Slashdot Mirror
Paralyzed Woman Walks Again
mgv writes "It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."
Cord blood stem cells are considered to be adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Just wanted to get that out before all the Bush bashing starts.
And her first words?
"I'd walk a mile for a Camel!"
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
I clicked "Read More" and got this:
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Will the legs have a mind of their own since they're using stem cells?
But can they use stem cells to make my wife put out again?
Mundus vult decipi decipiatur ergo.
-Xaviera Hollander
What will the Republicans do when people have to travel overseas to get their health treatments???
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Not to defend Bush on this issue, but this used stem cells already sanctioned for use in the United States.
Perhaps this will help cool the American debate over embryonic stem cells.
Yes, Karen, you can get stem cells without harvesting embryos. No, really!
--
Every six seconds, another American hates Milkman Dan.
Ok George Bush didn't outlaw Steam Cell Research; He ceased giving federal funding for new steam cell lines. And remember he was the first president to start giving money to this kind of research. At least read his statment first and then search google to get the facts
Even after that before you start bashing, ask who should be in charge of developing medicine - the government or industry?
No subscription required for the story here, either.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
I did not know stem cells were already in use. I wonder, with every miracle, there's always some downside. I wonder what the long term effects are of this treatment.
My best wishes to her and the many people affected by this.
Some call me Howie Feltersnatch
This is absolutely exciting, stem cell research potentially producing real results. And even better, by use of umbilical cord stem cells. Results without the ethical issues.
I just can't wait to see this research be verified. Seems like too many scientific research teams release their results early and without complete verification, hoping to get more funding from the buzz created.
In the end, this is really exciting. Can't wait to see how this develops.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox!
The article doesn't really explain how this actually works. Do the cloned cells somehow stimulate the body to natural "regrow" the damaged tissue? Or is it a literal transplant?
Still, this is great news for all of us, as it is definitive proof that stem cells can be put to good use. Too late for some, though
apterous.org
If this is true then the researchers behind it might as well book tickets to Stockholm right away, this is guaranteed Nobel Prize material.
Do you mean to imply that she got better, then had a faith healing?
Perhaps you meant it was better back when faith healing was the only option?
Oh, NOW I get it. You meant better THAN faith healing.
-theGreater Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
How much better science is this than rubber tails for dolphins?!?
Sounds like good work to me.
Take out the trash, pick up around the house, make dinner, put the kids to bed, and she's all yours, dude.
So there _IS_ hope for SCO, afterall...
You're wrong.
This was done by using umbilical cord stem cells. This has far fewer ethical problems and George Bush said on many occassions he fully supports the use of umbilical cord stem cells.
This is a huge advance, getting results without the ethical issues that many people struggle with.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox!
Considering this real, practical success using cord blood-derived stem cells, I honestly wonder why there's such a push for using embryonic stem cells. Can anyone enlighten me as to why we can't just use cord blood cells (instead of embryonic) and make the whole stem cell controversy go away?
Too bad Christopher Reeve died before hearing these news.
So the first news about this are from South Korea, the US of A did not lead in this research and who is to blame for that if not the current US government?
You can't handle the truth.
It's in Cambridge. Trim the suffix. (And perhaps get a better dictionary.)
The article doesn't explain the important thing which is how they managed to inject enough stem cells into adult (for the adult to not reject them) from the small amount of blood available in an umbillical cord. There has only traditionally been enough (that the body's normal blood's anti-body won't attack) for a child's blood. Unless, they are talking about injecting it into the actually spine or something...I'm confused...
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
In fact, it is only the creating of babies to experiment upon them, or harvest their parts that the GOP, and any other human beings, are against.
They used -umbilical- stem cells to produce this result. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which have shown many complications, and no promise, umbilical and better yet, autosomal (from your own body, usually fat cells) stem cells, do show real promise. No rejection issues or immunosuppressent drugs when they are your -own- stem cells.
It looks like people like Christopher Reeve are walking again
No, the dead are still pretty much motionless.
What do you mean I'm sick?
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
RTFA.
That was NOT embryonic stem cells but cord blood stem cells. If anything it shows that President Bush is correct that embryonic stem cells are not necessary.
Look here
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
How about getting facts before running your mouth? This is NOT use of embryonic stem-cells.
George Bush believes in science when it serves him politically, otherwise he just doesn't want to hear it.
Regardless of who is President, the US ought to get off it's proverbial ass before we no longer lead in something besides filling prisons.
> It looks like people like Christopher Reeve are walking
You do realise he's dead?
It was one thing to starve stem cell research when it was just a possibility.
Now that there is something tangible that can make the lame walk again he is going to have to look paralyzed people, their loved ones, and their friends in the eye and tell them that he will not allow them to have that second chance
and show the Bushies that they are dumb (at least as far as science goes).
At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
A press conference is not a peer reviewed journal. A woman walking in from of a camera does not mean a single stem cell helped her. Wait for journal publication, review, and commentary from experts before going around talking about how great this is.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Ahh, you are a fool.
This is not a "stick it to the Bushies" moment. This is a validation of the conservative position. The opposing side has claimed that with embryonic stem cells people who are paralyzed can walk again. This event proves that the paralyzed can walk again without embroynic stem cells AND without federal funding. A two-for-one special.
You should really know what you are talking about before going raving mad telling others they are dumb and mocking them for considering ethical issues as well as scientific issues.
Not at all. These are not created by aborting a fetus. In fact most attempts at using embryonic stem cells have met with tumors and rejection. But cord stem cells have been used successfully used to treat 75 illnesses. And to set the record straight, Bush didn't ban stem cell research in the US. He only increased government funding but limited it to those embryonic stem cells already harvested. Big difference, he didn't say you could not donate your money to the research. Just that the estimated 60 million people who find it morally apprensible to abort babies to harvest cells don't have to pay for it too.
Well, at least I was the first in this thread to mention it.
This from the "rocket scientist" who didn't even read the article summary. Or if you did, you didn't understand what you were reading (not surprising). The stem cells were from umbilical cord blood, not human embryos. The federal ban is on the latter, not the former.
If you're walking, you are now formerly-paralyzed. It should indeed make headlines if a paralyzed woman was indeed walking.
Because now you have to grow the fetus into an embryo, kill it, and harvest the cord to get the cells. How is this better ?!?
Why can't we just get the stem cells from plants? Stems are abundant with them!
- inject cells
- ???
- people walk!
just call me a cynic. having said that, i hope this work is verified and does give the results suggested here...Stop spreading ignorance. Bush was the first President to get federal funding for stem cell research. You're simply spreading yet more FUD.
I want the folks who brought us Vioxx to make all my future meds. That way, when I die from them, my family's health care costs will plummet. "Daddy's dead because he loves us, honey."
There was never any debate over adult stem cells... there's still a debate over embryonic stem cells...
This news just gives more fuel for anti-embryonic stem cell groups to point at and say:
"Chalk up another victory for adult stem cell research... what is that now 79 to 0? Why are we studying embryonic stem cells?"
I tend to agree with that sentiment.. seems like the embryonic research is turning into a big waste of money... but then again it has about 10 years of work to catch up on so it may yet prove itself.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
only needs his double guns of Jesus Fire to make the paralyzed walk (and the cancer victims heal). That's all America needs too!
Rise my son!
I got start previewing more, or at least get a spellchecker!
PRAISE THE LORD!
PRAISE THE SCIENCE!
Science and religion have been at polar opposites since civilization began.
We'd be much further along scientifically if it hadn't been for religion oppressing things like a solar-centric universe, stem cell research, heck even the concept of 0 (zero)! When was the last time religion allowed a person to walk after being paralyzed for 20 years.
But he died of heart failure, he didn't kill himself because he couldn't walk.
Agreed.
From the Korea Times: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt200411261 7575710440.htm
Let's forget about the moral/ethical reasons for not pursuing embryonic stem cell research - let's look at it from a scientific (*gasp* - a conservative Christian talking about science!) point of view. Less capacity to cause cancer = a good thing, no?
- Another Brandon (my last name is Danner)
One ring to rule them all, and in the darkness named them...
If he just coulda stayed seated on the horse, who knows...
Okay, I'll bite on the last part, at least.
Your question is misleading. The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.
Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.
Government-funded researchers invented the calculus, the mechanical (and electronic) computer, and the internal combustion engine, and gave that research to the public, so that commercial and charitable use could be made of them. Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
"Stem cell research", as you can tell from the name, is not medicine, nor is it a commercial product. It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology.
So yes, the government should fund it.
So I suspose you didn't read the part where this article had nothing to do with Bush's ban on federal funding for embroynic stem cells.
;)
He banned federal funding, not the work itself. And specifically for embroynic stem cells.
I agree with this ban. The federal government shouldn't be funding anything except our defence.
Badnarik for prez.
God intends for the placenta and cord to be eaten by the mother after birth. Any other use is an abomination in the eyes of god.
The first thing she should do is stand up and flip George W the bird.
Whooptie-doo. It is relatively new research. The type he funded didn't gain traction until around 2000. Therefore, he was the first president who practically could have started giving money to this kind of research. I hear him bragging about this, but it is nothing to brag about.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
How about you read the article.
Bush's ban is on federal FUNDING for EMBRYONIC stem cells. Nothing about Bush's ban would have stopped this from happening here. It just didn't.
But spinal cord repair has already been done, in Brazil, using stem cells from ... get this... the person's own nose. Yes, there are stem cells up there, easily retrieved. So this is actually the *second* time that non-embryonic stem cells have been used for this. Oh and the Brazilian doctor was teaching an american doc (boston I think) how to do it if he could get permission for an experimental surgical procedure in the US.
Bush says he wants to encourage people to use them, but he banned federal dollars going to this cutting-edge research.
Now, I'm not a fan of federal funding of things like this -- not in the least -- but I recognize that there are some medical technologies (ones that aren't profitable for years perhaps decades after research is started) that we wouldn't have today were it not for federal funding to get it started.
I'd support Bush's decision to block funding if it were for the right reasons. Religious concerns are the wrong reasons to do anything in government. If he did it to be fiscally conservative, it would have been a totally different story.
Why is it that when some people hear the term "stem cells" the same sort of knee jerk reaction happens just like when some people hear the term "nuclear power"?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's not 1994. No one is trying to patent your genes, let alone your *genes*.
AHHH! The stem cells have created undead cannibal zombies!!! AHHH!!!
But would this really have prevented his death? Maybe I'm just incredibly sceptical...
Summation 2
The sound you just heard is that of a million scientists calibrating their bullshit meters. Seriously, if this is true it presents a moral and ethical alternative to those problems that have limited embryonic research, but bear in mind: Adult stem cells are not the same as ebryonic. They are more finicky (they are matched like organ donors), they create a limited number of cell types within the body and they are difficult to extract from an umbilical or placenta (which must be frozen immediately after birth). I would be more interested in stem cell warehouses for DNA types. Once you're born they save your umbilical stem cells like medical records (huge warehouses) free for one to use as needed throughout their life. The cash cow for the medical industry will be doing anything with embryonic stem cells, which are more easily ported across gene pools, and can replicate any cell within the human body. Don't make it a Bush/Kerry or USA thing. It's really not. That whole beef was about using government money to fund new embryonic strains.
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
The work was done in Korea, you idiot.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I really, really hope that what's being reported is true, but I'd really like to see it in a peer reviewed journal and have the findings reproduced before getting too excited. Because things like cold fusion have been announced via press release before, with no journal paper forthcoming. Without it being reproducable it's just another faith healing.
That said, please, please be good, reproducable research.
If not now, when?
Bash! Bash! Bash! Bash! ...
I for one welcome our walking undead overlords.
Wasn't he the first one to block federal funding as well?
FWIW, throwing out "facts" like this is kind of silly -- this is a President who has yet to veto anything. One is left to wonder if he has the will to make any sort of decision, really.
... she's walking straight to hell!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The spinal cord is an enormously complex structure, the exact neural connections of which are formed in early embryonic life. That you could simply inject multipotential cells into a damaged cord and expect them to differentiate and grow into mature neurons, complete with appropriate connections, is asking an awful lot. In addition, in this patient, "paralyzed" for two decades, you have the issue of muscles, bones, and joints that haven't been in use all that time.
It would be wonderful if this account is true, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see more of the fine print.
Ed Uthman, MD
Pathologist, Houston/Richmond, TX, USA
Success stories like this have popped up all over the world lately (although none as wonderful as this last one).3 1&art_id=qw1100886480700B243
A couple of weeks ago, a brazilian woman who had recently had a stroke was helped by a stem cell transplant.
Although doctors claim the healing could have happened naturally, they also report that "there is biological activity (in the area affected by the stroke)... "
Interesting, let's hope all these stories help build a united front.
The link here http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=
Results without the ethical issues.
Unless, of course, you're a Jehovah's Witness, or a member of any other faith (Christian and non-Christian) that has strict rules about what's right and what's wrong when it comes to medical procedures...
What's the betting that the Christian right still uses this as an excuse to preach from the pulpit? These people are the modern-day descendents of the morality police that retarded medical science for centuries. If they had prevailed throughout then the most advanced medicinal procedures around today would still be boring into skulls to release demons or a course of leeches to suck out evil.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The only problem being that umbilical stem cells are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells:
"So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos." (Source)
I thought crippled people were only going to walk, through embryonic stem cells, if John Kerry was elected? :) Go figure it happened with Cord Stem Cells, under a conservative prime minister in Australia. I guess politians lied to us, BIG SHOCKHER THERE.
Yes -- thank goodness he put the kibosh on steam cells and not stem cells.
Also expect that once the Fundies get Roe v. Wade overturned, the affluent will simply hop a plane to a more civilized country (such as Canada or Mexico) to terminate their pregnancies.
Many people, including myself, would take the position that any country that allows a fetus at 9 months - perhaps only days from delivery - to be partially delivered, have a hole cut into the skull, and have the brain sucked out with vacuum to better faciliate crushing the skull with a vise, and then extracted limb by limb with a pair of forceps to be more civilized.
The central argument of anti-abortionists is that it more civilized to bring the fetus to term and give it to a family willing and able to raise it instead of destroying it like a cancer or a mishapen cheek bone.
The benefits sound great. But what about all those people that have been stupid and crashed cars because they have been driving too fast or doing stupid things. Often killing other in the process. Do they deserve this type of treatment? I sometimes wonder how good technology can be. A lesson learnt the hard way is a lesson learnt best in most cases.
My sentiments, exactly; I wish I had mod points.
I had a friend who broke his neck from a fall, so I've researched the topic a little bit. It is possible, in a very small number of cases, that people will spontaneously regrow the damaged nerves. This could be one of those cases.
One isolated incident does not make for a medical breakthrough. They need to demonstrate that this is repeatable.
more and more and more and more and more people...
Why would the president of the United States influence what medical research is carried out in South Korea?
Wow, not only fixing paralysis but raising the dead too? Will the wonders of modern science never cease! Then again, I have seen enough zombie movies to know this can't turn out good in the end...
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Too often the focus of ethics is on the limits to science they establish. Episodes like this show that there can be benefits to working within ethical guidelines. Imagine a culture where embryonic stem cell research was fully funded and other forms weren't. It could be that these discoveries would never be made.
I don't expect everyone to jump on the pro-life bandwagon because of this, but I think it's reasonable to agree that we all have "lines in the sand." Pretty much anybody of reason would diplore the "science" of the Nazi regime. So really, the issue is where to draw the line. This shows that even when we draw the line furthur back, real, people-saving science can be accomplished.
The work was done in Korea, you idiot.
So? The work is done. Their work will be the basis for future work. Everything here worked. The Federal government of the US did not have to fund harvesting of embroynic stem cells.
Why pretend that because it happened first in South Korea that it doesn't count. The whole world has television, radio, and the Internet, correct?
Government-funded researchers invented the calculus
Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College. The school was on break for two years as a result of disease sweeping the area, and having little else to do, he spent his idle time thinking very productively.
There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry. He invented it out of curiosity, not because he was paid to do so.
