the blood from your baby's umbilical cord is saved in case they ever need it.

Would using the baby teeth be a cheap alternative to this for parents who can't afford the procedure to save the umbilical blood?

So...

[Bob Vila's Hammer]

"Just like the stem cells found in embryos from which all organs arise, the stem cells in baby teeth could be encouraged to grow into...fat cells..."

So is that the genetic engineering term equivalent to chewing the fat?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was just fucking stupid.

Baby parts are good for all kinds of things

[L. VeGas]

...and baby eyeballs taste delicious sauteed in butter and garlic.

----------
Oprah

Re:Baby parts are good for all kinds of things

[Anonymous Coward]

informative?

Re:Baby parts are good for all kinds of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'm too late, so I'll just tack my joke on...

This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.
Openning up a new moral debate about punching children in the face too loosen baby teeth.

Re:Baby parts are good for all kinds of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcastic moderation isn't something I like to see, but I get why it's done. Calling it informative is going along with the joke.

You also see this kind of thing when someone make a clearly wrong but serious comment which gets modded funny. It's only funny because the writer was so stupid.

Re:Baby parts are good for all kinds of things

[vidnet]

Moderation +2
50% Funny
50% Informative

Informative? Uh oh.

Tooth Fairy with stethoscope and labcoat

[mnmn]

So will parents be selling babyteeth now? Heck, some heath programs should allow them to save one tooth in a cell bank from where later it could be used to grow spare body parts.

I wonder why its not possible to turn two stem cells into an egg and a sperm, fertilize and continue the cycle for a limitless supply. I understand if its split into an egg and sperm, there will be genetic variations from the original, not to mention it will be like marrying your identical twin, with bad results.. but maybe the resulting egg can be zapped and its nucleus replaced with another cell like in Dollys case.

For now.. all babies will be encouraged to join little boxing rinks, for some financial boost to their parents.

Re:i'd like some of her stem cells...

[Surye]

Hahaha, as off topic as it is, it really got the slashdot crowd happy =P Nice moderation.

*note to self: pr0n = Karma whoring*

No

[falsification]

This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.

Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.

Re:No

[rothic]

This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.
Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.
Devastating argument against what? The original post was regarding the ability of scientific researchers to take stem cells from sources other than embryos...and in doing so, they themselves can bypass the debate on such practices. It had nothing to do with whether or not people were still capable of disagreement on embryonic research.

Re:No

[falsification]

Moderated down again for stating an unpopular opinion.

This Slashdot is a hellhole.

Re:No

[norton_I]

Well, am not moderating, but if I were, I might have moderated your post as "-1 unintelligible" I still have no idea what exactly you mean, or what you are opposed to or not. I realize clarity is not necessarily a virtue on /. but I think people ought to try.

Re:No

[MillionthMonkey]

Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.

Your use of even in that sentence implies that you previously had a moderately "devastating" argument in the first place, and you do not. Maybe this will give you an argument that rises above nonsensical (and you sure could use one of those), but to say it's devastating is a stretch.

Your statement contains two factual errors. Embryonic stem cells don't come from a fetus, they're harvested from an embryo. The cells in a fetus are too well differentiated. And the embryo in question is not "destroyed for this purpose". People who go to fertility clinics to undergo in vitro fertilization generally don't want to raise a litter of 10 kids at once. The procedure isolates the most successful of many embryos and dispenses with the rest of them. That is the purpose for which they are destroyed. I don't understand why people make such a fuss about stem cell research when the embryos are destroyed by fertility procedures in the first place. I guess anything that results in more babies in the world is less likely to generate complaints from some people.

You also speak as if you know for a fact that these baby teeth stem cells are as viable as embryonic cells. You don't know that's true at all. In general stem cells from non-embryonic sources are not as viable and are much more difficult to work with.

Re:No

[falsification]

Embryonic stem cells don't come from a fetus, they're harvested from an embryo.

Of course that's right. I was using the term fetus in its less usual sense of the unborn human in all its stages from fertilized egg to full-term fetus.

the embryo in question is not "destroyed for this purpose".

This is wrong. When a fertilized egg is harvested for the purpose of using its stem cells, the entire blastocyst is used. At that point, the blastocyst is entirely composed of stem cells ("embryonic" stem cells). Again, the entire blastocyst is harvested. The only part that is not harvested is the nascent umbilical cord and placenta, which obviously will not develop by themselves into a human. When the blastocyst is harvested, the unborn human will obviously never be born. It is totally destroyed.

