Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells Cultivated Free of Animal Contaminants
qewl writes "In a follow-up to this story, researchers at Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology have created a new method of growing human embryonic stem cells that has overcome the major obstacle of animal contaminants to their use for human treatments. As President George W Bush has restricted federal funding of this research to limited cell lines existing since 2001, scientists have strived to find ways to keep the lines pure. Irina Klimanskaya and colleagues at ACT grew the stem cells from the beginning on a cell and serum-free mixture called an extracellular matrix. "The importance of this work, of course, is that by eliminating contact with animal and human cells, you minimize the risk of contamination with pathogens that could be transmitted to patients and the population at large," Dr. Lanza at ATC said."
I see... so allowing, for the first time, any federal funding for embryonic stem cells is "restricting."
They may be human, but without life they are no more "beings" than corpses. We have no qualms about harvesting organs from dead donors, but seem to have some knee jerk reaction to harvesting a few extremely useful cells from dead, young, human flesh.
You can't even say it's a "respect for human life" thing, because if that were the case those babies wouldn't have been aborted in the first place. The ban on harvesting of fetal stem cells is a huge setback to the progress of science.
While this development may be useful in the short term, hopefully in the longterm our politicians will be able to remove the blinders and fundamentalist yokes that they have placed on scientists in this century.
Stem cells save lives. What better way to honor those who died to contribute them than to pass on the benefits of their organs?
1) George Bush was the first president to fund embrionic stem cell research. Part of this was timing (Clinton was the only one prior that could have), part of it was presure, but he deserves some credit.
2) There is no restriction on adult stem cell research whatsoever.
3) The only restriction on embrionic stem cell research is that federal funding is limited to existing lines. Private research is unencumbered, and no legislation against it is likely. The funds are limited as a result of ethical issues which are not limited to religious people, and are not permanently banned (All it'll take is another executive desicion).
Now that that's been cleared up, hopefully this thread can be filled with meaningful discourse...
These methods necessitated by the Bush Administration's stance on growing new stem cell lines (even though the generative material is being thrown out every day) means that the solutions will be so patent-encumbered it isn't funny. You wanna live longer, be prepared to pay an arm and a leg.
It's very cool that we're overcoming these obstacles. It's just too bad these are the obstacles we have to overcome to get to useful public (not private) research.
It's kind of like the current general up-beat news about the middle-east. It's great that democracy appears to be on the rise - but that does NOT imply wisdom in what lead us to the current circumstances.
We just have to move foreward as best we can, and hope we can grow beyond our limitations.
Ryan Fenton
But let's not miss the bigger reality. If we do not allow scientists access to funding in promising new fields, some other country will. Sitting back and trying to feel out the "morality" of new scientific research is simply going to put the U.S. behind the numberous countries willing and able to look past there "beliefs". Just my $0.02.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
People don't have a problem with organ donation (for the most part) because 1: It is a decision made by the person who's organs they are to donate them and 2: It is obvious that the donaters life was not created for the purpose of donating that organ.
Contrast this with aborted tissue and you will see there are HUGE differences, can you guarantee that if aborted tissue is OK'd by the goverment that eggs won't be fertilized for the sole purpose of aborting and harvesting them? I find it so amazing the lengths people will go to to devalue human life, blaming religion for hindering science. I'm sure some of the people reading this will think I'm a crazy prolifer too, well I'm not, in fact I have a PhD in genetics and understand better than 99.999% of the population the potential benefits of stem cell research. Stem cells ARE going to be the miracle cure they've been hyped up to be, but unlike scientific revolutions where lives are not at stake, we need to make sure to take the time to consider all the ramifications our decisions will have to ensure we don't end up doing a lot of harm just to speed things up a few years.
What I am trying to do, although I should have done it less sarcastically, is get people to think. Do we know the millisecond life begins? No, not even the day. So the preconceived notions of the parent post are what I am questioning, and inviting him (or anyone else) to defend. I don't expect many takers, because they don't know.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
It is important to note that while President Bush has limited federal funding for stem cell research, that is all he has done. There is no federal ban on stem cell research, the only ban is on federal funds being used in such research. Our country's medical companies and educational institutions are free to do their own research.
You know, if I pulled out the quote from the top of your comment and replaced it with something from Dr. Mengele, the result would be basically the same.
Are researchers who extract stem cells from undeveloped babies equivalent to Dr. Mengele? No, I personally don't think so. But I'm humble enough to concede that I might be wrong. It's possible --just possible -- that the next generation will look back on the slaughter of embryos as a crime against humanity on the same level as the Holocaust. The fact that we don't, the fact that our morality lets us excuse it, doesn't mean that it's not killing on a massive, massive scale.
Our kids might think it's no big deal, and they might think it's an atrocity. We just don't know.
We have a responsibility as human beings to try to make the best decisions we can in all situations. Crying "you can't stop progress!" when the subject under discussion is as morally ambiguous as this one is irresponsible in the extreme.