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
As a relatively devout Roman Catholic, I will say "no." The only problems that the Catholic Church (I can only interpret the RC Church, not any of the other fundamentalist Christian faiths) has with stem cell research is the destruction of unborn children in the attempt to get embryonic stem cells. Since it is a fundamental of faith that we are human persons from the point of conception, the destruction of embryos is morally equivalent to murder, regardless of the ends that are attempting to justify these means.
This is the same moral argument against abortion.
There is nothing wrong with donating blood, for example, thus using stem cells from adults that do not otherwise harm those adults is completely up to the owner of those adults. Here I'm using the term "adult" somewhat loosely since the cord may have the child's DNA (I'm not sure whose DNA the cord has, so I can't properly attribute it to mother or child). What I mean is in comparison to the embryonic stage of human development, any other stage, for the purposes of this moral argument, is basically adult if the donor (child, adult) is not killed to harvest the cells.
I presume that most of the other religious groups that oppose stem cell research are also only opposing harvesting of embryonic stem cells based on their similar convictions opposing abortion, but, as I said, I can't really speak for them.
Example (poorly worded): American Catholic website
There is a huge difference between the two.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Science and religion have been at polar opposites since civilization began.
Well they obviously are now in your mind.
Religion was the first science.
Religion has only opposed science when it was used politically, so I guess you could say that politics and science are opposed.
Even cold-war "science" was used politically often against the benefit of real science.
So I think that your statement is only true where politics and domination become religion.
I don't see the Dali Llama opposing science any, or any of the majority liberal moslems. I recall the moslems were great scientists in their time whilst retaining their religion.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
It's a good thing we have states like California with the nutsack (and economy) to stand up to The Man and fund research into "controversial" areas such as stem cell.
Granted, I'm not from CA but last I heard you didn't have the budget to do jack crap. I seem to recall you're last governor getting run out of office mid-term due to being billions and billions of dollars in the hole. And speaking of CA's "balls" to do "controversial" medicine I read this today. I bet that won't be abused as an end run around drug laws.
-or so you'd think
If he could only have held out just another year then who knows....
IMHO he probably would have had to wait a lot longer than just a year. From reading the articles it sounds like this woman had an injury to her lower spinal cord. The accident she was in apparently damaged her back & hips, but her arms still worked fine. So she was a paraplegic (only her legs didn't work) which indicates a lower spinal injury. Reeves' injury was to his neck, which left him a quadraplegic (couldn't move arms or legs). He also needed assistance in breathing, etc. which indicates a more severe upper spinal cord injury. So chances are that a LOT more research & testing would have to be done before this procedure could be used on somebody in his condition.
All that aside I share your sympathy. It would have been a great site to see him able to breath on his own, use his hands, and eventually to even walk again.
The heart failure was a result of his quadriplegia.
Wow, even more FUD! Bush, besides being the first president to secure federal funding for stem cell research, has said on numerous occasions that he actively SUPPORTS umbilical cord stem cell research.
You calling him an idiot? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black if you can't even bother to inform yourself on such a basic issue.
Now the controversy will start, so I'll try to pre-empt this with a few things from myb log on this.
First, notice these are adult stem cells. This likely couldn't have been done with embreyonic stem cells; every test with embreyonic stem cells has failed, or has caused tumors. I'm not a biologist, but I'm going to guess that since embreyonic stem cells are totipotent and regrow entire bodies, that they "try" (*cough*) to regrow something other than just surorunding tissue (when they actually graft), and thus simply turn into blobs of useless, random tissue (tumors). Adult stem cells have treated over a hundred diseases already. :)
That should be sufficient to undercut any "OMFG EMBREYONIC ONES R BETTAR" arguments. Let's try political arguments. Before bashing politicians, think about how they bat embreyonic stem cell research around as a political hand grenade, without mentioning adult stem cell research. There's something wrong with a bunch of blood thirsty, power hungry mongrals who are willing to draw attention to something that has so far been proven in 100% of laboratory tests to be totally useless, while ignoring the other component which has displayed genuine results and greater future promise, just for their own political agenda. I'll hold one party at fault more than the other for this; but when your opponents lie, you should take up myth busting and put them back in their place for it. It's still a fault that conservatives don't come out and lay down the low down like I have on my blog.
So I've bounced technical and political arguments here now. Anything I missed?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There should be something like the NIH in every country if not a global equivalent. But the most important part of the equation is having impartial, experienced scientists rather than partisan, uninformed politicians decide what should and shouldn't be studied.
I think we all know that it's scientific research and not politics or religion that we have to thank for things like penicillin, etc.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
When was the last time religion allowed a person to walk after being paralyzed for 20 years
;)
Depends whether or not you believe the Bible; if so, about 2000 years ago.
(FWIW, I don't.)
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
that this ends up being a legitimate reproducable advance, and not a "cold fusion" style faux-discovery that the press latches on to, too quickly.
He died of an infection from a bed-sore he got because he was laid-up all of the time.
If he had better care, and then had been cured, he would not have had the bed-sore problem.
Additionally, do you think industry would work towards a CURE for a disease when they're already making a killing (no pun intended) on the TREATMENT?
Uhh, his problem wasn't just that he couldn't walk. This treatment, had it been reproduced, would not have cured him.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Will this also work on paralyzed people?
The only problem with your argument is that non-embryonic stem cells are less adaptable/versatile than embryonic stem cells.
Try looking in a non U.S. centric dictionary.
www.brownsauce.org
Bush says he wants to encourage people to use them, but he banned federal dollars going to this cutting-edge research.
He did no such thing. He banned federal funds for collecting new fetal/embryonic (take your pick, it doesn't really matter) stem cell lines. You can still work on existing ones, and you can do plenty of work with adult and umbilical stem cells, the latter of which was used in this case.
I'd support Bush's decision to block funding if it were for the right reasons. Religious concerns are the wrong reasons to do anything in government. If he did it to be fiscally conservative, it would have been a totally different story.
Religion didn't enter into it, ethics did. Surely you understand that there are serious ethical considerations for many people regarding the harvesting of embryonic stem cells? And that those considerations have nothing to do with religion? Until those considerations are settled, better not to use tax dollars to do something many tax payers consider wrong. Especially since, as this South Korean advancement now demonstrates, there is better use to be gotten from other stem cell sources than just embryonic.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Oh come on, do you have a source for this procedure? It sounds like you're making it up for maximum emotional impact.
You dont honestly believe what you just said do you? Embryonic stem cell's are generated from left over embryo's at fertilization clinics. These embryo's are destroyed by the thousands, because they aren't going to be used.
The cultivation of embryonic stem cells has nothing to do with 'aborting babies'.
Federal funding is the only thing that is disallowed.
There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research of any kind in the US - only federal funding for research on non-approved lines.
Bush is the first president to allow ANY federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; it's just that it was only allowed on pre-existing lines representing embryos that had already been destroyed. It disallowed federal funding on NEW lines that would require the destruction of new embryos. (And if they're against destroying embryos for abortions, at least the position is logically consistent, eh? And when is it life, actually? When it pops out of the womb? When it's "wanted"? Some arbitrary point in the timeline? Don't pretend like you have all the answers, because you don't. There are serious ethical questions here. We could also learn a lot from experimenting on live infants, or gain a lot from farming humans for organs - but we have ethical boundaries that we don't cross, and when the line gets blurry, it would behoove you to not pretend like you have all the answers.)
Stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research, is NOT BANNED. The only "ban" is on the FEDERAL FUNDING of embryonic stem cell research on NON-APPROVED LINES. Get it now?
You didn't read the article, did you?
Clear, Dark Skies
As the article says, the cells harvested from cord blood have already achieved limited differentiation, and are therefore more limited in the kinds of cells they can become. So not only are they useless for some kinds of research, they also provide less insight into how differentiation happens.
Yes, it's great that they work, but don't get your hopes up in thinking that they're an ideal replacement for embryonic cells.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The argument used by the conservatives is that using embryos means taking a life. Well, then what about the hundreds of embryos that go un-used in fertility clinics? What do you think is done with them?
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
I don't think it was a question of poor care. As a rich poster boy I'm sure he had the best care possible. His injuries were very severe.
Think of it like HIV. No one dies from HIV, they die from the flu or infections, but the HIV was definitely the reason.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I have to take issue with this statement.
A lot of people like to take this view because it is convenient, and they have not studied both subjects at depth.
I have an Engineering degree, and I attended a mixture of private religious schools, and public school during my time. In high school, I took religion (it was a requirement) and I also had teachers and nuns who helped me cultivate my belief in God.
Science is wonderful to me BECAUSE it strengthens my belief in God. I have learned how the universe is structured, and I have seen how the 'rules' of the universe are set up so perfectly. It didn't take me long to realize that Science is a window into how God works. It all works to well for me for it to be some big cosmic accident.
As far as spin jobs go, that's not particularly good.
Counter #1: I can think of a time in the future, when no scientific discoveries occur first in the US. According to you, that's OK?
Counter #2: The Sudan is embroiled in a genocidal civil war. Everything there worked too. The warlords in the Sudan didn't fund embryonic (that's how it's spelled by the way) stem cell harvesting. So, the fact that this happened first in Korea and not Sudan doesn't say anything at all about Sudan.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Korean Times
I demand that we redefine pi as 3 according to 1 Kings 7:23:
1 Kings 7:23
Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.
Pity the poor, backwards Koreans, whose barbarian trust in diabolical "science" damns them to hell for eternity. If god wanted that woman to walk, he would never have paralyzed her in the first place. Instead of praying, she's strapped into some infernal machine, feeding on baby's blood. God have mercy on their souls, they should have been grateful to America for freeing them from their Communist threat, and surrenderred to Jesus like us. Then they'd have no healthcare problems at all!
--
make install -not war
A majority of americans are against Stem Cell Research because they thing it only comes from embryos. Stem Cells can not only come from the cord, but also before the egg officially becomes an embryo.
What is not clear is whether or not it was her own umbilical blood?
I am about to have a baby and companies are asking a fortune to store the umbilical blood for future break throughs like this. But does it need to be your own umbilical blood or will anyones work?
on the left who can't tell the difference between the different kinds of stem cells or understand the difference between "ban" and "refuse to pay for".
Clear, Dark Skies
Prior to Roe v. Wade this was the case. The wealthy have always had access to safe abortions, either in the US or overseas.
Lesser members of the human race had coathanger abortions in alleys, or just had kids. All Roe v. Wade really did was to allow poorer people the same access to abortion as the wealthy.
.
If I had the points, I would pump you up....first decently funny thing posted.
-Chaswell
- "Uh, this is the sort of stem cells the Bush Administration supports, you ignorant dumbass." --- 25%
- "Well, yeah, but, Dumbya cut funding! And this is you: duh doo duh doo duh doo" --- 25%
- "Uh, Bush was the first to federally fund ANY stem cell research. And this is you: bibblebibblebibble pppbbbffffttttt!" --- 25%
And then the same people wonder why nothing works right anymore.
--- Ban humanity.
(and no, you don't have to kill the baby afterwards)
But you um, could still kill the baby if you wanted to, right?
I'm just askin'...
For yet another idiot who can't be bothered to understand the difference between different types of stem cells?
Clear, Dark Skies
Unless the fetus's skull was fatally bloated and brain was virtually non-existent.
The abortion issue is a question of whether a fetus is alive or not. It's not whether either side is for or against life.
The "partial birth abortion" issue is completely made up and manufactured. The proof is that ALL the Republican bills against "partial birth abortion" have been overturned because there are no provisions protecting the health of the mother.
There is an EXCELLENT reasons the Republicans refuse to put such provisions in. It's because the procedure called "partial dialation and extraction" is intended ONLY to protect the health of the mother when there is a non-viable fetus. The alternative is a more invasive C-section. The result is the same, the fetus is already dead.
Yes there are some doctors who will exploit these things and attempt to do third term abortions using these provisions. But this is the exception rather than the rule. And in such cases, Democrats SUPPORT convicting the doctors.
You see, the entire issue is a red herring. It's been conjured up as a way to procure votes from folks like yourself. And it's been quite successfull!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
sense a lot of anger in you. I wonder what happened in your life to make you that way. Were your parents that way too? Angry, emotionally fragile people?
Don't worry about it, he's probably just a pissed off white dude, since they are the most opressed group in the world right now and are dying out.
Imagine this is programming - you're learning C, and about the language, and the finer points of its use. Then someone tells you that you can't use malloc, calloc, or any other dynamic allocation.
If you want a programming analogy, then trying to get "embryonic" stem cells to do what you want is more like writing code in raw, binary machine language using 0's and 1's. No compilers, no libraries of already-written functions, not even a set of assembly language mnemonics exists yet, etc. That's your "blank slate" to work with.
Manipulating "adult" stem cells is more like writing code in C++ plus having pre-existing libraries full of already-written classes, methods, functions, etc. The problem is that we're still so unfamiliar with and are still learning the strange undocumented new tools and how to make effective use of them.
...a nice chianti, of course. With some fava beans!
wow, amazing. he gave it a useless amount of funding, and the cells which are authorized for use are all bad (ask somebody in the field or use google yourself). i guess it's amazing that ronald reagan didn't fund them first. oh wait, they weren't a scientific issue back then...
I'm guessing the "Doc" in your username is merely ceremonial.
While this is without a doubt something amazing and even blessed (I use the term loosely since I am atheist) it is only a glimpse into the potential for stem cells. Personally, I am very very moved by this event.
But as one article discusses, the whole point of using embryonic stem cells is that they are undifferentiated. The use of the cells used in the treatment of paralysis were supposedly cord stem cells and are more limited in which ways the body can put them to use. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, can in theory, be used to create ANY cell type in the human body. That is a tremendous difference.
Ethical debates will persist from now until whenever but the moment people outgrow their need to believe in mythology, we'll make some better progress. I'm hopeful that there should be an ethically acceptable method for collecting embryonic stem cells so that we can make the real medical miracles happen.
"Embryonic stem cell research was not banned. Federal funding was given for embryonic stem cell research but limited to pre-existing lines. There is a huge difference between the two."
That would be like wasting money hacking up the original Star Wars trilogy, while putting out unwatchable sequels.... oh wait...
with some additional details here
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Prove there is not a god.
And to take it one step further......
Prove life on earth is not of extraterristial origin.
(not intelligent design mind you but rather spontanious life from decaying inorganic matter... That one is just fro me and a bit offtopic)
By the way, most religions that are not based on reincarnation have a fairly good take on how to live life. To sum up basically every religion one can simply say "Be a good person".
It is organized religion that brings guilt, shame and "the wrath of god" to the masses.
I support stem cell research, but only as a byproduct of my support for killing babies.
Unfortunately, researchers using funds from the California bond initiative won't be able to use this research. They are restricted to research on stem cells from cloned human embryos. Which, so far, shows much less promise than adult stem cells.
Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World is a book that goes into detail on this and other ethical issues that researchers and legislators are facing.
...could be a very good business to get into, kind of like Salmon farms!
Because, what, it involves tearing people open and was never known to work till this single supposed occasion? Not saying it didn't happen of course, I just haven't seen much confirmation personally. Something that's dramatically worse doesn't qualify as better in my book, even though some assert otherwise. But, then, these 'scientists' would be using rocks to cure paralysis if there were a prominent myth that stem cells didn't exist.
I know I know, it was a frickin' joke. But you can't get away with that on Slashdot!
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
... so I guess if you're against embryonic destruction, you should be against fertility treatment. It purposely creates DOZENS of embryos per patient that the doctor will purposefully destroy even in implantation attempts.
The scientists say they need the embryonic lines for research. Neither you nor I are in a position to substinatively disagree.
What I will say is that fetal tissue harvestation is like dumpster diving. The fact is that they were going to throw them away anyway!!!!
At the very least, all those women against destruction of embryos could volunteer to have them implanted in their uterus' and bring them to term!!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
the opposite of christopher reeve?
that'd be christopher walken!