There is a highly significant difference between the purposeful destruction of an embryo for research purposes and the destruction of unwanted embryos in fertility clinics. The difference is the reason for destruction. If an unborn person, which is potential life, is destroyed for research purposes, that is unethical. The end of that potential life is undignified. The potential human cannot possibly give consent for becoming a research subject. The potential life is unethically treated by society as a means to an end.

OTOH, destruction of an embryo in a fertility clinic is dignified. The potential life does not have the right to be born, and thus may be destroyed. The potential life does have a right against being used or manufactured for research purposes, or as a means to some end. Morality demands that a human life, potential or otherwise, may not ever become merely a means to an end.

You also speak as if you know for a fact that these baby teeth stem cells are as viable as embryonic cells.

Of course you are right. That is why I included the phrase, "if this turns out to be the case."

Re:No

[MillionthMonkey]

There is a highly significant difference between the purposeful destruction of an embryo for research purposes and the destruction of unwanted embryos in fertility clinics. The difference is the reason for destruction. If an unborn person, which is potential life, is destroyed for research purposes, that is unethical. The end of that potential life is undignified. The potential human cannot possibly give consent for becoming a research subject. The potential life is unethically treated by society as a means to an end.

OTOH, destruction of an embryo in a fertility clinic is dignified. The potential life does not have the right to be born, and thus may be destroyed. The potential life does have a right against being used or manufactured for research purposes, or as a means to some end. Morality demands that a human life, potential or otherwise, may not ever become merely a means to an end.

OH what nonsense. The rationalization and logic of convenience in those two paragraphs is unbelievable.

The reason for destruction is not the stem cell research, it's the in vitro protocol. The embryo is destroyed whether the stem cell scientists get their hands on it or not. Requiring them to get an embryo's signature on an IRB before they can harvest stem cells from it is unreasonable.

A zygote doesn't instantly get all the rights of a human once it is formed. Sometime between zero and nine months, it does become unethical to end its life for nonessential purposes. People like to identify sharp ethical boundaries, but there are no sharp boundaries during gestation, and certainly none that are close to the most reasonable place- probably somewhere between month 5 and 7. That leaves birth and conception. Birth is clearly too late, so they lock onto conception and pretend that ethical considerations associated with experiments on human beings apply at that point. But they don't. For the first several months there are not even any features that differentiate a human embryo from that of a cow or chicken.

"Potential life" is just a ludicrous concept. An isolated egg and sperm together constitute "potential life". If you're going to argue that real human beings should remain in their wheelchairs, you'll have to do better than comparing them to potential human beings. It's so ridiculous it's offensive.

Re:No

[falsification]

OH what nonsense.

I see you aren't willing to argue the ethical issues in a serious manner.

"Potential life" is just a ludicrous concept.

Perhaps you should inform the Supreme Court of the United States of America of that.

Re:No

[MillionthMonkey]

I see you aren't willing to argue the ethical issues in a serious manner.

That's because I don't see any here.

> "Potential life" is just a ludicrous concept.

Perhaps you should inform the Supreme Court of the United States of America of that.

The same clowns that decided Bush vs. Gore based on the outcome they wanted. So what court case are you talking about? Do you have a legal reference?
Your implication, of course, is that Scalia et al are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not ethical. Ironic, since the current SCOTUS is what you get when you pack the judiciary with right wing nutjobs- which is fundamentally a political process.

Re:No

[falsification]

Search for potential life. And keep searching for it.

Re:No

[Naomiah]

Falsification, No matter how many word searches you do on findlaw.com and tourolaw.com, it doesn't prove your point. You are equating dicta with findings. Dicta is just blather about how the Court came to its decision. It can be important, and is of interest, and can be quoted in legal briefs, but it does not work as legal precedent, which is the meat of any decision. Only findings can be the basis of legal precedent. There was no finding of legal meaning for the term "potential life," in either of the two cases you cited (Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for those who are to lazy to click on the links).

In fact, the inability to find a bright line definition of what "potential life" means is the whole point of most of the dicta found in Roe v. Wade and progeny. The inability of the court to come to a joint finding of what "potential life" means, is the very reason this issue is still being litigated at several levels of the federal court system.

Re:No

[falsification]

Welcome back to real life. I was making an ethical point, not a legal one. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not to everyone.

Re:No

[Naomiah]

You're right, it isn't evident to everyone. Especially people who can read. You were the one who suggested that your terminology was supported by the USSC. I guess you assumed no one would be willing to read the decisions to see if they supported your assertion. Ooops!