Harvard government professor Michael Sandel, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics once noted that:
This is more toward the grandparent poster:
There are also many Catholics who do not believe everything the Church says without thinking about it and there are many who quietly disobey the official Church teachings without fear of punishment from God. There are many Catholics who know about Martin Luther, who wrote that no one, no Church, can stand in the way or be required between a man (or woman) and God. And of course, there are Catholics who know that following Catholicism isn't the only way to live your life, and thus they are free to listen to everything with a "grain of salt", so to speak.
My other first post is car post.
And I have a clue-by-four with you name on it...
Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortion. Got it? They come from fertility clinics that specialize in IVF. When you do in-vitro, there are leftover fertalized eggs that usually get flushed. These eggs are the only source of embryonic stem cells in use.
Let me make this absolutly clear to you. NO abortion is involved, since no pregnancy occured. Conception (in this context) occured in a test tube, and the embryo was subsequesntly discarded.
Which raises the question; why do stem cell researchers get the hatred of the religious fundamentalists but IVF clinics do not? After all, the researchers are working from the castaways from the clinics. I've been told that some more logical religious conservatives have a problems with IVF for this very reason, what with the idea that life begins at conception, but they aren't the ones going apeshit on stem cells.
Bush and his support base are being hypocritical in finding fault with stem cell reseach while ignoring IVF; either they should oppose both on equally strong ground, or they should stand in the way of neither. The right-to-lifers are essentially being given a bait and switch in order for the repubs to gain a voting bloc, there is no moral basis to Bush's opposition, and never has been. A leader with an inconsistant set of values has no right to try and stand on non-existant moral high ground, period.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I don't really care either way on the abortion issue but this whole thing makes me think that the side effect of successful embryonic stem cell research will be to reward people montetarily for having abortions or at least make people feel good about aborting.
That's why the pro-abortion people are in support of embryonic stem cell research.
My other first post is car post.
My impression of the Mainstream Media is that they are more than happy to give Bush a reach-around whenever he wants one. The sad thing is that you need to watch a fake news program to see anyone who doesn't drink the administration kool-aid.
Bush and his support base are being hypocritical in finding fault with stem cell reseach while ignoring IVF; either they should oppose both on equally strong ground, or they should stand in the way of neither.
An interesting point, and some anti-stem cell people are surely confused about the topic.
However, IVF is not taxpayer funded. Period. You can do IVF, and you can do stem cell research, but not with my money. If you think it's so promising, start up a private stem cell research fund and I'm sure the legions of stem cell research supporters will donate left and right.
Many people in this country feel that stem cell research is on questionable moral grounds. The argument that "it was dead already" doesn't hold water. Encouraging more research creates demand for stem cells, and many Americans don't want to create such a conflict of interest.
IVF is less questionable for many Americans because the purpose of a fertility clinic is to create human life, not destroy it. There do not appear to be any conflicts of interest which would encourage the destruction of life.
And yes, I realize that some people expect lives to be saved by stem cell research. Then those people must weigh the issues morally for themselves whether it's a good idea or not. Many people have weighed against it, and so I don't think we should be spending their money to do it.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Those are some nice republican talking points. Meanwhile, look at the situation. Most early stage medical research is funded by the NIH in the U.S. The lines that are eligible funding are practically useless due to viral contamination. Thus, for all practical purposes, the major source of potential funding for embryonic stem cell research has been cut off. Bush's ban was clearly religiously motivated, and I know of no non-religious person that thinks a clump of cells has moral status.
What the actual effect of Bush's ban has had is to push funding for this research to the states, which is highly inefficient, because now you have professors moving to different universities in order to be eligible for state funding. Furthermore, you have state politicians trying to decide how much funding this research should get, in a completely uncoordinated manner. Also, you now have some citizens paying taxes for research that benefits the entire country, while others get a free ride.
This would not have happened under a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration, and the ethical objections are certainly not held by a majority of the population.
Bush has simply limited federal funding. Private research is not restricted in any way. Should American Tax dollars go towards something that a very large subset of the popualtion does not support?
I do not believe Bush has an agenda here. He is just doing his job.
If you are honest, you will see where this process leads -- that the only *safe* time to labels cells as not an individual human life is *before* the conception occurs.
As you say, "KEEP GOING BACK SOME MORE". What about the sperm and ovum? They're living individual human cells too.
If not, where is the arbitrary line in the sand that you draw?
Well personally I base it on sentience rather than life. I don't see that this is necessarily arbitrary - it's why we give rights to animals (even though they're not human), but not plants.
And realise that your decision to draw the line at conception is just as arbitrary as anyone else's - life doesn't "begin" anywhere.
Apparently yes. How about this: an even trade. No federal funding for stem cell research, no federal funding for oil wars in the middle east. Let Haliburton get private funding if they want it so bad.
Stem cells from embryos headed for the medical waste bin are "sacred" and we protest that the government should not pay for stem cell research, even though it could literally revolutionize medicine. Meanwhile the lives of unambiguously alive, adult men and women in our military (and we quietly footnote, foreigners as well) are bravely sacrificed in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction (no, not in Iran, which actually has them), freedom and safety (no, not in Sierra Leone, or China, which make Iraq look like Virginia), to stop Osama from striking again (no, not in Afghanistan or Pakistan, where he actually is)... wait, are we still pretending its not for our energy supply? Not for nothing, but...