RIP
Bush's decision to halt embryonic stem cell research (as opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research) was a matter of motive. Up until this development, both multipotent stem cells (umbilicial) or undifferentiated stem cells (embryonic) had potential with the perception that embryonic cells having to most potential. Due to this ambiguity, science should/would objectively explore both options. Bush's halt was motivated by politics and not science. Ergo, to the Bush apologists, this is NOT a vindication of Bush's stance. At a minimum, it shows that he's won this round by rolling a seven in this political game of stem cell research craps. But, I think CA is going in the right direction by taking science's lead (if they actually have the money to do it) and not the religous right's lead.
Oh please. I could name dozens of products and ideas invented and developed by the private sector, naming four from government funded programs proves nothing.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
If he could only have held out just another year then who knows....
And maybe five years after that, Ken Bigley.
May be worth all these words if/when the claim is supported by detail in a peer-reviewed journal, as opposed to a News Corp (read: "tabloid publication, regardless of the actual paper size) and/or Agence France Press, which, like AP, UPI, and others, frequently distributes stories printed by others without factchecking.
[this sig has been trunca
You people miss the point almost as bad as michael moore misses the point. Speaking of which, I bet Moore's next documentary will be "Stems of Hope: A documentary film about Bush's bans on stem cell research, and how advancements in other countries showed he was wrong!"
(For reference, Moore never gets anything right)
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Modern fundamentalist religions, like those that oppose abortion, stem cell research, or equality for women, are headed for a direct confrontation with people that want to believe in a wider range of spirituality. The issue of stem cell research highlights this, because many people now respond to it in terms of the soul, whereas that was not at issue when abortion was originally made illegal in the US in the the middle and late 1800s. This concern for the soul and the sanctity of life shows a trend towards more holistic and 'superstitious' views of the world.
This view has actually been encouraged by the emerge of recent sciences including chaos theory and quantum dynamics. The cycle will continue, but if you want to know what's coming, asking high school and college students their opinions. Not the ones that are eager to answer, but the ones that are reserved about their opinions. They're the ones that are still considering the issue, and their opinions will shape decision on the subject thirty years from now. Since I think that there are a lot of undecideds on this issue, I see a big fight coming once a large number of them have made up their minds and raised children with those views.
Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.
Of course, my solution to this problem is to eliminate copyright and patents... :)
Seems like a government solution to a government caused problem.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, evolution, sex education, medical marijuana, nefarious flying contraptions... all these damn facts get in the way of the word of god. They destroy faith, our purpose for living on Earth. If you parse too much, you lose the redeeming message Bush is spreading, now that his Second Coming is at hand. Share the love!
--
make install -not war
OMG oh noes Bush killed SUPERMAN if only he had lived to see this day he would be saved but the evil republicans ban steam cell research the nazis i bet the patriot act did it you know bush and sco and haliburton are trying to take over the world only linux can save supermans corpse at least they have a leg up on the competetion.
let me just say communist china is so free i like it and i love x prise carmak should win and omg bush and republicanz are evil racist hitlers and they stop steam cell research so i can't play half life 2 and raided my house and took my linux and jesus juice because i read slashdot all day and post funnies in my blog omg outsourcing rules hahahahahaha first post doc ruby rules my half retarted communist frieeend
reference link
I like microcars
I live in CA and voted against proposition 71. It disturbs me that so many people voted for it without doing any research. Check out the article below for another opion on it:
4 /1 1/01/cz_sg_1101soapbox.html
http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/200
Neither does anyone else.
:-/
The only thing that embryonic stem cell therapy has been able to accomplish so far is to grow tumors in the test subject's tissue, and the test subject's immune system won't act upon those tumors.
Well that's reason for me enough to keep abortion legal. Let me on the pro-choice wagon. I'll even support federally funded abortion kiosks in all poor areas everywhere in the country, with advertising campaigns encouraging the underclass have abortions. I'll *pay* the mother to abort, and pay again to have her tubes tied.
Without organized religion, most of the infrastructure needed to do this science wouldn't exist. Most of the western world was built by the hands of honest, hardworking Christians. Without them, we would be just a bunch of really smart cavemen.
everyone needs to take a step back from the debate and look at the source of the information... anyone notice a link to the washington times on the second link? I smell moonies.
Uh.. What protocol are you using to access this site? SNA, IPX,Decnet, Appletalk?
The comedy is in the people posting to correct me on point #1 but not on point #2.
Basically, Reeve died of a pressure ulcer which progressed into a letal condition. However, all my friends say that pressure ulcers are completely avoidable and are a sign of bad care. I'm no expert on this subject, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
http://www.talknerdy.org
Sorry, this is waay too vague and speculative to be believeable. Until I read about specific techniques utilized in this procedure, it's as real as vaporware.
Wasn't it in Korea that that team of Scientists claimed they'd cloned the first human being.? I remember that hitting the news world-wide when they announced it, but I don't ever recall hearing anything about whether it was true or not.
But you can't get embryonic stem cells without harvesting embryos.
Duh.
Jeremy
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
Storing cord blood for your new born is a big industry in asia, this is just starting to take off in US. Check Out CordBlood. they offer the service for US and other contries...
Adult stem cells are not equal to embryonic stem cells are not equal to cord blood stem cells. The main argument against stem cell research is that it will "promote abortions". All of the required "embryonic" stem cells can come from the 1000's of 8-cell blastocytes that are destroyed or frozen every day as part of the in-vitro ferilization process. No abortions required.
This is why government policy (and hence scientific research) should not be influenced by religious beliefs.
What are these "ethical issues" precisely? Millions of abortions happen every year. Abortion is legal, the American people by and large don't want it outlawed, so this fact isn't going to change anytime soon. The only question is, do we want to throw all these possibly life-saving cells in a dumpster, or perform the research that could improve the quality of life for millions?
Supporting stem cell research isn't going to increase the number of abortions. I really don't believe that a woman trying to decide whether to have an abortion is going to make stem cells a factor. But to assuage the fears of those who really think that, I would have suggested the following, more limited injunctions:
1) Research groups wouldn't be allowed to give money, goods, or services to abortion providers in exchange for access to fetuses.
2) Family planning providers would be forbidden from mentioning stem cell harvesting in their literature.
This sort of research has only been going on for a few years. It is far too soon to say that cord blood cells are "good enough" for most research. It's absolutely certain that they won't be able to tell us everything we need to know about cell differentiation.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The fact is, California alone gave $3 billion for research into this. Bush claims to have donated $25 million -- translated, California gave 120 times the amount that the Bush talkingpointists trumpet.
Then Bush said that there were something like 75 stem cell lines, and it turned out that something like 60 were garbage and entirely unusuable, and the last 15 might be useful, or might be contaminated.
As for "Bush was the first one... etc." -- considering that stem cells started to show real promise in 1999 and 2000, it's not too surprising that the previous research funding wasn't broken out separately. It IS offensive to me that the were so many restrictions on research to put us behind the South Koreans and to bury Christopher Reeves.
And to those who claim that "well these were not embryonic stem cells!" No one here can get to stage 2 before starting at stage one, which is embryonic.
Clearly we must give these IVF embryos the respect they deserve -- by throwing them in the garbage rather than saving lives.
You can see that that the "Bush was first" stuff is false here:
In August 2000, HHS, under President Clinton's leadership, published new guidelines for research using human embryos. These guidelines create a loophole that essentially claims if privately funded scientists destroy the embryos and extract their stem cells, government-funded scientists can conduct experiments with those stem cells without violating the federal ban. 9
On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced he would reject the Clinton Administration's guidelines and only allow federal dollars for research on approximately 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines already created in privately funded laboratories.10 The president outlined four conditions for the use of existing cell lines:
* The embryos were destroyed and the cell lines were created before the August 9 speech
* The embryos were among the "excess" frozen embryos stored in fertility clinics created through in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes
* The parents gave their consent for the embryo to be destroyed
* The parents were not offered any financial incentive in return for donating the embryo 11
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
really, the cells even run linux! because it's much safer than windows! oh wait, how do you install the necessary hourly security updates? />
<ducks
Surely you understand that there are serious ethical considerations for many people regarding the harvesting of embryonic stem cells? And that those considerations have nothing to do with religion?
How is it unethical to use what is already dead-never-gonna-grow-into-life tissue? I don't think it is, but then I am not religious. I'm seeing very religious people saying it is unethical. To me, there's a very distinct connection between the two.
OOOOH!!! Aren't you the 31334 AC! Is you penis so small you have to inflate your ego by attacking a tryed-n-true method for calling attention to a word or phrase of someone doesn't posses the html skills you do? I guess so. Tell ya' what small-dick-boy, when your knowledge of some fucking mark-up tag helps with the some real world problem and not just makes a paycheck so you can compensate for your inadequencies come on back and talk to the adults, ok?
I think you'll find it's spelled 'Nucyuler'.
with mushroom and wine sauce...
mmmm
Is there an alternative to slashdot that people actually read? I'm sick and tired of bad liberal Bush-bashing getting modded up but genuinely funny left-bashing getting down-modded. At least I have karma to burn, but I'd rather post where the moderation is actually based on relevance, humor, and insightfulness, rather than on whether the liberal moderators outnumber the conservative moderators or vice-versa.
Have been playing Half Life 2 just a little to much, have we?
Ok, who else thinks g-man is actually G.ordon freeMAN self in the future?
That's why I watch nothing but Fox news, all the time.
The best posts are both flamebait and informative.
Wether or not its "embroytic", or "adult", the real question is how much would it cost to buy another person's flesh? In the end, its still a coporation buying and selling flesh... what a great world we live in. No matter how you slice it, its still a disgusting practice.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
"Someone's in a coma, they're never going to come out, why not do some experiments on them?"
They do, with family consent. Perfectly common. They also wait to pull the plug on organ-donors until the transplant recipient is ready to recieve.
They even do experiments on living humans. It isn't even contraversial, it's just an accepted way to pick up drinking money. Granted if you're a perfectly healthy human being the ethical contraints are a little firmer, but there are many degrees of grey.
For example, people who were fully blind and having an eye removed for whatever reason were used to test how much damage a laser does to a living human retina. Consent, naturally.
So yes. It's established that you can experiment on living adults with consent. It's established that you can use the organs of the brain-dead to save lives with family consent.
I agree with one line in your post. It's wrong to draw arbitrary lines on this. We're just already way over on the side of accepting that those who are going to die may help others to live.
The only place we *don't* accept it is the fetus/embryo, ostensibly because such a thing cannot give consent. If you're going to flush it anyway, consent is irrelevant, so let's go for it.
Really? Next you'll be telling me that colour doesn't have a "u" in it ...
-- now where did I put that
I am frankly shocked at the amount of disinformed entrenchment people insist on displaying over this topic.
This is a not a "President Bush vs. everyone-else" argument and he has taken heat for federally funding adult stem cell research - It was his administration that pointed out a very reasonable question (one that Californians obviously didn't hear or read) - "If stem cell research has such potential, why isn't there more private funding and effort?"
Follow the money. Determine why private research funds (even at some universities) are not being spent on stem cell research.
The abortion fanatics (all of 'em) are using this as another means to inculcate their rhetoric into the debate. Unfortunately, the bystanders in this side show are employing simple repetition and not doing the homework to get at the underlying issues to which they are voicing an opinion.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Because there are actually stem cells in plant stems.[1]
;-)
The downside is that if you inject too many of those stem cells into a person, he'd become a vegetable.[2]
.
--
[1] Of course, we're talking about a differ type of stem cell.
[2] Of course, I mean "vegetative state" not "good for your health vegetables".
Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College. The school was on break for two years as a result of disease sweeping the area, and having little else to do, he spent his idle time thinking very productively.
There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry. He invented it out of curiosity, not because he was paid to do so.
Yes, one advantage of mathematics is that it generally does not have any supplies costs, so if you are one of the greatest geniuses of all time, you might be able to make an important contribution over spring break.
For people who are only ordinarily brilliant, and people involved in fields such as stem cell research, with substantial supplies and equipment costs, progress is highly dependent upon the availability of funds for full-time salaries, supplies and equipment.
In the US, the primary source of biomedical funding is NIH grants. Other funds are extremely limited, and the amount of effort required to gain funding is much greater. A field of research that is not eligible for federal funding is greatly crippled in its ability to attract talented researchers. This severely slows the pace of research in the area.
Just that the estimated 60 million people who find it morally apprensible to abort babies to harvest cells don't have to pay for it too.
Why don't the rest of us get to say what our tax money is spent on? I don't support Iraq, so why doesn't Bush make it so I don't have to pay for it, either? How about the death penalty? I don't support that, so please refund my taxes for all those executions. Ha!
Taxes aren't about what you or I want. It's about what is good for the whole. No matter what comes of it, researching embryonic stem cells will provide a benefit to society and should be federally funded.
Your savior rots in hell
Ernest Angley
On the political front Rev. Ike has the answer.
'...LACK of MONEY is the root of EVIL'
Don Imus said it best though in "One Sacred Chicken to Go". You'll have to buy the record.
Don's much tamer these days
But back to Ernest. Just READ THE TESTIMONIALS
Puts science ina whole new light.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
"Abort babies to harvest cells"
Boo, hiss. Parent is suggesting Bush merely banned the harvesting (suggesting a Plan to seed then harvest) of "Babies" (No babies here.. just fetusses, Big Difference: we call it a baby when the brainwaves start, fetusses do NOT have brainwaves) where in fact Bush:
- Did put a hold on all stemcell research on -new- fetusses, even those obtained from IV conception (If you get an IV conception, I believe its likely you fertelize multiple eggs, some of these "Extra" ferted eggs can be removed)
So in the real world, it means: we have all these extra ferted cells we now have to toss away instead of learn from them. It's not like less of them will be -created-. They just wont be used.
Before you start bashing, ask who should be in charge of developing medicine - academics or corporations? I for one love the idea of letting Africans and Indians die of AIDS because they can't afford to buy our patented medicines at inflated prices. <sarcasm />
But can they use stem cells to make my wife put out again?
I don't get it. I have no problem getting your wife to put out. All my friends say she is insatiable in bed.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
What the fuck is this then.
What it RNA, and What is DNA what are amino acids.
They can grow, reproduce, and react with their environment.
I should imagine that if you had a diamond and some carbon vapour you could make the diamond grow and not turn into graphite, nono-tubes grow and react.
Don't forget that you've got a lot of viruses and bacteria living off of a corpse too.
You could even argue that the frabirc of the universe is a living system. (well were part of is I suppose!)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Parent is not informative; parent is uninformed. He missed on every base.
In essence, the parent is giving an argument similar to the likes of "Windows is bad and unstable," then putting someone in front of X, showing it to be stable, and saying, "See? Windows IS stable and reliable!" Two separate animals that look the same to the uninformed.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
If you offer a wanted service, they will come...
How is this any weirder than guys paying buckets of money to have a girl in leather whip them?
Businesses, particularly small businesses, can make a profit selling an otherwise equivalent product at more money if they can offer something else with it. Whether that's "Made in the USA", "Organically Grown", "Kosher", "Good customer service" or otherwise not offending the person's sensabilities.
I don't read AC A human right
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Archimedes beat everyone to it.
We just forget about him for quite a bit.... dark ages and all.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
In making your incindiary response to his, you seemed to have missed that what he said was at least accurate, where as you initial post was just insulting and at best, ignorant. (I'm being optimistic and assuming you were not purposely trying to spread mis-information about those who believe differently than you in the hopes of smearing their beliefs, using an unrelated example to prove you are right.)
As per your statement on bacteria in corpses, they are not considered part of the corpse. There is bacteria in the glass on my desk, that does not make the glass a living thing.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
How is it unethical to use what is already dead-never-gonna-grow-into-life tissue?
It's a question of how it's harvested. Embryonic stem cells come from the harvesting of fetal tissue, usually from abortions. So it's a little different than organ donation, for example.
Again, it's not a religious issue, it's an ethics issue.
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. So exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by science and what you mean by religion. There are those who claim scientism as their religion and spout things that have less true scientific evidence than much of what is classically known as religion.