Re:No

[falsification]

Run along, son. I hope you realize that the Supreme Court does not rule on ethical disputes. My point about the Supreme Court was in response to some jerkoff who said that no respectable opinion could hold that there is any such thing as "potential life." To the extent that the Supreme Court talked about it positively, I showed how that statement was in error. Only a jackass such as yourself could find in any way a legal statement made by me in any of this. If you want legal advice, talk to a lawyer. If you want to talk to an overbearing shit, talk to Naomiah.

ah, shit

[Anonymous Coward]

there goes my patent for a combination birthing table/meat grinder... i was really hoping to corner the market when stem cell research took off...

Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Peapod]

First of all, stem cells have been known to be other places than just in the destroyed "embryo" - a cute way of saying aborted baby - for quite some time now. Bone marrow, skin cells, placenta, and even body fat can produce the same stem cells that are found in developing babies in the womb. There is not feasable reason to destroy life in order to save others. Life does begin at conception, and therefore destroying on life for the benefit of another does not make much sense.

Second, the promise of stem cells is just that: a promise. No one person has actually been cured by stem cells. No one person has be successfully "repaired," for lack of a better word, by stem cells. It sounds great, but killing people on a promise that is not necessarily going to come through is not only foolish, but stupid.

Just one man's observations.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[norton_I]

Anti-stem cell propoganda point #1 "stem cells come from aborted baby." This is just plain wrong. By the time you know you are pregnent, it is really too late to use the fetus for stem cells. Most (all?) research stem cells have come from fertility clinics where several harvested eggs are fertalized in vitro, then the most viable is re-implanted into the woman and comes to turn, while the others would be incinerated.

Now, you are free to say that is wrong, or even call it abortion, but firstly it is much different than a "traditional" abortion where the embryo is destroyed and/or removed from a woman's uterus, and secondly, I don't see anyone trying to ban fertility clinics.

My personal feeling is that the primary instigators of the anti-stem cell movement are actually against stem cell research because they view it as playing God and meddling in affairs we have no right to. I respect that opinion, but to disguise it as protecting the lives of "innocent children" is duplicitous.

Also, stem cell research has only been going on in a real fashion for a couple of years now, and it is one of the most promising leads in medicine and science, both for it potential to repair people and to understand how life works -- two of the most important things we do as humans. It has shown incredibal potential in laboratory animals, and the fact is it takes time to develop treatments for humans precicely because of the ethical questions in human testing, and the care researchers take to insure they are not placing their test subjects in undue risk. To write it off because it hasn't saved anybody's life yet is short sighted and naive.

Incedentally, and totally off topic, I actually think life begins well before conception, and that every cell in every creature is alive, and a beautiful mystery of the universe, including gammetes. However, this doesn't stop me from eating meat or vegtables, killing incects, taking antibiotics, using birth control, or supporting the rights of women to have abortions. The question is, when does human life begin, and the only things I am pretty sure of are that it isn't before conception or after birth. I suspect it is not particuarly close to either one of those extremes, though.

Death is a natural part of life (the last part...), and even killing: we kill plants and animals to eat and stay alive, we kill animals and bacteria that try to kill us, we step on countless incects without realizing it, untold numbers of animals die as roadkill because they don't know better and we don't think it is important enough not to build highways, and we kill each other for a variety of reasons. While I am all about keeping killing to a minimum, at the end of the day the only thing I really care about is that the human species doesn't die, and to that end I also think that we should try to stop killing born people before we worry to much about the unborn, or the non-human/non-sentient.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Dr. Manhattan]

Life does begin at conception...

Personally, I have a hard time thinking of something without a brain as a human being. An anencephalic baby, for example, seems like a failed attempt at a human. So, a blastula, whether implanted or not, even in the early stages of differentiation, can't be a person, even if it's composed of human tissue.

Before the brain is formed (~30 days), I don't really have a problem with abortion. Regrettable, certainly, but it's not murder or anything like that.

I don't know what the minimum number of brain cells is needed to support sentience though, and I'm squeamish and conservative, so I'd say after about 30 days there has to be a risk to the life of the mother to justify abortion. (You can't force someone to risk their life to save another.) In the case of rape, I think the woman should start checking for pregnancy before 30 days. After that, there's at least a strong case to be made that there's another person to consider.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Peapod]

First of all, I am not anti-stem cell. Second of all, I do not read propaganda anymore than you do.

