Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells Mend Spinal Injuries
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "New research shows that rats that had their spinal columns severed were able to regain use of their hind legs through the use of stem cells from embryonic rats." From the Wired article: "Spinal cord injuries can be caused by accidents or infections and affect 250,000 people a year in the United States alone, costing $4 billion annually, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders. Whittemore's team took specific cells from rat embryos called glial restricted precursor cells -- a kind of stem cell or master cell that gives rise to nerve cells."
Oh, that's right... the frozen embryos have souls or some such shit. Yes, this is a hateful post because I simply can't fathom why this scientific area can't be advanced without controversy in the US. I really, really don't get it. I'd love for somebody to explain it to me. Please!
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
...because we have snivling bio-ethics people who cry about 'playing god' when these same morons get the sniffles, they want the most powerful drugs in existance to not only kill their bug - but to blow it's ass to mars...
There's far more involved than just regenerating some relatively simple structures like a rat spinal column when the goal is human spinal injury.
I've had a lamenectomy. It's a procedure where tissue has to be removed from between discs in the spine. In my case, I herniated the tissue during heavy squats (word to the wise from a lifetime power lifter, don't do squats, they're too dangerous.) In my case, the tissue was pushed through the fibrous outer sheath that holds the spinal column together. The only possible way to "heal" this would have been to somehow take all the pressure off that part of the body (prevent all muscle movement and stretch the body on a rack), push the tissue back inside then seal the fibrous outer sheath.
Would I pay for such an option? Yes. Is it possible? No. Would some form of simple application of stem cells allow my body to rebuild the missing tissue? Probably not. Not only is a human spinal column far more complex than that of a rat, so are human brains. The human body also lives far longer and the human body is more articulate.
This is nice news but it's just the start of what would have to be a long, long, long process. There's no way to have perfect regeneration of plant tissue yet. Thinking human tissue would be able to regenerate any time soon is silly.
Every other week or so there is some big success story regarding the regrowth of neural tissue using spinal stem cells, but hardly a word about embryonic stem cells. I understand that there is a ban on using government funds to pursue embryonic stem cell research, however I would like to know whether such research is taking place anywhere. And if it is, why aren't the dramatic results we see with spinal stem cells also being trumpeted by embryonic stem cell researchers?
There are many people who could ultimately benefit from this research, and it certainly shows much promise. I know several people personally who could stand to regain some quality of life if doctors could regrow nerve tissues in humans.
Are spinal stem cells better than embryonic stem cells at growing this type of tissue, or is it simply a case of too little money going into embryonic stem cell research?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Like you said, the frozen embryos and the stem cells taken from them aren't ours to screw around with like this. They do (and should) belong to the organism they were taken from.
Wonderful, said organism is frozen and 99% likely never to see any functional life.
When it comes to human stem cells, that organism is another human life. It's a simple path from "We want the paraplegic to walk again" to "we will kill humans to allow others to walk again".
Do tell, Anonymous Coward, why is taking stem cells from a donated and otherwise perpetually frozen embryo equal to killing a human?
*shrug*. and people wonder why this country is going downhill
Obviously, because of MTV.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
Because.. you (as a country) voted for Bush?
I read today Senator Frist went against Bush and is now supporting stem cell funding and research. I really hope the American public can put enough pressure to get the White House behind saving American lives and repairing damage such as spinal cord injuries
How dare you.
This is America. How dare anyone presume to step into the shoes of God by improving the conditions of or completely healing those who are sick or disabled. Man has no right dictate and change what God has obviously deemed his will by employing ridiculous and sinful medical practices.
Unless you live in the midwest and you're trying to knock your wife with the funky teeth up with nine babies. That's totally fine.
Because it is the obligation of good christian women to offer up their fertile wombs for implantation of these harvested embryos and carry them to term whilst burning at the stake the women who donated them in the first place.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well, let's see, there IS the question of when life begins. You can't have seen any discussion of embryonic stem cell research without encountered that aspect.
There's also a very valid concern about preventing trafficking in human tissue. Just as there are lots and lots of controls on organ harvesting and donations, there needs to be a way to prevent pregnancies simply for the sake of harvesting embryos to gain such tissue.