Take a look at the book Darwin on Trial if you are interested in learning more about the modern myths propogated by some "scientists". This is not specifically about Darwin, rather it's about some of the preposterous things that are claimed by neo-darwinists today.
Also, an objective study of western history will show that belief in an unchanging omnipotent, was the instigator of most scientific research throughout the renaissance and great awakening. Without such a foundation, people tend to worship volcano gods and mountains, rather than investigating creation, because they have no foundation to base their research. For instance, if there is no trancendant, why would one trust in logic? What makes logic so great? Could not it have evolved errant? On the other hand, those who believe in an omnipotent creator, begin to study his handywork in an effort to learn more about him. So, at least in some cases, Religion is the instigator of scientific research.
LOL!
Wish I had some mod points.
Havan't seen a 'Bush Killed Superman' post yet...
Did see some reference to Rev. Moon's involvement elsewhere on the net.
Also, it seems that California just made the wrong bet, pushing embryonic cells, which are conceptually easier to work with, instead of umbilical cord or adult stem cells.
Researches in the good ol'USA are, as usual, too hasty in getting results. They resort to the shortest way. And will eventually lose.
I repeat: it is nobody's fault that California researchers made the wrong bet. Do not blame the North Koreans. Some US researches chose to pursue an ethically challenging research to get faster results and got their wings chopped by the Administration. What will you do?
I'm amazed. This is an incredible scientific advancement. The human story here is also enormous. But what gets modded up? Bush this, Bush that (duhhhh, pick nose, drool). Bashing Bush isn't going to accomplish 1 tiny thing. And it's a total bore. This, at one time, was a nerd site you know? Slashdot has gone to shit.
Unix System Admin on central California coast seeks work anywhere! .sig on slashdot doesn't count as looking for a job, although you should definitely put your slashdot ID# on your resume, since slashID 1000 = 3773. Although you may want to pay your hosting bill first (www.chaostrophy.org site not found).
I don't know what you tell your unemployment counselor, but running a
Actually, the calculus was invented more than a millenia earlier by Archimedes. Google for plimpsest. Who employed Archimedes? Oh, and what about Leibniz?
There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
For now, the unborn is the only class of human beings enough people aren't repulsed by. The Nazis would have accellerated medical research if they weren't in such a hurry to exterminate the Jews and others, but they were doing eugenics and wanted to breed the aryan superman, not bioengineer him.
Calling something a "religious belief" does not make its truth or falsity change. Thou Shall Not Kill is either a universal and transcendent principle ("sacred" would be the term all but theophobes would recognize), or it is only something for the elite and not the disenfranchised. Nazis and Arians in 1940 Germany. The Commisars in the Communist countries (who were atheists that slaughtered millions of the "inconvienient"). In the modern west, those who haven't been aborted.
You can try to follow a logical trail to prevent your own killing/murder, but it will eventually lead to what is a religious belief which you cannot prove in the mathematical sense, so must impose some idea of human dignity. But then the exercise is to try to create a definition that allows the murder of those whom you want to murder, but doesn't happen to include you. But then it is all subjective.
If human dignity is objective, it belongs to all human beings - and the embryo as well as the zygote, fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, and elderly are all human. They are not fish, tomatoes, or rocks.
Someone was made able to walk without murdering innocent human beings. Yet it seems that there is a dark side to this world - and I would say demonic - something else that is rarely believed in - that seems to think only Molech can do miracles, and he requires the sacrifice of innocent children before he will do his magic. We now call the priests of Molech "researchers", but they would rather murder a human person (and patent the stem cell line? Where are all the IP libertarians now?) even if the research is less productive.
That is an evil attitude.
I know that bush did not end stem cell research, but limited it to the existing stem cell lines. I am curious, are these lines sufficient? My impression is that they are not. One of the problems I have heard mentioned is that as cells are reproduced over and over again, transcription errors can occur, yielding inferior cell lines, and thus introducing increase error variance into experiments. Does anyone know if this is true?
Well, as far as Sig's go, Freud was a doozy.
All of the required "embryonic" stem cells can come from the 1000's of 8-cell blastocytes that are destroyed or frozen every day as part of the in-vitro ferilization process.
There is a problem with that. The scientists dont want to limit their research to humans with fertility problems. They also want to be allowed to create their own blastocysts via nuclear transfer to study patients with paticular illnesses.
If any of what I've said doesnt make sense then watch the Science Network's symposium on Stem Cells. Stem Cells: Science, Ethics and Politics at the Crossroads. They explain all the issues and technologies repeatedly and in a way normal folk can understand. I watched the full version but there is a new edit that might be good too.
This is an amazing feat!.. Why so much arguing about a topic not linked to this one. Let the fetus sleep! We just pulled off something they couldn't even do in star trek ;)
Your post might have had a point if it weren't for the fact that Newton didn't invent calculus.
With medical costs rising much faster than inflation and wages and with an anti-science agenda in our government, the USA is moving backwards in time with respect to medicine.
For example, medical insurance has become so expensive, that I fear ever going to see a doctor out of fear what will happen to my premiums afterwards. If I ever see a doctor, it'll probably be due to a trip to the emergency room. And I get by cheap. If I was a woman with a child or had any pre-existing condition...holy shit, I know people who were quoted $1000+ per month, and they aren't even 30, yet!
I don't know the answer, but the current system is not it. Not by any measure.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
We might. While this woman is now able to walk, which rocks, I would think she'll be on anti-rejection drugs the rest of her life. The stem cells aren't her own.
The best therapeutic outcome would come from stem cells with the patient's own genes. It's not yet known whether pluripotent adult stem cells could fit the bill, or if therapeutic cloning (involving embryonic stem cells) would be necessary.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You know, you've got a point. You'd better start believing in the Great Pumpkin now, just to be safe.
As righteous as you consider your agenda, it's not moral to force it on everyone else. The average Joe couldn't give a damn what happens with stem cell research, and that's his right not to give a damn. You are not a saint for trying to force your agenda on the average Joe -- you are an aggressor, and Joe is the victim.
Realize that the "it benefits society as a whole" justification for more government is the oldest trick in the book. Anything and everything government does is justified with that exact rationale.
Why did the US government chose to wage war on Iraq? "Because it benefits society as a whole."
Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
Industry is only playing by the rules. The fact that the rules are fundamentally broken is a failure of government, not industry.
Embyronic stem cells have more potential due to their undifferentiated nature but they pose significantly greater problems than do adult stem cells.
First is the issue of rejection. You're putting foreign genetic material into your body. Chances our your body will reject it without massive immuno-suprresants. This of course makes you more susceptible to infection.
Second is the issue of unregulated growth. Large tumors seems to be one of the main results of animal tests with embryonic stem cells.
Third is this fact. Adult stem cells work and are actively being used in therapies.
Now, repeat after me: There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. While people love to vilify the Bush administration they seem to forget that this was the first administration to actual provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The only limit was that new lines could not be created or used in federally funded work.
As for the Ronald Reagan angle you can also check the research and see that most scientists do not see any therapeutic use of stem cells for Alzheimers.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
60 million people who find it morally apprensible to abort babies
"Apprensible" is not a word.
The closest match, "apprehensible", means "capable of being understood".
You probably meant "reprehensible", or "deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy". (Which, of course, abortion is.)
The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.
Exactly what part of the Constitution says so? By my reading, they should provide national defense, police protection, and a judicial system. Thats all. Protecting individual and property rights is all the Founding Fathers intended.
Why don't the rest of us get to say what our tax money is spent on? Hey! 60 million people voted for him, that's why!
So, if science is so great, howcome it took them 2000 years to catch up?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Most Eggs are fertilized outside the womb - in the Fallopian Tubes. Also they are alive. If they were dead they would not be of any use in establishing stem cell lines.
Your point is invalid. What you are saying is that preventing natural processes from proceeding makes something "potential". What you are actually doing is depriving the embryo of access to the nutrients it needs to develop. You aren't a potential if you are locked in somewhere and starve to death.
It is dangerous to learn science or philosophy from Monty Python.
You may have very deep religious beliefs but so did the Aztecs, and they weren't bothered by cutting out the hearts of thousands each year.
They aren't potentially human, they are merely at an earlier stage of development. If you needed a transplant, you could have someone close to you conceive and have a baby and let it grow until it was big enough to harvest the organ. If a human being can be sacrificed at X, sacrificing it at X+3 shouldn't bother you either.
Either Humans have dignity by virtue of their being human and any intentional death (including creation of an embryo to murder it) is murder, or it is merely some subjective idea the powerful impose on victims - Nazis can dehumanize Jews, Communists can dehumanize dissenters, and we can kill sufficiently immature (biologically) humans.
Seoul National and Chosun Universities are in South Korea. I know, I've been there!
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
This meant that more children were born to newly arrived groups such as Italian, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. and the country would lose its Anglosaxon heritage to "unworthy" peoples.
And yes, if blacks and hispanics were the majority users of abortion, the bible thumpers would be screaming for the government to provide abortions for free.
They commented that the treatment that the girl received could not help Christopher Reeves because too many years had passed since his accident.
AFAIK, this program was on several years ago.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
And each line may be a separate patent.
So we can have government create more things for corporations to impose IP restrictions on. Because there is a greater chance to profit from Embryonic stem cell research than other kinds, that is why corporations want it funded. But they will want to put the last piece of the puzzle in and patent and license the product.
And I don't think your history is correct. Sometimes people working for the government came up with inventions, but they weren't being paid to do them.
Linux managed to be written without government funding. BSD wasn't done via a grant to do BSD. And bureaucrats then make the decisions on what to research, not the scientists. And FSF or opensource model would do far better than government to fund "basic research". NASA might be the least bad example, but note the argument about Hubble and the failed missions.
Prop 71, baby! Let the red states suffer quietly as their biotech industries all leave for California, which is willing to put its money where its mouth is.
sulli
RTFJ.
Sorry. I attempted to have a discussion on the issues, and you appear to be incapable of it. Good day.
The Anonymous Coward calls me a "spectacular shithead", and I'm incendiary? The information in my (obviously satirical, though sincere) post about religious zealotry is right on the money. If you don't see the American Taliban agenda for a Christian country, wedging with embryonic stemcells, through abortion, through general stemcells, through all of science that competes with fundamentalist propaganda, you need to look more closely. They used to believe "differently" in burning "witches" at the stake, too. I'm sure they'll join you in editing profanity from the web, at first in quotes of other people's statements, then "preemptively" on anyone in their way. Eventually that will include you, too, as well as me.
--
make install -not war
We the people must have gotten a lot wrong since the founding of this country then you fucking jackhole. If you have mod points, please mod bluefoxlucid down into hell. Thanks.
"Anything I missed?"
Only the entire issue.
So these researchers are just amoral monsters who want to experiment on embryos for no reason? I suppose only conservative warriors like yourself stand between them and experiments on live children.
This is such classic conservative FUD. You know the public generally supports the research, and is not buying your right to life arguments, and so you spread FUD about the usefulness of the research itself.
I don't know the particulars of which research is more promising, but I sure won't get my technical information from you or your blog.
I do NOT support embryonic stem cell research, but not because the research is supposedly 'useless'. I am opposed to it because:
1. An embryo is not a human being, but has the potential to become one and IS a form of human life. It is vastly different from a child (or even a fetus), but it has a complete (and unique) set of genetic material. Therefore, I believe it qualifies as something more than a clump of cells or a donated organ.
2. The research requires the embryo to be destroyed. Once you have sanctioned the destruction of this form of human life, you have crossed the line marking the start of the slippery slope.
3. The argument that "these embryos would just be discarded anyway" breaks down when you have a breakthrough, and suddenly need to produce embryonic stem cells on an industrial scale. At that point you are creating embryos with no purpose other than to be grown and harvested.
IANAC (I am not a conservative), but I generally agree with them on this issue. What I don't agree with is their all-too-familiar tactics: when you can't win the argument on the merits of the facts, start calling the facts themselves into question ( voting "challenges", Iraq War, "Death tax", etc, etc.)
I think you're taking me a bit to literally. I'll clarify...I meant eggs fertilized outside a human body...invitro, in a test tube in a lab. Unless implanted..will not ever develop into human life. And all cells are living things. But, I don't believe one or more cells of a fertilized egg in a lab is a living, breathing, cognizant human being....nor would it ever become one in said lab setting without implantation into a female host.
Until these cells multiply and differentiate substiantially enough to form the complex organism that we call a human being, I think we're talking about groupings of cells vs human beings. At the stages we're talking about, this grouping of cells isn't much different than any other embryo on earth....frogs, cows...etc. Mostly DNA differences...
And again...I'm talking about invitro fertilization, where this all takes place in a lab setting, so, here yes....ONLY potential life, if scientific intervention takes place. I'd think it would be better to use these embryos for some scientific good, rather than just flush them down the toilet. Which do you think would be a better fate for the frozen embryos out there?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your last statement hit the nail right on the head.
People tend to forget that the path from basic science to miracle cure is long and arduous.
There is a lot of basic science that still needs to be done to even start asking questions of viability.
In any case, none of it ends up being a waste of money if ultimately we better understand how these processes work.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
people tend to worship volcano gods and mountains, rather than investigating creation...if there is no trancendant, why would one trust in logic?
Ha ha ha ha ha! Wow, thanks, that was really funny. People worshipping Vulcan, the god of fire, are probably the most refined example of logical and reasoned discourse. The Romans and Greeks had a much better understanding of logic and reasoning than most scientists and Slashdot posters do today. As far as monotheism or strong religious beliefs in general as a correlative for scientific or reasoned thought, well that is just not backed up by history. The Ancient Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Etruscan, and Mayan civilizations all advanced scientifically beyond the norm. If anything, a tolerance for a plethora of religions corresponds well with reasoned discourse and logic.
People trust in logic, because it works and is useful. I'm not saying that religion is not important, or that a reasonable person cannot reasonably have religious beliefs. But logic need not have any sort of religion to lend it credence, it stands well on its own merit.
A wart is alive and has human genes... is it a human?
/bleh
What about your appendix and tonsils? Are they not alive? Are they not human?
What about that nasty tumor growing in your brain? Don't get it removed or you'll be killing a human.
You can still cut your hair and nails.
Fuck you, troll.
I'm no expert on Stem cell research or medical ethics, I probably know a lot less about it than most people on Slashdot. What I do know is that my daughter's mother is laying in a nursing home where she will soon die from ALS. I don't think that this kind of thing is too unusual, many people know someone who has some terrible disease. We also have hundreds, perhaps thousands of nerve and brain injured soldiers laying in VA hospitals around the country and many more people with various injuries and diseases in hospitals and nurshing homes all around the country.
All of these people wish to have their health back. Scientists and doctors everywhere are saying that stem cell research holds a great deal of promise and that it deserves a great deal of study. These same experts seem to agree that fetal stem cells have some special properties.
We have a conservitive government who for decades have said "deregulation is the key to success" who have regulated research in this area. I guess they meant "deregulation is the key to success unless we don't agree with it."
I currently suffer from Primary Lateral Sclerosis (PLS) a Motor Neuron Disease related to both MS and Lou Gehrig's disease. The best potential cure will be from this type of research. (well.. IMHO)
Government funding is critical due to the low numbers of people affected (~500 in US)
If interested google it.
I can't speak for all of the Christian world, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points above:
1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy.
In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)
People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.
Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.
Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.
The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.
As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!
2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved
I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
While I agree with point you are trying to make, I think you have no idea how much of South Korean politics is dependent upon the president of the U.S. South Korea is a U.S. satellite state set in opposition to North Korea, a former U.S.S.R. and Chinese satellite state. North Korea can and may invade at any time, and the presence of a large number of U.S. troops, that Bush has promised to remove, are one of the major things preventing it. When the U.S. says "jump" Korea says "how high??"