Third, I do not see it as meddling in the afairs of God. This is good research, and if it is viable, is good. So do many others. The place where the "playing God" comes into effect is stuff that is not essentially fesable yet, like genetic manipulations, or cloning. Both raise huge ethical questions that can be reasoned outside of using any theological argument.

To address the off topic portions: when I said life, I assumed that everyone could understand that it is sentient life. The two cell become something totally different than what they were. When they divide they no longer produce sperm or egg cells, they produce more and more baby cells. One of the problems I have with abortion in particular is that it does not take into account that there is a unique, complex life inside of another life, not another portion of a body. Even then we prohibit some actions on the basis of being hurtful to society. Suicide, for example, is illegal because it has ramifications on others, not just the person trying to take his or her life. All (human) life is sacred, even unborn children. Just because they cannot articulate their thoughts and desires does not give you liscence to kill them. No one ever asks what the baby would want if he could know better, or actually communicate. Slaughter of animals is meaningless when it goes to waste because they are animals. Slaughter of defenseless humans is pointless period, especially when there are other, more feasable and ethical ways of doing things. Babys do not have to die for people to get their stem cells, period. Human life is precious. Killing one for the not even established benefit of others is not acceptable, especially when that person has never had the chance to even live.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Peapod]

In Biology, I learned that one life cannot transform itself into something else. Therefore if a baby comes out after 9 months, then 9 months ago, when those two different cells combined and formed a new, complete, totally different cell, therefore it is human. It is life whether or not it has a brain. The only difference between a blastula and an amoeba is that a blastula is actually a human, and then by definition a person. One cannot say that one person is not a person because he or she is not far enough along with developement. That is arbitrarily setting the boundaries. You are taking the life of another person, therefore it is murder. I understand that some people don't like this, nor do some agree. It is not the brain alone that defines someone as human, it is the whole person, and every individual part as well. You cut off the hand and it is still a human hand. The problem with your definition of a person, is exactly what you have addressed. How many cells does it take? Can it therefore be defined as less than human because for some reason it does less than other humans comparitvely? Are mentally retarded people less than human? That is a can I would rather avoid opening up. It give degress of humanity to people based on developmental levels. People are either people are they aren't.

As for your statement about forcing someone to risk their life to save another, I agree (with the notable exceptions of the Secret Service and militaries). The funny thing is that most people aren't really willing to try to save the life and would rather off the child simply because his life is inconvenient to them (using funny in an ironic sense). When you give someone such an easy out, they tend to take it. Not only that, but even sometimes, things become life threatening that aren't. In other words, if someone wants to have an abortion that they can only have if it is life threatening, its not too hard to find profiteers who will say that he monther's life is in danger just for the abortion.

Humanity scares me sometimes. Most of the time. Aw crap, where's my blankee?!

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[norton_I]

Glad to see someone who thinks rationally about these issues, though I have to say I don't think there is anything wrong with genetic manipulation or cloning either, except that as you say we don't know enough about them yet to do so in a safe manner taking into accound the important ethical issues they raise.

But I see the process of fertilization as only important in a rather clinical/genetic sense. The fusion of an egg and sperm does produce something genetically distinct from the predecesors, but every cell in my body contains DNA that no other human posesses, yet I only ascribe the term "human life" to some ill defined collective that survives many birth and death cycles of my individual cells. Therefore, I don't look back on my zygote as me, but as a group of cells that happened to share the same DNA as me, which provided the raw materials from which "I" emerged.

I like to think I am pretty cool, and in that respect am glad that I was born and not aborted, but I don't think I would "object" if I had. I just think I would never have existed, much like I never would have existed if I were not concieved. I would have "never ahd the change to even live" in either case, but so do a literally uncountable number of potential babies that were never conceived, none of which I feel particularly sorry for.

My great uncle has said (mostly jokinly, of course) that life doesn't begin with either conception or birth, but only when the parents start refering to their child by its name, rather than "the baby." He says that is the point where they recognize "the baby" as not just a creature to be cared for, but as a person with its own unique personality.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Dr. Manhattan]

It is life whether or not it has a brain. The only difference between a blastula and an amoeba is that a blastula is actually a human, and then by definition a person.

Uh, no. You shed millions of live cells every day. Each one of them has your complete genetic code, and is definitely alive for at least a while. Are each of them human? In theory, they could be used to generate a clone of you - should you live in a vacuum bag and preserve all these potential people?

You cut off the hand and it is still a human hand.