How we fight such a dubious war while crying crocodile tears over embryos we destroy by the truckload daily at IVF clinics... while still claiming to be moral, even religious crusaders is inexplicable to me. But this is the moral vortex we live in now. How anyone thinks they keep it straight I have no idea.
So yes, of course the government controvertially sacrifices lives with "confiscated" cash every day. Stem cell research would be a relief, frankly. This is leaving aside that our supposed care over embryos is often an insincere facade for culture warriors that were only recently opposing birth control the same way.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
I'm just stating that if progress (define it as you will, ultimately it is defined by those doing the experimentation) can be made, it will be made.
Um. I know you were stating that. And I'm arguing with you. Didn't you notice?
Step one: Let's stop calling it "progress." Calling all experimentation "progress" attaches a positive connotation that's not warranted. Some experimentation results in progress, some doesn't. So let's call it what it is: Experimentation.
We have rules of ethics that govern experimentation on human beings. You can't use a human subject in an experiment without his informed consent, for instance. There might be volumes to be learned from experimenting on unsuspecting people, but we don't do it. Period. We just don't.
There's another fundamental rule of ethics: We don't kill people in order to experiment on them. That rule applies equally to babies and adults.
Some people have become confused about that rule because they don't see embryos or fetuses as people, but they are. So the rules of ethics clearly tell us that we shouldn't kill them in order to run experiments on them (or, in this case, their cells).
You're arguing that we shouldn't bother trying to maintain ethics because somebody going to do the experiment anyway. That's obviously circular reasoning. If we maintain ethics, nobody will do the experiment, because it's unethical. See?
One of the best ways of maintaining ethics is by enforcing it through funding restrictions. We don't offer public funds for experiments that involve killing babies and harvesting their cells.
Incidentally, I think you're a little confused about your history. We have extensive records of Mengele's experiments. We know all about his, and the Nazi's in general, high-altitude tests, sea-water drinking tests, mustard gas tests, deliberate infections of prisoners with malaria and yellow fever and other diseases, and other even more disturbing experiments. All this stuff came out at Nuremberg.
And frankly, your referring to the murder of unborn babies as "throwing out embryos" disgusts me. How can you be so glib?
Because I've heard exactly the opposite from the pro-life camp...that if you choose to make a life, you should be responsible for it. But not responsible enough, apparently, to do anything about it dying naturally.
So, you're allowed to let 'babies' die through inaction, but not through action, right? Does that mean you have feed them and whatnot? (Morally, I mean.)
Anyway, you're now saying we shouldn't allow any IVF at all, because when the 'baby' is implanted, there's only a 50% chance it will live, right? And IVF isn't natural, right?
I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Correct, I mis-spelled the big word..
IVF is a VERY low success rate process and is very expensive with no garuntee of success. Plus multiple steps contribute to the difficulties in this process.
#1 getting the eggs....women are given a hormon regiment that makes them ovulate many sometimes dozens of eggs....this is fundamental biological reaction and it is impossible to say only get a few.
#2 Egg fertilization is not as simple as tossing eggs in with sperm. THe sperm has to be directly injected into the egg. this process can damage the egg or sperm or both therefore in order to get enough fertilized eggs to have any chance of success you must make LOTS.
#3 Most IVF is done for thoes couples that either have a high risk for genetic problems OR have had many miscarages in the past. Therefore again you just make a lot to screen the embroys that have the genetic problems you were watching for or the fertilization problems that were causing miscarriage or thoes that were damaged by step #2. This here is a good place to get you stem cells. With the exception of the first group the others are incapable of developing to term and WILL die. However you will probably be able to get some usefull stem cell lines from them. Regardless you have to make lots of fertilized eggs.
#4 You need to implant multiple eggs to have a good chance of getting a viable pregnancy. However there is always a chance of multiple successful implantations and thus you start lowering the chance of a successful birth if you put in more than 6 or 7.
So after all of this, due to biology, the damage of the process and the fundamental reasons people pay the 10's of thousands of dollars for the CHANCE of having children you are obligated to fertilize a lot of eggs.
Now say luck is on your side or the technician is having a good day....instead of the 5-6 good eggs that you WANT you get 20 or so....
IVF facilities are businesses. they are in the business to make a profit. With that in mind they are not going to waste the time, money and resources "manufacturing babies like livestock." The extra embryo's are an unavoidable consequence of the process.
Therefore, as another thread covered, if you objection to stem cell research you HAVE to object ot IVF.
FINALLY as to YOUR options...
The 4th "option" is not availible if you use IVF. They extra eggs are an unplanned consequence of IVF and are already minimized as much as possible.
The 3rd option doesn't apply to what I was talking about. If you read my first post you see that I talk about providing the extra embryos to other couples. Unfortunetly there is still an excess of embryo's
So YOU are now reduced to the two options I proposed:
Are you for:
#1 just throwing the extras out
or
#2 using them to benifit society.