Not quite true. I think it was in The Selfish Gene where they pointed out that traits that may not benefit an individual may still help propagate the gene itself if it profits relatives. If one could argue, say, that a homosexual male would be better at acting as a caretaker for children (And no, I don't have any argument in that area), then having an individual like that pop up periodically would mean that relatives of his (nephews, nieces, etc) would be more likely to survive, quite possibly carrying large amounts of his genetic code due to the common ancestry.
Perhaps a more practical example might be the argument that homosexuality occurs as population control. (Supposedly, studies have shown that homosexual behavior in animals increases as a population starts to outgrow its space. Perhaps related, it's been shown that the later a child is in birth succession, the more statistically likely it is for them to be homosexual) By reducing the chance of population overgrowth in the area, the gay person increases the chances of survival for their relatives.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
With embryonic stem cells there is no sperm involved.
Er... where do embryos come from in your world?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
First, on a technical level, after conception, the egg has to go through implantation. Due to semantic juggling, that's why "contraceptives" like the Pill don't do anything to conception. Rather, they prevent implantation.
Secondly, there's a variety of things that can happen after conception that prevent birth from spontaneous abortions (the body absorbs everything back) to miscarriages and other in-womb deaths. Although, arguably, the baby is still "born" in the latter two cases, just not alive.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
You're right, I should have typed South Korea. Everything else you typed is just wrong.
Also, it seems that California just made the wrong bet, pushing embryonic cells, which are conceptually easier to work with, instead of umbilical cord or adult stem cells.
"Conceptually" easier to work with?!? You have some way of making adult stem cells pluripotent? Don't hold out on us genius, let us know what your secret is.
>Researches in the good ol'USA are, as usual, too hasty in getting results. They resort to the shortest way. And will eventually lose.
Yeah, differentiating cells into various cell types is all a big shortcut.
The question I have is, why do you guys let your religious politics interfere with researcher when it's obvious that you've never set foot in a lab? Shit, one guy can't even spell "embryo!"
>I repeat: it is nobody's fault that California researchers made the wrong bet. Do not blame the North Koreans. Some US researches chose to pursue an ethically challenging research to get faster results and got their wings chopped by the Administration. What will you do?
I will wait for your great secret about how to recover umbilical stem cells in similar volumes to embryonic, and how to make those stem cells differentiate similarly.
I won't wait long, though, because you, like the other responses here, are the perfect combination of 'tard, troll and religion.
he didn't say you could not donate your money to the research.
Heh, yup you can donate to universities that plan to use the approved and largely contaminated exiting lines, or to the few universities who are planning on challenging the funding ban in court. No public university can survive without federal funding and this ban would prevent any research funding from the NIH, which has already slashed it's budget in half right after the election, to any university researching new embryonic stem cell lines.
Arguing that Bush is not killing devastating scientific research in the U.S. is arguing from a position of extreme ignorance. Between slashing funding, banning lines or research, placing lobbyists and industry executives in federal positions, and providing financial incentives for corporations to move their research overseas, Bush has done more damage to research in the U.S. than any other individual in the past three decades.
Somewhere you missed that ES cells don't come from babies aborted for the purpose of developing stem cells, they come from embryos that are already being destroyed (incinerated usually). If you're against abortion, fine; it's a tenable position, though one that I don't agree with. Neither do most Americans agree with you. So fight (by voting, writing, preaching, whatever non-violent means you choose) against abortion if that's what your religion or ethics tell you to do.
/.er would come up with an absurd counter, no doubt) are motivated by finding life-saving treatments for injured people--surely that's not objectionable to anyone but some radical 'christian scientist' types (I mean here the christian sect that rejects medical attention, not scientists who are christians).
But why insist that there be no medical benefit from what, under our current law, amounts to waste? And why demean the researchers working on stem cells? Most of the researchers and doctors working on ES-based treatments (I would say all, but some
As for your IP--researchers just want to murder people and patent their genes--bullshit, I should point out that most researchers working on medical problems never get extra money for their work that gets patented. If they make a significant discovery at an academic institution, their university owns their research. The university may sell the technology to a drug company for development (so called 'technology transfer') who will probably patent it. Most researchers (leaving Craig Venter and his ilk aside for the moment) don't benefit from patenting research or results. Indeed, when a researcher publishes an article in a scientific journal, it becomes essentially public domain for other researchers to build on and borrow from. Researchers are even required, as part of their publication agreement, to provide strains and other materials used in their methodology to other researchers upon request.
So you've pointed your finger wrongly twice in your post. Because many people's lives and quality of life hang in the balance of what is unfortunately becoming an issue dominated by public opinion rather than good medical or ethical considerations, I urge you to reconsider your stance.
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard, be evil.
I didn't say he wasn't incendiary. I said he was acurate. One can be both, and being one does not imply the other.
Nice. We don't have to call people Hitler these days to smear them. Yes, some folks have an agenda. That doesn't change the fact that your original post made it sound like the story was crediting embryonic stemcell research, or that the original response that we've branched off from called you on it correctly, or that your response to that response totally over looked that he was correct in that much.
You have the right or use all the profanity you want here. I don't have to repeat it. It was a choice I made about my post. There's a difference there. Remember, shiny side out.
you're assuming that what is popular is ethical.
Hey! I saw this same woman on Benny Hinn last night. Which was it.. science or snake oil?
FYI... Benny Hinn is a religious charlatan.
Then don't draw *an* arbitrary line, just do what every other computer scientist / mathematician does when they can't find a tight bound on something: draw 2 arbitrary lines!
If you believe that it's obvious that a small hunk of cells is decidedly not human, and if it will be flushed and will thus not become a human, then that's ok for research.
A newborn baby is obviously already human and has the potential to develop further so we'll say no killing newborns.
There. No single arbitrary line. The trick is, to me, to just go with what is definately OK, and leave the more questionable stuff alone. That way you have no absolute declaration of when life/dignity begins/becomes valuable and thus no slippery slope.
Comfy?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Sentient means responding to stimulus. This happens long before birth.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
First, CA just approved a multi-billion dollar fund for this research as a way to attract companies.
Second, the private groups are spending their money working with adult stem cells (this includes the umbilical cord cells used in the described treatment) as they are actually producing results.
Remember that old saw: "you have to learn to walk before you can fly"? Well it may seem a bit backwards but the walking work for stem cells is to work with the adult ones first. You still have to tackle differentiation issues with them and methods of implanting and controlling but you don't have the immune system issues and you don't have the current horrible experimental track record that you do with embryonic stem cells.
This is all before we even go into the whole ethical "destroy a life to create the cells" issue.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
It's a question of how it's harvested. Embryonic stem cells come from the harvesting of fetal tissue, usually from abortions. So it's a little different than organ donation, for example.
Sure, but given that abortions will always happen, is it more ethical to just toss the cells, or to use them for study/medicine?
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. So exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
Exploring something which is not entirely known is not necessarily a waste of time. We could find that fetal stem cells are better for certain treatments, or find a way to use them to better all stem cell related treatments. Who knows? But, since the material will always be available, why not use it?
Over 50% of the US population is against abortion. We don't need to promote more abortions so that babies can be a consumable that is harvested. Why? We can get stem cells ethically from umbilical cords, so why kill babies?
[From The Morning]
[FromTheMorning]
But, I don't believe one or more cells of a fertilized egg in a lab is a living, breathing, cognizant human being....nor would it ever become one in said lab setting without implantation into a female host.
Ah, so now we just need to agree on a definition for "human life". If you ask the Nazis it is anybody who isn't Jewish. If you ask an American from the 1700's, it is anybody who isn't black.
Keep in mind that many retarded people are going to fail to meet some criteria that you'd tend to propose for human life (ability to reason, etc.). Young children (up to a year or two in age) would fail to meet many criteria related to ability to survive on their own, etc.
Right now the legal definition is that a human life is effectively a fully developed infant which is no longer in its mother's body. This leads to strage practices like partial birth abortion where as long as at least a few hairs are still inside the birth canal the newborn has no legal rights.
If it were easy to define human life, there wouldn't be any debate at all. The problem is that it isn't easy. Does it start at birth (thus leading to partial birth abortion, and how anybody can differentiate between a child ten seconds before and after birth escapes me)? Does it start at conception (in which case do we probably have an ethical obligation to try to rescue children who fail to implant properly)? You can probably come up with a rediculous scenario for any definition that you come up with.
...and say "no fucking shit?".
I don't know about anyone else, but helping a paralyzed woman walk again by regrowing parts of her damaged spine sounds quite miraculous. All hail the scientist champions of our human species!
Surely, we must give to them unlimited resources so that they may cure all of the plagues of the human experience!
Right?
Well, Leibnitz I think was part of George I's court when he was still elector of Hanover. It's not clear who had priority, but Newton's formulation of calculus was idiosyncratic, IIRC, and Leibnitz was closer to modern.
And don't forget Euler, who invented the modern notation for calculus (d/dx et al), as well as giving us the ever popular e . He spent most of his career in St. Petersburg under the patronage of the Tsar.
Oliver Heaviside, on the other hand,invented vector calculus while either working as a telegraph operator or as a person of no visible means of support living in his parent's house.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Notice none of the Bush haters responded to your post. Funny. [From The Morning]
I welcome the concept of an internal biological system rewiring the body's network. Damn well about time someone did some human research work- all those !frog amputees can walk for years, but not one human till now. Anyone remember Nanette Davis, who had her network rewired externally so she could walk- in the 1980's ? I worked with Dr. Petrofsky's brother at the time- he wrote all the code on an Apple II with a Z80 board, and used a set of donated F-5 radar antenna gyros as a basic three axis inertial controller for the young lady. It was a hell of a hack for the 80's. Now- can we use those cells to rewire my home network ? Or do I have to use plants and wires ?
Faith is not "the belief of things with no evidence".
It is "the belief of things with no proof". There is a big difference and I hope you see it.
--- Tao
From what I've heard elsewhere, there's also a shelf life issue with these IVF "leftovers." If we were *really* serious about saving these "babies" we'd either be locating host mothers for them, or we'd be investing in some good LH2 storage to increase their shelf-life instead of the LN2 currently used, maybe even fractions-above-0K storage. Either those possiblities, or we could outlaw IVF unless the couple agreed to implant ALL embryos, eventually.
I know those options are all absurd, but so is trying to take an ethically complex situation and force a simple answer.
Another poster on this thread suggested that he would have been aborted had his mother not been strongly pro-life.
A different poster on this thread mentioned his two IVF children.
These two situations are flipsides of the same coin. IVF is almost intractably tied to abortion, unless you want to commit to fertilize-as-you-implant and/or implant-every-embryo as a matter of rigidly enforced policy.
Personally I'm pro-choice, and I don't believe ANYONE is really pro-abortion. I don't like abortion, (the later it's done, the less I like it.) but IMHO there are *worse* things, and one of them is pretending this is an ethically black-and-white issue. As a result of this, I find myself in disagreement with the Catholic Church. (I'm not a Catholic, but I'm married to one.) But I will grant them this: On the subject of fertility the Church is consistent.
The Church does not approve of abortion.
The Church does not approve of IVF.
The Church does not approve of the Pill(*) or IUD.
*A little research finds that the low-dosage Pill, the only kind in common usage since the 80's, works by impairing formation of the uterine lining, so a fertilized egg can't implant. Effectively it's a very early abortion. I don't have a problem with that, since it's an undifferentiated blob of cells, but the Church does.
To be truly consistent, we would need laws to outlaw the Pill and tightly regulate IVF.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. therefore exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time.
Which logical fallacy is that?
We both agree that adult and embryonic stem cells are different. To you that means look only at the most promising one, and ignore the less promising one. To me that just means that we should look at both, since they may be better at different things.
Would you agree with the following?
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from antibiotics. So exploring stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
I mean, antibiotics have proven cures for how many diseases?
Yeah, comments like "Bush will just declare that Alaska is harboring weapons of mass destruction and invade it, then drill for oil" would always be perfectly acceptable here (I've seen such things, tehy get modded "Funny"), but shots at Michael Moore are trolling. I see. You people have your heads that far up your asses huh?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And you dare to call yourself an American? Rememeber jackhole, this place was founded BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE. Not by business and for business. So get your head out of Bush's ass and start smelling reality, bitch.
I've always found Newton's use of fluxion much more interesting than the limits crap that gets taught in most introdutory calculus classes.
Hey holmes. What exactly IS the point? What are we talking about here? (Keep in mind that I've got a bumper sticker that says "Science is not a Crime")
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
There is an issue here. Best health for the newborn is generally achieved when time is allowed for as much blood as possible to drain from the placenta through the umbilical into the newborn. Care must be observed not to shortchange the baby in an attempt to help someone else.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I agree, you would think that if there were a "gay gene" that it would have been removed from natural selection.
Nope. The ringer is when you can't be certain of paternitiy. For a male, it's when the chances that the child of your mate are less than 4:1 in favor of you being the father. If there is a 1 in 4 chance that your child is not really your child, your genes have a better chance of propogating by supporting the children of your sister than by supporting the children that may be yours.
The society/clan benefits from having a certain percentage of males that concentrate on the nieces/nephews rather than the son/daughter. The clan also benefits from a certain percentage that knows at a fairly early age that they will not need to plan to suport a child. It's a lot easier, even now, to plan a career as an artist, actor, musician, write, etc. if you are fairly certain that you will not be getting married and having kids.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sure that many churches *do* teach it incorrectly.
My understanding is that the word 'sin' in the original language was a word used in terms of target shooting that means 'to miss the mark.'
Applied to our lives, it's anything that causes us to miss the mark of holiness and purity.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'm not interested in arguing the merits of abortion being murder or not murder. I argue that if it doesn't affect me it's none of my concern, and if it does affect me it's my concern and no one else's (unless they are similarly affected).
Confused?
A woman who I have never met aborting her pregnancy is none of my business. If she or someone else along the line sells the tissue for fun and profit, it's also none of my business. I don't find it offensive or immoral.
If I do know the woman, or if I am the woman, it's my problem and you, stranger, should mind your own business.
On the other hand, a large, well organized gang with a lots of awesome firepower going around telling everyone that they may not abort their pregnancies, or can only abort their pregnancies through these approved channels is something I find very offensive, very immoral, and something I will resist vehemently.
Take your life/not-a-life rules and shove them. I don't care.
Now, lets see some cures you baby-killers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And remember, as stated her very often, Bush simply (as I understand it) decided not to fund with Federal money -- Embryonic Stemcell research. Other Stem Cell research is okay as I understand it, and he did not outlaw Embryonic stemcell research.
Because much of this research won't happen unless it's government funded (its long-term, not a quick buck). If there was no gov't funding, you'd have 10^6 aspirin knockoffs and no real treatments. A lot of commercial drugs never would've been developed w/o gov't assistance.
True today, but this has little bearing on the value of researching them, especially if we can unlock the secret of what triggers the cancer response over the generation of healthy adult stem cells.
The ethical distinction you are making between embryos that would be destroyed and embryos that would not be destroyed doesn't matter to them, because they believe that destroying _any_ embryo means ending the life of a sentient being. Sentient beings die all the time, but for those who believe that their ethics affect their future existence, there is a huge distinction between taking ownership of the death of a sentient being and the fact that the being has died, or is going to die. That is, if you kill the being, it's your problem; if I kill the being, or benefit from its death, it's my problem.
You're absolutely right; that is how many, many people think about this issue. What I'm trying to do, though, is to change minds and force thought on the matter. True, it's hard, but it isn't futile. Part of what drives the opposition to embryonic stem cell research is that certain groups of people have very effectively distilled the issue into a simple, easy-to-digest format that goes down easy and doesn't give you gas. I'm trying to shake that back up--to muddy those waters that should never have been made clear--and force people to think beyond their own spheres of comfort. Do this often enough and persistently enough, and there's a chance we can re-inject some of the complexity that is so essential to arriving at a sound resolution of this issue. To this end, I'm not strong enough butt heads directly with the masters who whip up these false dichotomies--rather, this kind of situation calls for an end run of the artificial discourse. Call it guerilla discussion.