Let's say we have the tech to keep any part of a human body functioning and alive. Your head is chopped off, but the ambulance only has one magic life support machine. Now, which part should the paramedics try to save - the small part with the brain, or the much bigger part with all the other organs? Which one is you?

One cannot say that one person is not a person because he or she is not far enough along with developement. That is arbitrarily setting the boundaries.

I just did. It's hard to come up with a test that positively identifies personhood, but there are broad classes of things that we can unambiguously identify as 'not persons', and 'things without brains' are in the 'not person' class. I don't see anything arbitrary about it at all.

I'm reasonably certain that the brain of a 30-day embryo probably can't really support sentience, but I can't absolutely rule it out, so I'd err on the side of caution. But if there isn't a brain at all, I have no problem saying it's not a person. A pre-differentiated embryo is a potential person with potential rights. A fertile mother is an actual person with actual rights. Actual rights trump potential rights.

The problem with your definition of a person, is exactly what you have addressed. How many cells does it take? Can it therefore be defined as less than human because for some reason it does less than other humans comparitvely?

The question of "How much brain is needed to qualify as human?" is completely different in kind from "Is there a brain at all?".

As for your statement about forcing someone to risk their life to save another, I agree (with the notable exceptions of the Secret Service and militaries).

WTF? Since we don't have a draft, the people in the military and Secret Service volunteered to risk their lives. By definition, they aren't being "forced" to risk their lives to save others. Same goes for fire fighters, police officers, etc. That has nothing to do with anything I said.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[sigep_ohio]

In Economics I learned that resources are limited. Combine that with biology and you get natural selection. Now with natural selection you have more offspring born than can possibly be supported by the limited resources. So, some offspring make it(the strong, atleast in terms of the current state), and some don't(the weak). This is a cruel, but efficient way of ensuring the species survives.

Now lets apply this to the current topic. Killing unborn fetuses or embryos(it does not matter in this case) is our(humans) way of artificial selection. While not the same as natural selection it still gives a similar result, limited resources are not spread too thinly so the species can continue. So, while not a very nice thing to think about, in the long run this is a good thing. Any research that might come out of the deaths of the embryos/fetuses should be looked at as a positive action coming from an ugly situation.

Now, I convienently left out the whole humans are sacred topic from that. Well, humans are sacred, but so are all the other creatures we live with. Why is one human life worth more than an animal life? Why is it ok to let animals die by natural selection, while humans must use all our resources to keep each other alive? Humans are special, our brain helps to make us special, but no more special than any other animal on Earth. We would be arrogant to think otherwise. A human is a human from the moment of conception, but when should that life be sacrificed for the good of the rest? I would argue, that if the embryo or fetus does not have anyone who is willing to give the resources necesary to care for it into adulthood, then we are obligated to humanity not to burden further already burdened resources.

Those are my two cents.

Notes: resources for this post are defined as anything from time, space(ie. land), money, food, water, etc.

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Mr. Slippery]

In Biology, I learned that one life cannot transform itself into something else.

Then your biology teachers were remarkable ignorant. All life is constantly transforming. Organisms grow and die, changing size and shape (sometimes radially - think catepillar to butterfly) along the way.

On the cellular level, single cells spilt in two. In some organisms two cells merge into one, or two cells swap DNA. Cells differentiate.

Everything changes. That's why today, life is more than a puddle of primordial uck.

The only difference between a blastula and an amoeba is that a blastula is actually a human, and then by definition a person.

It is not at all trivial to say that all humans are persons. Is a brain dead human still a person? Is a pre-verbal infant a person? A newborn? A severely retarded adult? The issue of what organisms should be accorded "person" status is a condsiderable debate.

Nor is it obvious that a blastula is a human - composed of human cells, yes, but so the drop of blood I washed down the sink after cutting myself shaving. Don't confuse "human" as an adjective (e.g., "human cells", "human blood") with human as a noun.

A blastula is human, but it is not a human. It certainly isn't a person under any reasonable definition I've encountered that excludes supernaturalism (appeals to "the presense of a soul" and the like).

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[alienmole]

My great uncle has said (mostly jokinly, of course) that life doesn't begin with either conception or birth, but only when the parents start refering to their child by its name, rather than "the baby." He says that is the point where they recognize "the baby" as not just a creature to be cared for, but as a person with its own unique personality.

Someone I know once said he thought that abortion should be allowed up until the child is about age 12. That way, if you get a dud, you can abort it and try again...