In short, I'm trying to change public discourse, one person at a time. Sure, it's a shitty and often hopeless job, but unless somebody does it, we're fucked as a thinking society. Part of my strategy is to simply skirt the talking points and introduce angles for which people haven't been indoctrinated one way or the other. Overall, it is effective; all it takes is a shadow of a doubt to get people really thinking about something, and I've managed to force a good number of people to at least back their EZ-Dose Talking Points with facts and reasoning--which I count as a victory, even if I haven't changed their conclusion.
When we try to base our actions on how things should be, as opposed to how they actually are, we undercut the effectiveness of what we do.
I disagree. The biggest reason things "are" as they are is that a small, dedicated group of people based their actions on how they thought things should be.
If you're in Denver and you want to get to Salt Lake City, you don't get pissed off at the mountain passes between the two cities - the mountain passes don't care what you think. You suck it up and cross them. The situation here is no different.
Absolutely right. What you do instead is work hard and toil for years, build roads, build tunnels, build machines to clear three feet of snow in an hour, build aircraft to fly above that pass. One day, you realize that the mountain pass is no longer an issue, and you move on to the next challenge. I'm toiling to make this particular debate irrelevant. It's hard, thankless work, but at some point, the combined forces of science and persuasion will render this hot potato as irrelevant as the debate over which celestial body is at the center of the universe--so long as enough of us keep working at it. The more of us out there, the sooner we can move on to the next pass.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Until then, you're Pro-birth, not Pro-life.
Yeah, right.
If he just coulda stayed seated on the horse, who knows...
Without a Hollywood figure politicizing the issue, the Democrats would have never cared.
Meanwhile, stem cells that are not derived from fetal tissues are being worked with every day to develop new therapies. For example, they were used to help a paralyzed woman walk in South Korea - which you would know if you had read the article.
As for all the promises from all those researchers - sorry, but researchers promise lots of things that never come true. Even the New York Times is reporting that California's $3 billion is looking more like a science slush fund than real science.
Clear, Dark Skies
To be honest, perhaps GP post didn't phrase it precisely, but it seems to be correct on the issues - Bush got elected. In an ideal world, that means that the majority of voters agree with the majority of his platform. Which, in his second term, includes everything he did in his first term. His re-election is proof that USA has accepted what he did, including, but not limited to, ban on funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, invasion of Iraq, etc.
So you're right in that taxes are for the good of the whole, but only the majority gets to say what's the good of the whole.
As for your claim that "[n]o matter what comes of it, researching embryonic stem cells will provide a benefit to society", you're merely sidestepping the issues: the primary issue is whether the destruction of embryos is a valid method of harvesting stem cells morally and ethically. Sidestepping the issue is really stating either that you don't see any moral or ethical quandaries here (i.e., the embryo isn't human, and thus is undeserving of human rights, protections, and personhood under the law), or that the ends justifies the means, or both.
There are, obviously, people on both sides of the debate. But what is good for the whole has yet to be authoritatively decided, so all we are left with is the issues. Those that believe in democracy, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, would say that a) Bush was elected, and b) until the issues are solved, we should hold off on this research simply because it's a genie that you can't stuff back in the bottle. Of course, there are likely very few people on either side of the debate that believe in democracy on this issue...
So, why are you so sure that humans have any intrinsic dignity? Why aren't we just bags of meat with greater self-awareness.
Now here's the real question. If intentionally creating embryos then killing them is murder, then why aren't you crusading to have fertility clinics shut down? Don't try to back track, you said it now stick by it. The doctors who work at these clinics KNOW that some of the embryos will be destroyed. Why aren't they murderers?
The truth about this stupid argument is that the only way pro-lifers can make a logical argument against abortion is to claim that life begins at conception. Otherwise, they'll have to draw a line somewhere during the pregnancy for "life" to begin. While there may be the possibility of life to come from a fertilized embryo, the chances are MUCH greater that nothing will come from it. More importanty, an embryo doesn't really exist until about 2 weeks in, at which time the organization of the cells can really be observed.
As sad as this is for you, human life is not unique. Only the pathetic belief in "god" that so many disgusting weak minded fools use as a crutch has kept this stupid debate going.
the stem cells are from an adult, rather than from fetal tissue (bone marrow in this case).
You might already be aware of that - but there's so much garbage flying around this story I thought it should be clear.
Clear, Dark Skies
Here on Brazil a woman walked and can speak before stem cell have been implanted on her brain. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u 12664.shtml/
http://www.michel.eti.br
The old testament, and new testament affirm nothing.
Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?
While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.
The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.
We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)
To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.
In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.
God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.
If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.
This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.
WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
About half of all embryos are spontaneously aborted.
According to the anti-abortionist argument above, this is a terrible mass death -- every day!
What's worse is that there is no medical research into how to save those embryos, which are half of all the people dying!
What's interesting is that not even the anti-abortionists argue that a large fraction (much less half) of all medical research should go into how to stop those deaths!
A contradiction.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
its a collection of cells, you don't call an appendix alive, or a lung alive
2000 years!? What about that one guy I see on TV every morning? Science, eat your heart out! :-D
Disclaimer: The above comment is intended to be humorous, and in no way implies belief in the referenced televangelist.
---
None of the linked articles make it clear the extent of the treated spinal cord injury. It is my understanding that paralysis can result from complete cord lesions, which can involve the cord being completely severed, as well as incomplete lesions where the damage to the cord is much less traumatic. It'd be interesting to know the character of Mi-soon's original injury. Still, in either case the proceedure gives new hope to millions.
It's the government's JOB to make "moral issues legal issues". The very reason that it's there is to defend the helpless and to prevent the decay of society.
Why do you get to impose your opinion on those cells?
"Chalk up another victory for adult stem cell research... what is that now 79 to 0? Why are we studying embryonic stem cells?"
I tend to agree with that sentiment.. seems like the embryonic research is turning into a big waste of money...
Maybe if they cut funding to adult stem cells and then got half the country to think working with them as moraly reprehensible maybe the embryonic stem cells would have a chance to catch up?
Or maybe you could just say any reseach that doesn't pay off in, say, 10 years should just be counted as a failure? What the hell are we doing messing around with fusion research anyway? It's obviously far less useful than fission because, ya see, only fission actually produces any power.
Or maybe we could just let science do its job and ignore all the people that think giving a pint of blood is moral, but giving an 8-cell grouping is murder?
TW
The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues.
Ignorant? yes! Insightful? No!
Murder, rape, incest, theft, extortion, etc, are all moral issues that have been made legal issues. Does the parent poster think we should do away with these laws too, since he thinks the govt has no business making moral issues legal issues?
Amniotic fluid may hold 'ethical' stem cells
Forgive me for being sceptical, but the wheelchair in the background in the Korea Times article just doesn't look right for a paraplegic who's been in a chair for 19 years. Armrests !?! Gimmie a break ...
And THE PEOPLE voted for Bush. Tough.
Nah, we just need a sufficiently broad consensus. If you are absolutely against considering a human embryo with a two-digit number of cells as somewhat lesser than a human being, your minority vote is hereby duly noted.
We are talking about a speck of proto-human that is smaller and less sentinent than a flea. Its utter lack of human sentinence should be obvious. It's not in the same ballpark as a three months old fetus, by far.
We can't cool the American debate over embryonic stem cells because its part of a much larger debate (though crusade is a more appropriate term). Its a bundled portfolio of politics based upon ONE interpretation of fundamentalist Christian doctrine. The best way to gain support for your way of doing things, no matter how unjust or immoral it may be, is to convince religious people that your decisions represent their religious teachings (or better yet, the will of their deity). Adolf Hitler used this very effectively to convince an entire nation of "good Christians" that literature contradicting the governments word should be burned, the blasphemous Jews should be slaughtered like cattle, and every able bodied person should put their full effort into waging holy war upon the rest of the world. Sound familiar?
Two thousand years of reading and quoting the bible, and people still happily join forces with the current Roman empire. Let me make this abundantly clear - Jesus never waged war. Jesus never advocated violence. Jesus didn't even fight back when they took him for torture and death. He wasn't a macho beer guzzling maniac with a truck and a shotgun. Jesus wasn't a poster boy for an evil empire - he was KILLED by the evil empire. Its amazing that individuals who supposedly follow his teachings enthusiastically condone slaughtering entire families in Iraq, yet with the same breath villify people who want to use a few human cells to cure diseases.
*bankrupts the business this anonymous GNAA member works for so that he can no longer afford an Internet connection*
Support my political activism on Patreon.
People are rushing to correct you and they can't even see that this is a joke.
Why can't we just get the stem cells from plants? Stems are abundant with them!
The article says that embryonic stem cells tend to form tumors. Therefore if you you tried to repair someone's severed limb with embryonic plant stems, there is a chance that the person wouldn't grow their limb back, but an oversized tree limb which would be offensive to pro-lifers and environmentalists alike.
What with the bush administraion and the religious right, these bunch of simpltons are going to set the US back decades in scientific research with the stem cell mess and the billions wasted on the star wars project, what is different now-a-days is that the US is now in a world where the rest of the world doesn't need the US to develope advanced technologies. Countries like china (where most of the worlds high-tech tv's, vcr's, motherboards etc) are being manufactured, will, in 25 years be the high-tech development super powers of the planet...not to mention, India, all these countries have massive populations that want to train to become the next generation of techs, engineers, scientists, while the bush administration blocks important stem cell research on religious grounds (what is this, 16th century europe where the church ran everything?). Civilization goes in cycles and right now, the US is going down the slope to 3rd-world status, probablly to emerge 45 years from now as a cheap 3rd-world type country with cheap(er) labour costs than the then super-powers of china and india. The rest of the world got over issues like evolution as scientific fact over 100 years ago, here in north america, we get endless interference in science progress by the religious right on a daily basis. Wake up, the race is on to a higher-tech world, if you want a religious controlled non-progressive goverment and all it's benefits, go live in Iran.
Over 50%? I don't believe that for a second, so please, back this up with a real poll. Depending on what sort of question is asked, most anyone could be construed as being against abortion.
Another problem, you ignored the fact that promoting stem cell research isn't going to significantly increase the number of abortions being performed. Not one single additional abortion has to be performed in order to enable this life-saving research.
Finally, you fail to distinguish the utility of embryonic cells vs. the cells harvested from umbilical cords. The latter are useful, but have already gone through some cell differentiation, and are therefore poor substitutes for many sorts of research.
It seems like you didn't even read what you're responding to.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
THE PEOPLE were conned. But time will tell the real story. Just wait until those folks realize that their lives aren't going to improve, but are going to get harder. Living conditions will get worse and civil rights are going to slowly disappear. Then it will be too late for them to do anything to change the country. So... fuck you, you stupid bitch. I'll be laughing at the rest of you saying, "I told you so". Eat a dick.
Please maintain some consistency in your bashing of religious individuals. Based on the phrase "current Roman empire..." you seem to be referring to Roman Catholics. If so, then your statement, "Its amazing that individuals who supposedly follow his teachings enthusiastically condone slaughtering entire families in Iraq, yet with the same breath villify people who want to use a few human cells to cure diseases.", which seems to be the major point of your vilification of the religious, is completely inaccurate, as the war on Iraq failed to meet the just war criteria of the Catholic Church.
So, Catholics did not condone killing anyone (including soldiers) in Iraq. And, the Catholic position, unlike yours, is self-consistent, as they are equally against killing anyone, including the unborn.
By your logic, then, some forms of birth control (such as the morning-after pill) are murder as well, as egg and sperm have bonded, but are prevented from becoming a viable fetus.
I can't imagine holding a murder trial for a morning-after pill. I cannot agree that the death of a couple of thousand cells fewer than 24 hours old is the moral equivalent of putting someone in a gas chamber or a gulag.
If you are absolutely against considering a human embryo with a two-digit number of cells as somewhat lesser than a human being, your minority vote is hereby duly noted.
You do realize that if you took a poll and asked that question, probably 40% of the US population would be in that minority. We're not talking about the two crackpots in town who opposed upgrading the sewage system that was leaking into people's lawns. We're talking about a group of people more populous than New York City.
You're assuming that life is defined by sentience. Many people do not agree with that definition. Many retarded people would fail that test.
The fact is that there is a huge disparity of opinion on this topic, and the debate really isn't furthered by everybody just refusing to associate with those they disagree with...
I really, really (really) hope these guys are on the up and up.
However it seems very unlikely to me that after 20 years this poor lady's leg muscles COULD be revived enough to allow her to walk. I know of a documented case of a man that was in a comma for 20 years before regaining consciousness and, with no neurological issues, is still bed ridden years later. I smell something rotten here (unfortunately).
to be potential embryos than your skin cells are.
That's one of the things that are still very poorly understood. We still don't really know how a cell "knows" that it should be a skin cell or a nerve cell or anything else. If we understood that then we'd be able to grow replacement organs (or complete clones) on demand.
Clear, Dark Skies
What, you mean prayer doesn't actually help the blind to see, the deaf to hear, or the paraplegic to walk again?
You mean the solutions to these problems are found in *science* and *medicine*, not in religious voodoo and mysticism? Incredible! God forbid!
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
They said the stem cells came from umbilical cord blood.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
As I got paralised in accident some years ago and has a Dad with a Ph.D i medicine, we really got interested.
Does anybody know if this is or if is going to publised in any serious medical journal?
Or just where to get more info?
Want to read little more before we dear to test it on our own...
I was actually thinking of Leibniz when I wrote that. He developed his (independent) version of the calculus, along with the notations and symbols we use today, while in Paris, as a fellow of the (crown-supported) Royal Society and working with the (crown-supported) Academy of Sciences in Paris. He was also not being directly paid to create it, but that wasn't my assertion - only that the government gave him a kind of stipend, thus freeing more of his time to think up things *like* the calculus.
However, you're correct that Newton was at home when he developed his version of the calculus.
Having said that, though, Newton was supported (financially and otherwise) by the crown throughout his research career. All of the institutional positions he held were at crown-supported universities and foundations, and even the calculus was written during a forced leave (due to plague) from the crown-supported University at Cambridge, which by the way, he attended thanks to -- financial aid.
So, while I accept the statement that the calculus was not directly developed using royal funds, I think it is still fair to call Newton a government-funded researcher, which is all I actually said on the subject. (And I was, as I mentioned, thinking of Leibniz in any case.)
In any case, I think we at least both agree that Industry had nothing to do with it, which was my primary point. For the occasional man who can perform this act of creation alone and without financial support, that's great! But if outside funding is needed, then for basic research it should come from a public source, not a private with-strings-attached source.
I'll bite. After all Bush is such an easy target. Bush has used "creative" funding policies to effectively ban embryonic stem cell research. Don't believe me, take a look at the few universities willing to do such research, they have all made public statements about their planned court battles. Or how about the destruction of NIH funding? The day after the election the research labs down the street were told the news. All federal funding was to be cut in half. That includes diabetes, HIV, Parkinson's, MS, Prions, everything. What Bush says he supports and what he actually supports, you know with funding and by preventing restrictive patents on things like genes, are completely different. The current administration has done more damage to scientific research in this country than any other in recent history. But hey what do I care, I work in a field largely supported by military funding and anti-terror dollars, so I have job security.
Pull your head out of your butt and look around. America isn't so free anymore, and it sure as heck isn't the world leader in science anymore. We're falling behind because of one simple thing...greed. Bush may have made statements in support of umbilical stem cell research, but he did not do so to advance science or help people. He did so to get votes from the religious-right, by providing an alternative to embryonic stem cell research. It is just a game of three card monty. We should be researching all types of stem cells and reaping the benefits thereof, not shutting down research because it can be turned into some sort of religious vote swinging issue.
"No one capable of getting themselves elected president should, on any account, be allowed to do the job." Sadly this is more true than ever.
"Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College."
"There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry."
Oh, I see. And Cambridge University wasn't supported by any government at the time, was it. I mean, it had no support at all from England and its King at the time...
Let the Brits have their fun... in the town centRE, where the community can help change the flat tYre.
If you aren't a biologist, don't attempt to pass off your views as fact. Just because you read it in Discover doesn't make 100% correct. I don't pretend I'm a nuclear physicist. Stem cell research, on all levels, is highly promising. The big deal with not giving scientists access to aborted embryos/fetuses is simply a matter of scale. It's much easier to harvest several million stem cells in one shot from an embryo/fetus than grabbing a few from millions of living people. Fewer fetuses = fewer stem cells to work with.
Once the primary research is completed, then almost all stem cell treatments will be from the patient's own stem cells. Thus, the need for embryos/fetuses will greatly decrease.
To all the religious nutcases:
All biological life has the same value - very little. Humans are simply apes with less fur and bigger brains. To piss and moan about fetuses brings us back into the dark ages.
It's funny that people chortle with glee at the murder of hundreds of thousands of sentient beings who live half-way across the globe, yet mention one fucking clump of cells or fetus being exterminated, and suddenly it's "wrong."
If you eat meat, you have no recourse in arguing against any type of murder. Murder is murder, regardless of the species. Guess what? I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps your screwed up social view needs some readjustment.
Hypocrisy is the last resort of the damned.
You people make me sick.
I cant beleive all of the President Pussy supporters we have here.
;)
"Bush hasnt banned stem cell research, he only decided that the federal government will not fund it"
HAHAHAHAHA... What a load of shit. How convient for the Bush supporters. An amazing story comes out of South Korea and all of the sudden our Bush supporters are like "oh well.. uh well he didnt ban it!" Give me a fucking break.
It sounds like the Bush supporters are flip flopping
Dont worry Bush w will ban it if he is as religious and as stupid as we all think. (we should be affraid)
Bush wont ban it, if he owns stock in large corperations doing stem cell research.
The man is a peice of shit. I cant beleive we have people here bending over backwards to make up excuses for them having voted for a fucking moron.
This is from the blue states to the red, "nah nah, nuh nah nah"
Fucking morons.
I get the feeling there must be more to the story than meets the eye here. If this woman had been paralyzed for 20 years, wouldn't her muscles be atrophied? Even if you repaired the nerve damage, it seems to me she wouldn't have just been able to get up and walk, at least without a lot of restorative therapy.
Is there something I'm missing here?
You're absolutely right; that is how many, many people think about this issue. What I'm trying to do, though, is to change minds and force thought on the matter. True, it's hard, but it isn't futile. Part of what drives the opposition to embryonic stem cell research is that certain groups of people have very effectively distilled the issue into a simple, easy-to-digest format that goes down easy and doesn't give you gas.
So what you're saying is that there is a large group of people who simply don't understand where you're coming from, and if you could just somehow explain to them where you're coming from, you would be able to convince them that your way of doing things is best.
The problem with this position is that it starts out from the assumption that they are wrong. But you don't have any proof that their position is wrong. What you have is a lack of proof that their position is right. This lack of proof isn't proof that they're wrong. You're certain that they are wrong because their beliefs conflict with your beliefs - you find their position inconsistent with a scientific worldview, so it must be wrong.
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with them because they're obviously wrong, but you can't go toe to toe with someone in a debate if you don't have any way to prove that that person's position is wrong.
I will take this one step further. People want refuge. Life is harsh. Death is a reality. Most people are raised with some kind of refuge - a way to think about their situation that gives them comfort, and, they hope, actual protection from the suffering of this vale of tears. The dominant refuge in the U.S. is Christianity. Even those of us who were raised athiest, as I was, hold to a value system that's largely Christian in its basis, with a lot of bizarre Protestant guilt thrown in for seasoning.
I would go so far as to say that most people who take refuge in Christianity don't know why. They don't have a logical basis for thinking that it will protect them. They've just been told that it will protect them since they were old enough to speak, both by their parents and by their friends, and by society at large. So the refuge they have is weak, because it is based in tradition, not logic.
When you engage in debate with someone like this, they aren't going to play fair with you. They aren't even going to listen to you if what you have to say conflicts with what they believe, because in order to accept your worldview, they have to accept that they are going to die, and that that will be their extinction, not just a transition. Whether this is true or not is immaterial for your purposes; you simply can't win a debate with someone like that by telling them about the scientific worldview. As far as they are concerned, the scientific worldview sucks compared to theirs, because its essence is a complete lack of refuge. If you could get them to listen, it would benefit them, either by showing them that they need to strengthen their refuge (that is, find reasons why they have refuge, as opposed to just blind faith) or by showing them that they are wrong. But they aren't going to listen to you, so this benefit is purely hypothetical.
Then there's the people like me, who have refuge that's based on logic. I'm always interested in debating about stuff like this, because if you can pick a hole in my way of thinking, that either shows me that I'm mistaken, or shows me where my refuge is weak, both of which benefit me. So you can debate with me, but unless I am actually wrong and you can prove it, that's not going to get you anywhere. You should debate with people like me, though, because it benefits you, too - it helps you to understand how to talk to people who don't share your belief system but who are nevertheless rational. You don't have to accept my worldview to debate me, because I'm willing to have a real debate with you.
And finally there are people who really aren't taking refuge in this stuff, but
If the claim turns out to be true it will not lower the tensions over embryonic cells, it will exacerbate them. It is well settled that embryonic stem cells are much more flexible and useful than adult stem cells cited in the report. If it turns out such a breakthrough was achieved with limited adult cells, think how much could be done with more capable embryonic cells. The "speculation" that embryonic research may lead to cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and paralysis would quickly become a perceived certainty. The pressure to accelerate research with embryonic cells would increase dramatically. Too bad the claim will probably turn out to be false.
Next you'll be telling me some messiah was brougth back from the dead...
Hell don't believe that crap..
truly amazing... there's no doubt in my mind its true..
people are definitely under estimating the power of what stem cells can do..
President Sadaam Bush seems to be running things using a very religious morale.. not good.. first he appoints some chick who was a nun to start making federal medical decisions like taking birth control off the market, not letting women decide what to do with their body's, and a number of other different rights that are in direct violation of our constitution.. lets not forget the advancement of human innovation and technology I.E. stem cells..
for those of you techie people out there, (that goes for anyone who is even registered on slashdot) its quite contradictory for you to be supporting a person like Bush, because of my reasons listed above..
you don't want a software giant like microsoft running the industry, yet you don't mind Bush being in office making horrible decisions based on CATHOLICISM????? CHRIST!!!!
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
i also wanted to add, if "God" thinks its wrong to murder somebody, but encourages people help one another, than where does that leave abortion??
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
The grandparent was making fun of the whole "You shouldn't kill babies for research" thing tagged to embreyonic stem cell research. The "missed point" was that this is *adult* stem cell research, which is based on stem cells existing in matured tissue, harvested without harming any individual organism or group of organisms (where a single cell at the point of conception counts as an organism). Bush bashing is riddled throughout this thread from clueless liberals who think this is the same thing as embreyonic stem cell research.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Are the embryos in the clinics fertile? I have heard about eggs that are stored, but not fertilized and grown embryos.
jason
All I see is a bunch of discussion on more or less theological arguments for or against step cell research.
... they are below my threshold.
If there are any comments on the science behind neural regrowth, spinal cord rehabilitation,
Next time there's a story that can possibly be linked to stem cells, put in another category, 'cause with the furour this stuff causes in the 'States, it sure ain't science.
For the occasional man who can perform this act of creation alone and without financial support, that's great! But if outside funding is needed, then for basic research it should come from a public source, not a private with-strings-attached source.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I love hearing about government-industry technology transfer programs because of this, as long as the patents on inventions and discoveries paid for with public money are held in the public domain.
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
"The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues."
Moral issues? You mean like murder, theft, and rape? All legal issues are based on moral issues. Where would the law come from if it wasn't originally from people morals? Making something law puts a official government stamp of approval on someone's set of morals.
Creative Demolition
um, it isn't just the morning after pill. regular birth control pills can also cause a fertilized egg from being successfully implanted in the uterus. "the pill" does several things to prevent becoming pregnant, this is one of three "countermeasures" (can't remember the other two - you can google for 'em). i was raised in an evangelical church and it really is annoying that all those "pro-lifers" are running around on the pill...
.... whit which Christians curiosuly nowadays, specially in the US, are amusingly unaware off: "don't do into others what you don't want done nto you".
Do you want to kill sombedoy? THen the natural pricnciple begs the question: do you want to be killed?
Thousends of years of common culture and experience have molded an overwhelming "no" for an answer.
That is not a figment of our imagination, that is human natural law in action.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... about what is moral, the goverment can and should legislate.
When there is not an agreement, the goverment should get out of the way and allow free individuals to reach their own conclussions and act in consequence.
The issues you mention are universally acknoledged as moral ones independently of religious or cultural bias.
Abortion is clearly not, thus the state should protect each individual decissions regarding tis matter and not even think about criminalization.
Only in a fascist leaning state will the goverment of the day impose its morals into the whole population (i.e one child only policy in China for example).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry you don't believe it, but its true. You must live in a "blue" state, where the silent majority is denied.
"This was the original basis for modern anti-abortion agitation. Not that killing a fetus was immoral, but that white middle and upper class families were having fewer children."
:) (As the state of Indiana did.)
... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism." That damn sentimentalism! If not for that, we'd have had the morons long ago segregated and sterilized, so the New Race could prosper without being burdened by them (or the yellow hordes)! Right? Wait ... that sounds like racist eugenics!
Well, you could also say that among the original basis of the pro-abortion agitation was the fear on the part of people like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) of what they perceived as the reproduction of inferior people, as she put it (in this 1924 article) "those parents who are least fit to reproduce the race." (That article also lists the conditions without which, in her view, children should not be born; granted, most people can probably come up with some conditions under which they'd prefer children not be born, but "most people" aren't also in favor of involuntarily sterilizing those deemed unfit, so it's necessary to think of her conditions not as idle chatter, but as rules she would have been willing to enforce
From The Pivot of Civilization:
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying
(The Pivot of Civilization is available from Project Gutenberg, along with Sanger's "Woman and the New Race")
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Natural rights come from a very basic principle whit which Christians curiosuly nowadays, specially in the US, are amusingly unaware off: "don't do into others what you don't want done nto you".
Yes, so what? I'm sure the male black widow spider would just as soon live, too. The bottom line is, THAT'S A MORAL PRINCIPLE.
Do you want to kill sombedoy?So what if I do? I won't, because it's a grossly IMMORAL THING TO DO.
Thousends of years of common culture and experience have molded an overwhelming "no" for an answer.That is not a figment of our imagination, that is human natural law in action.
However you want to slice it, humankind has constructed a MORAL CODE that prohibits murder.
Again, what about all of the other animals in the animal kingdom that indiscriminantly kill their own species, even their own young? If it were truly a natural law, then this wouldn't happen.
But the point is, it's not. It is a MORAL PRINCIPLE that we as a species have adopted. A relatively obvious one, yes, but one nonetheless.
It's not difficult to understand. They regulated it by cutting off some avenues of research.
Pretty simple.
What we will get without those avenues is definitely at most exactly what we would get with those avenues, and very very likely less.
It is disingenuous to pretend that you can't see how restricting research can have at best a neutral and very likely a negative effect on the developments.
Thus, restricting the research is not a good thing. Unless of course it violates your religious principles and you feel everyone should live according to your principles.
I'm glad someone was helped with non-fetal cells. Seriously I am. But just because something else shows promise doesn't mean we shouldn't look into fetal cells. If both methods work equally well, be sure that the non-fetal cell version will win out in the marketplace due to the abundance (cheapness) of non-fetal cells.
As to the California thing, that's a different issue. I am Californian, and I voted against the $3B corporate welfare program. I feel that if these treatments really do show promise, then we will find plenty of companies that are willing to invest some money to get a reward later. There's no reason to throw money at the probem. But that doesn't have any reflection on the actual merit of the work.
seems pretty amazing... i can only imagine how far this might come in the next few years...
Get your torrents...
Cord blood comes from the umbiblical cord of new borns. hence the name.
This is a popular argument, but I'm not sure if I buy it in this instance. True, this kind of research is not the type typically adopted by biotech and pharmaceuticals because it is long-term, and high risk. However, a unique situation has arisen because these companies can invest in technology the academic sector does not have acess to and will not be able to obtain patent rights to(a much wider range of better stem cells). Also, they can play the game that Japanese industries played in the 80's by closely monitoring the progress of academic labs working with less sophisticated technology (existing cell lines) - saving time and money on early stage research as these companies are already used to doing. Additionally, the massive media attention, miraculous promises, and dramatic preliminary results thus far achieved have likely created a milieu of eager investors.
ôó
According the Center for Disease control: "The abortion ratio for black women (491 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (165 per 1,000)".
In terms of raw numbers, abortions by white mothers outnumber those by black mothers, but this may just mean that a black minority is disappearing ever so much faster.
I would bet that humans are one of the few species that kill members of their own species on a regular basis. Sure, if an aligator is starving, it might kill a young one to eat, or it might kill another adult that is trying to Bogart its meal, but rarely does it kill for no reason or out of malice. I don't think you can compare two non-human animals killing one another with two humans killing one another for that reason. Man does so much more harm to members of his own race at a much more fantastic rate than any other animal species; I'd be willing to be dollars to donuts on this.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
I was just reading about what is allowed in my own country, and it seems that we do allow embryonic stem cell research, as long as those embryos are leftovers from IVF treatments, and they are used with the parents consent. Article Here:
STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CLONING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
The legal systems of the world are created by many people for many different reasons. To my limited knowledge, almost every legal system in the world allows terminating a human life under various circumstances (in times of war, when a woman commits adultery, when someone as insulted the one true deity, etc.), and prohibits doing so under circumstances that it has not contemplated. There might not even be two countries anywhere on the planet with exactly the same standard for all of the possible circumstances when it is legal to terminate a human life.
A theory that explains the variation is that murder is normally illegal under essentially every legal system on the planet as a result of evolution: protecting other stakeholders of a legal system, even non-citizen humans, makes that system popular to those stakeholders and makes them less likely to attack it.
I would concede that it is probably true that laws that correlate to morality (local custom) and ethics (universal, what people often mean when they say "morality") also tend to be popular, so you could argue morality is "why" something is illegal in terms of how the law came to be, but without having shown that ethics require that everything immoral be illegal.
I think that a distinguishing idea of modern Western civilization, going back at least to John Locke, is that of limited government, where a legal system that does not enforce a completely morality, but instead only enforces a popular subset and leaves the rest of individual conscience. I think such legal systems have proven to be more popular (or at least having the evolutionary advantage of producing the societies that win the wars) and are perhaps even ethically superior when you factor in the idea that human fallability will make any legal system imperfect.
So, I think that it's very reasonable that many modern Western civilizations leave decisions about many types of abortion to individual conscience precisely because it is reasonable to argue "is this a person?" and the necessary second question of "am I now defining 'person' in such a way that killing one should not necessarily be illegal in all cases?"
In summary, if you look at the laws and notice resemblances to your morality, there may be evolutionary reasons for it, but that doesn't mean that I agree that everything in your morality "should" be the law under my Western value system, sometimes even in cases where your morality and my morality might agree.
Hey D_U_M_B_A_S_S -- Calculus often refers to a "system or method of calculation", not only to the work of Archimedes and Newton. Pretty kewl how ironically stupid your post reveals you to be -- you D_U_M_B_A_S_S.
But what about all the helpless umbilicle cords that have been slaughtered for generations by uncaring, unthinking evildoers who want to separate the mother from the child? What about all the evil male circumcisions that have marred young male children for centuries? Who will cry for them? Oh my god this is all so terrible! Boo hoo hoo! ;P
Seriously dude. Get a grip.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
To me that only reinforces my argument that the morality of murder is an entirely man-made concept. When an animal does it, it is presumably for some hard-wired instinctual reason, with no contemplation or remorse. Only we can weigh the decision intelligently (or not) and come down on one side or the other.