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Planesdragon]

Life does begin at conception, and therefore destroying on life for the benefit of another does not make much sense.

Counter-argument 1: "What do you mean by "conception"? At the climax of the mating ritual? When the sperm and egg meet? When the zygote splits for the first time? When the zygote implants in the womb's wall? Where are the funerals, then, for miscarriages & zygotes that just don't catch?"

Counter-argument 2: "Human life begins when the child enters this world, at the moment of birth. A pregnant woman should be considered a "double human" for legal and scientific purposes, as it's impossible to ."

Counter-argument 3: While it doesn't make sense to kill one person to benefit another (i.e., concieve, abort, use fetal organs to aid other child), it is foolish to not use extant biological matter arising from an ended life to benefit someone else--I mean, we do it with organ transplants already!

You're absolutey right that it's stupid and wrong to kill someone for the promise of helping someone else, but you're bloody wrong when it comes to equating using stem cells with "killing someone."

Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else thinks it's hilarious that Peapod argues "I do not read propaganda anymore than you do." yet also states "I got all of my information from here ?

Stem Cell Uses and Origions

[Peapod]

One more thing I forgot: my sources.
I got all of my information from here.

My apologies.

Procurement of children's teeth.

[s0l0m0n]

Does this mean that it's once again legal to hunt children for thier teeth?

Re:Procurement of children's teeth.

[Muhammar]

Nay, they can be farmed.

And the teeth harvesting would be done in ethical and enviromentaly friendly way.

Re:Procurement of children's teeth.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the teeth harvesting would be done in ethical and enviromentaly friendly way.

No it cannot. Children must be grown in gigantic corporate farms in tiny pens and/or be hunted down.

Devastating arguments

[leonbrooks]

This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.

Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.

Devastating argument against what?

One of the current crop justifications for murdering your unborn baby (and several organisations are agitating to take it beyond that) is "the stem cells will go toward research". Now that baby teeth can be used instead, the force goes out of that argument.

It will never quite rank up there with lies like "it's not fully developed, you're only killing a fish" or "it can't feel anything" (your baby is a fully human baby from conception, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is total bullshit (the foetuses used were doctored, and the drawings based on them doctored even further) and has been known to be bullshit for well over a hundred years, but for some reason the idea is supported and still used today; and nerves, heart, the whole nine yards are in place a few weeks after conception, generally well befor ethe mother knows she is a mother).

I disagree with senor falsification in that I don't believe that the tooth-fairy argument will be "devastating", but it will be useful and significant in the war against infanticide-for-convenience.

My own personal view is that if a mother has the right to have her child murdered in utero, she should also have the right to have her child murdered at any time up to majority. And of course, if she has the right to murder her children, then little matters like abusing them or selling them into slavery should hardly matter, should they?

Are there any sixteen-year-olds here that would care to comment on that?

Troll, mod parent down.

[Vellmont]

This isn't a debate about abortion, and the bateing going on is just way off topic.

The Spelling Police -STRIKE!-

[leonbrooks]

This isn't a debate about abortion,

Isn't it? You're not very observant! (-:

and the bateing going on is just way off topic.

s/bateing/baiting/

IOW, your spelling is even further off topic. (-:

The central theme is stem cells, one of the justifications for infanticide is the potential to use their stem cells to save others.

Except that your argument doesn't hold water

[upper]

Stem cells are not all equivalent. See my writeup here

Re:Use teeth instead of blood from the umbilical c

[gene_tailor]

Maybe! More research is needed to see how versatile the stem cells found in baby teeth are. So far the researchers found the cells from baby teeth can make several types of differentiated cells, but these cells may not be able to make all kinds of other cells (medical jargon: they may not be pluripotent) like embryonic stem cells.

Re:Use teeth instead of blood from the umbilical c

[gene_tailor]

Doubt anyone will read it this late, but I'll amend my answer to make it more correct.... it is actually only the very earliest cells in a zygote that are able to make ALL other cell types, which is called "totipotent", whereas later embryonic /fetal cells are "pluripotent" meaning they have flexibility in their development, but probably not unlimited flexibility. It is believed that umbilical cord cells, and the stem cells isolated so far from adult tissue, are only "multipotent", meaning they can make several possible tissue types but not everything.... so both umbilical cord samples or baby tooth samples may be useful in some ways for the production of stem cells genetically matched to a particular kid, but each kind probably has some limitations which may be different between the two. The part of my answer about needing more research is definitely true.