In order to acheive the embryo in the first place, you take a mature female's egg and allow it to be fertiziled by male's sperm. At that point you then dissect the blastocyst (destroying it), and those cells are the "embryonic stem cells" as they have yet to differentiate.
So, there definitely is sperm involved, and if at any point the blastocyst is implanted into a human female's uterus, it will attach and draw nutrients, continue to grow, and eventually produce a baby. Religious people infer that since the blastocyst is viable from conception forward, then the destruction of the human life at any point is morally concerning, doubly so since its being done to get its cells for experimentation. After all, science has been conceiving babies in a petri dish for almost 30 years, and like you said, the only difference is that we allow them to mature.
Great stuff there...
'at least not in the sense we are talking about'
Well, at least not in the sense that 'your' talking about. You see different people have different views:
my view is that the whole living dead thing is just a pile of shit, I'm no different from a stone when it comes down to the quantum level, so why should I elevate myself above the level of a stone.
A fundamentalist Jews view is that the God created the earth, we are made in the image of God, you cannot eat or do anything unclean as per Leviticus and Deuteronomy 14 (that means don't eat shell fish, pork and no taking up the bum please).
Now since most of 'western' culture is based on a mutated fundamentalist Jewish view and I'm not a fundamentalist Jew you would hardly expect me to be talking in the same sense as you.
Now, I wonder does Bush eat pork and shell fish?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The side-effects of the TriPhase treatment are convulsions and fever, followed by death!
It's usually a symbiotic relationship and sometimes hard to tell where the Bactrea/virus stop and the human starts.
Try giving a china man milk?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I just sneezed on my monitor. There are now many sets of my 23 chromosomes on the screen in front of me. If I clean my screen with alcohol, am I commiting genocide? No. I am not.
OR; If I put those same 23 chromosomes into an egg cell, I can harvest embryonic stem cells from it. would that be murder or suicide to use those stem cells to, say, regenerate my degraded optic nerve? Oh, that's right, it wouldn't be either of those things.
Scientists already know that embryonic cells hold much more flexability and promise than other sources, and they will eventualy be utilized; in "some magical future" when people realize that human beings aren't special in any way. There is no magical "soul" that imbodies our concousness. Every aspect of human life has a physiological cause. We're bags of water that happen to reason fairly well most of the time. nothing more.
The problem is that Humans are great at picking out patterns. This ability served us well when trying to plan a harvest, or follow a mammoth migration, but it can also cause us to see connections where none exist. All religion started as superstition.
Really though, there isn't anything wrong with that. It doesn't upset me when someone knocks on wood or crosses themselves, what upsets me is when the superstition becomes dictated and handed down to others. It is no more morally or ethicaly wrong for me to utilize stem cells made from my own body than it is to clean my screen with alcohol. Which I will now do...
hmm, maybe i'll do some evil experimants on the snot first...
--anonymity is not cowardace
The problem is that any lab or firm that does stem cell research in the USA is barred from receiving federal funds for ANYTHING including other, unrelated research. Any major laborotory that tried to stay afloat researching a long-term goal like stem cells HAS to be able to support itself with other projects. That problem is hightened when fed funds can't go to the stem cell research, and it friggin skyrockets when there are no fed funds for anything else either.
It depends on how you define national defense. Personally I consider fighting/preventing the next Black Plague to fall under that category (okay, so bio and chem need to be researched) and nukes probably fall under that category (that's physics).
"When God says "You shall not...", that seems pretty clear too, doesn't it?"
When the bible says that you should stone a disobedient child, that seems pretty clear, too.
Deuteronomy 21:18 "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,
Deuteronomy 21:19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
Deuteronomy 21:20 "They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
Deuteronomy 21:21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.
So, believers have two choices. Either they follow all the rules of the bible, and start stoning disobedient children, or they don't follow any of the rules of the bible, and don't try to force those rules on others. You can't pick and choose what rules to follow based on how you feel about certain issues. Well, you can, but then I can call you a hypocritical idiot.
Since they didn't actually ban or restrict the use of fetal tissue in research?
Clear, Dark Skies
I've read some about the various stem cell stuff but my own background is a programmer so yeah, I'm not specifically knowledgeable about this stuff.
From my understanding, there are a multitude of issues when dealing with embryonic stem cells. Their very "plenepotent" nature tends to lead to uncontrolled growth with the result being tumors. Their "foreign cell" nature means that you have to deal with the whole range of rejection issues that come with any tissue transplant. I've also read that areas like the spinal chord are more sensitive to foreign tissue than other areas.
Thus, these issues add increased complexity when it comes to developing therapies that would use embryonic stem cells.
Meanwhile, more and more sources of adult stem cells are being found and used in therapies. The fact that the cells can be harvested for the person who is being treated avoids the whole rejection issue. The restricted range of cells that they can become also seems to address the uncontrolled growth problems that have been encountered with the other stem cells. This means that doctors and scientists can concentrate more on the actual application of the cells than in overcoming the tumor and rejection issues.
Thus, "walk before you run."
I may be grossly oversimplifying this, but the point was that industry is voting with their checkbooks as well. The therapies that are actually working are coming from adult stem cells so maybe we should concentrate on them and understand what we can do with those.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
As a relatively devout Protestant, yup, you are bang-on.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
You refer to the "main english translation" There are a great number of english translations. I would not call the KJV the "main" translation. I don't use the KJV - I prefer other translations for readability and style. There's nothing inherently wrong with the KJV, and there are not substantive departures between the various accurate translations that are available. Some that I consider accurate are the NASB, NIV, NKJV.
For the sake of argument, let me agree with your assertion that the KJV has been "revised many times." What is the reason for revisions? Archaeology has given us more copies - better access to more accurate information from antiquity about the original texts. When that occurs, revisions *should* occur. As far as I know, those that have occurred have not been in any core areas of Christian doctrine.
The core of Christian doctrine is consistently taught in the different translations. Other holy books have had revisions that significantly affect core teachings. Christianity has not had that occur.
WRT other works of antiquity, there are 5,000+ manuscripts of biblical texts. To reject the Bible on the basis of lack of copies means that you'd have to reject Aristotle's poetry, Plato's tetrologies, Heroditus, Tacticus, Caesar's Gallic war - all of which have fewer than 100 manuscripts. In addition, you'd have to throw out the Illiad. It has FAR more than other works, but still has only ~600 copies.
In addition the biblical copies come from a time much closer to their time in history than ANY other work of antiquity. The average gap between original composition and the earliest copy of most works of antiquity is ~1,000 years. The new testament has fragments from within one generation, whole books within 100 years, and the entire new testament has documentary evidence within 250 years of its authorship.
religions are extremely dangerous
I agree. The test of a world view, however, is not whether some crackpot (or large groups of crackpots) can engage in horrible acts in the name of a philosophy. The real test of a world view is what happens when people follow very closely the teachings of a religion. I submit to you that when people really follow the teachings of Christianity, society and culture are far more emotionally and physically healthy. The same cannot be said for many other world religions.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
On what do you base your assertions? Do you have documentary evidence?
The number of copies of scriptures that we have over time makes capricious changes of scripture impossible.
The dead sea scrolls are an example of the kind of verification we have that the Bible has *not* been changed over time.
It may be convenient for you to believe that the Bible text has been changed on a whim, but the facts don't back it up.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Holiness...is entirely subjective
Says who? If there's no objective standard for truth, I agree. However, I beleive that there is an objective standard for truth.
The idea that someone should decide on behalf of someone else what is holy and what is not is deeply immoral.
What is your basis for morality?
It's only inappropriate if the one doing the deciding does not have that right. By definition, a creator would have that right.
The very fact that you appeal to morality (an absolute) to defend relativism undermines your belief in relativism.
Homosexuality is, deal
I must confess that I don't follow your point. What does that mean?
That there are homosexuals? Unquestionably.
That you disagree with my perspective on homosexual behavior? OK. That doesn't make it OK with God or a good idea either, for that matter, but you're free to have your opinion.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences.
I know this is off topic, but may I ask your opinion on the book of Leviticus?
It seems to run contrary to what I understood to be Christian principles, but then I may not understand Christian principles very well, not being of that faith. From what I know of Leviticus, though, it seems like the rules in it don't apply (things like rules for owning slaves, eating shellfish, burning bulls...) How do Christians view this book of the bible? I thought Leviticus is also where the anti-homosexuality comes from (?), so obviously it is being looked to for guidance, but I think there are a lot of things in that book of the bible that are quite frankly appalling. I would be very interested to know how this book of rules fits in with modern Christianity, in your opinion.
Voices--Art, Poetry, Photography
The parent is not entirely flame-bait IMHO. While passionate, we all know that this topic is bound to spur passionate posts.
I would like to respond.
The question I pose is: By what means does greater self-awareness merit any sense of morality at all? By reducing humanity to purely biological matter or mammals, we admit that by nature's perspective there is no means. We would be saying that we should be governed only by natures laws.
Anthropologically speaking, our "greater self-awareness" enables human culture to exist, and morality manifests itself in different cultures in different ways. Surely you wouldn't say that a culture that practices infanticide and mandatory euthanasia is moral! However subjectively speaking, no one should be able to make any judgement on these activities on any basis other than concensus of the largest set of self-aware meat bags. So, all that is needed to change immoral to moral is a shift in consensus.
As for the pathetic belief in "god", I'm afraid world-wide you are far in the minority. I would reason that cultural definitions of things like murder stem in there most basic parts not from greater self-awareness, but from a self-awareness and corporate-awareness of human beings as being far more valuable than ordinary meat-bags. Many times this awareness is based on the perception that man is unique. Your assertion that humanity is not unique is also not shared by the majority of the world. What is in question is what make our uniqueness valuable. Is it intelligence, self-awareness, evolutionary progress, or is it a dignity endowed by our Creator in the inheritence of an eternal soul?
Without the intrinsic dignity of humanity, survival of the fittest is also the most "moral" course for the race (ensured survival).
Pro-lifer's speak much of the culture of death. The culture of death is a culture that does not recognize the uniqueness of the human being and therefore creates a morality that is subject to the shifting whims of the populus to the expense of some innocents that have been defined as inconvenient, unwanted, useless, or undesirable.
I for one find more hope in the possibility of a Creator God to bring some absolutes into this murky picture of subjective morality, lest you or I be on the wrong side of the consensus some day.
w2^7me out.
Twirlip wrote: Abortion is always unethical. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's always wrong or always illegal, or even always immoral. It's just always unethical. It runs counter to medical ethics, the first precept of which is that doctors shall do no harm.
Even by that standard, abortion is not always unethical. Imagine the following hypothetical:
Woman is pregant and is suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum-- a condition that some unlucky pregant woment get that is like the most horrible "morning sickness" in the world and it sometimes doesn't stop until the baby is born or the mother dies. It is extremely painful, beyond nausea. It killed Charlotte Bronte in 1885. Now there are some powerful modern medicines that can help (one is a anti-nausea drug normally used for chemotherapy patients that costs about $100 per tablet-- you need several per day-- and its affect on the unborn is not yet fully understood) but they don't help everyone. In our hypothetical, they don't help the woman.
Anyway, to continue the hypothetical, the woman is so sick and dehydrated that she has been in the hospital for two weeks, vomiting blood, and she has an irregular heartbeat. Nothing is helping. Because she is so sick, her unborn baby is in bad very shape also. If the woman dies, the baby is going to die for sure, and the woman is *not* going to get better as long as she is pregnant. In that case, I think most people would believe that abortion is totally ethical-- the baby is literally killing its mother. Performing an abortion wouldn't be "doing harm" it would be saving a life.
There are other women with this condition who don't get quite as bad as the woman in the hypothetical, but they are bad enough that if they don't have an abortion, they will wind up with permanent kidney damage that will keep them on dialysis for life as well as liver damage and other organ damage that will also permanantly affect their health and significantly shorten their life. And they are in horrible physical pain. Many of these women choose to have abortions, particularly if they already have small children to care for (and, btw, hyperemesis gravidarum is often worse with subsequent pregnancies). I'm sorry, but I just don't see that as being unethical. In a sense the baby is *maiming* its mother, even though unintentionally. Sometimes, you just have to put a stop to that.
Link to forum for hyperemesis gravidarum sufferers. Includes a true story very similar to my hypothetical.
Link to senate testimony describing situations requiring emergency abortions for women who are minutes away from death.
Your definition doesn't differentiate between the cells on the skin of my right little finger and me personally.
A reasonable definition (which doesn't assume magic like spirits, etc) is that to be a human from a legal (etc) perspective we need a functioning brain (or at least that there has to have been a functioning brain).
If there never has been a working brain, there has never been a person.
I don't care about the rights of my skin cells that die and fall of; I don't care about an embryo -- I care about a child when it's born.
(Where is the limit embryo/person? That is another can of worms -- but it should encompass a working brain.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
First, let me say thanks for a well reasoned post.
Quickly, while I agree I am in the minority, that doesn't mean I'm wrong, or more subjectively, wrong to think the way I do. Round earthers were in the minority once, but society evolved. I hope something similar will happen.
As far as the worldwide belief that humans are special, I honesty don't care. It's simply arrogance, nothing more. Humans got lucky in the race to the top. We won't be here forever, at which time I'll be proven right.
Now, for the final thought. Sadly, I have spent a great deal of time working with people who have very little or NO mental functioning. If you were to spend time observing them, and then went to the zoo, the similarities in behavior would shock you. Dignity, a human construct, is nowhere in these peoples thoughts, but rather is imposed on them by others with higher functioning.
What people don't understand is that to argue that god exists with me is the same as trying to argue Zeus exists, or Santa Claus. To me, there is no difference, as one type of mythology is as good as any other.
I do not recall Jesus saying that his version of Judeaism was anything but another interpretion. He didn't preach "Christianity"
With all due respect, I don't think that your memory is serving you well. Under Judaism, man was able to have and maintain a relationship with God as a result of two things, personal 'righteousness' through compliance with the Mosaic (and rabbinic) law, and through blood sacrifices to atone for his shortcomings.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father except by me." His sacrifice, according to his teachings, was a complete and perfect one - the animal sacrifices before then were a symbol of the sacrifice that He was to become.
Jesus was a Jew, but he also claimed to be God himself "I and the Father are One" and he accepted worship from men - something that only God can do, according to Jewish teachings.
Jesus' teachings about religion were far different from the Judiasm of that day.
a strong religious belief helps people do terrible things even if the belief is totally wrong.
Agreed. Strong religious belief helps people do a great deal of good, whether or not what their religion teaches is good, too. As an example, I believe that Mormonism leads people away from God because of their unbiblical teachings about the nature of God. However, the LDS church has an excellent track record of building strong families, and they teach parents how to love their kids with words and deeds - arguable a good thing, even if the ultimate teachings of that organization are wrong.
The true test of a world view is the logical outcome of having adherents follow its teachings to the letter. Crackpots exist in every religion. What happens to marriage, family, government, the rights of the oppressed, the poor, those in prison, and society as a whole when people are completely committed to living out the teachings of their philosophy?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Again I ask you on what do you base your assertion that there is a lack of clarity in Jesus' teachings?
The Christian church, while it has legions of denominations, *does* agree on the fundamentals of the faith, and about Jesus' teachings.
Of course there are fringe groups that believe differently a la David Koresh and the Jesus seminar, but those do not represent mainstream Christian thought.
The text of the Bible is well documented and the canon is consistently understood across Christendom with the exception of the RC apocyphal books. Other writings, like the gnostic gospels have never seriously been considered or accepted by the Christian church.
The books recognized as a part of the canon a few hundred years after Christwere not a new collection, but reflected the writings that were already commonly understood to be a part of holy writ.
To suggest otherwise does not do justice to the facts.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
But somehow, there is no effort to shutdown these fertility who are deliberately "creating life", just so they can throw most of them away.
So if they're going to throw embryos away, we might as well use the cells for something useful.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
fund an activity which more than half of the population might have a disagreement with?
Given the number of Catholics who have sex before marriage with condoms, I'd say "more than half" is a VAST overstatment.