There are also a lot of concerns about ensuring this is actually a path with true possibility of results rather than a ghoulish battleground over the value of life and a macabe sideshow. Think of how the Nazi and Imperial Japanese performed experiments on living people. Where is the line drawn? It's a very serious issue.
Monstrously irresponsible snake-oil statements like that made by John Whatshisname (yeah, he was even "my" senator, shows how much he did for NC) that if John Kerry was elected President quadraplegics woudl stand up out of their wheelchairs and walk again are...shall we say...far less than responsible.
On the other hand, if the comments Senator Frist made are true that it is now evident that stem cells are not capable of endless regeneration and there are far fewer than the original 78 strains of stem cells available for federally funded research, perhaps allowing collection of stem cells from those which are left over from invitreo is a good idea.
Your post shows you don't really know much about this.
There is no restriction on private investment into stem cell research.
There are sources of human stem cells other than killing human embryos. Given the current belief that human embyonic stem cells cannot replicate indefinately, they are actually a poor source of the genetic material.
(Sidebar: there are very, very, very few human cells which can replicate endlessly. I don't remember the anem of the woman from whom one strain was harvested and is used for bio research. Virtually all cells have a limit to the number of tiems they can split.)
Prior to President Bush's plan of 4 years ago, there was no Federal funding for this research at all. A lot of what you would be seeing in the common media is not scientific, it's political.
Ronnie were still alive, and say 30 years old so he could put George W. into a headlock until he submits and supports stem cell research. I'm republican, but bush's stance on this issues makes me fucking angry. Ignorant fuck. I think before someone can even be allowed to be against federal funding of stem cell research, they should have to care for someone with Alzheimer's for a week. As it stands I hope everyone who is against (even a little bit) stem cell research doesn't get Alzheimer's, but I hope every single person they care about does, and they have to watch the carnage.
It is great news as it also may have implications for the large number of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients.
As you may already know MS is a chronic automimmune disorder where your body attacks the protective sheath around nerve cells causing them to degrade slowly over time. It is not yet curable. This type of damage is smaller than if your spinal cord was ripped apart in an accident and thus it may be easier to repair.
If this therapy proves to be useful in MS it will help a large number of people and save billions for countries.
Standards Schmandards
I think we have a bit of hope though. In a speech in front of the Senate, Bill Frist, the leader of the Senate Republicans, used the "s"-word when discussing this issue. "It isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science." Yeah, I was shocked too. If we're lucky, the bill in question will be passed so we can be done with Bush's inane stem cell research policy.
need to start making "I broke my spine and all I got was this aborted fetus" tees
Why is this flamebait? As my foggy memory recalls it was due to the direct intervention of Bush that the stem cell research was banned in the USA. In some of the recent National Geographic issues the main topic was stem cell research.
According to them, there are 155 stem cell lines in the world atm, 78 out of them can have federal support in funds, and 22 out of them is usable for research AND can have federal support for them, thats mostly because most of the stem cell cultivations are just too old already and were created with old technology. In the UK for example researchers are experimenting with a new method to get rid of the current method of handling those stem cells. Currently it's very resource intensive and costy to maintain the existing lines, but since the law doesn't allow for new stem cells to be harvested and to get federal funds for them, it means they need to deal with the old ones.
A five day old impregnated zygote is smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence.
It has no unique features and there is not even a trace of nervous system. Clearly, people opposing stem cell research should first familiarize themselves first with the "baby" and "murder" they are talking about.
NG quotes some Marie Dooley, who offered her surplus embryos after artificial, in vitro, fertilisation to stem cell research. She said something like that "If they would have a heartbeat, the whole situation would be completely different, but those embryos are only groups of cells and they would have landed in the sewer if not offered for research." or something of that effect. the NG review is very long, it details the issue through 23 pages of informative description from all viewpoints. I'd recommend it for everyone.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
What we need is a bulldozer to run over the children of every republican congressmen (at the state and federal levels,) not enough to kill them.. just force them into a fucking wheelchair, permanently. Then we'll see some opinions change.. until then, these scum sucking bastards will keep on promising their hardcore religious base that they'll protect america from the insidious & godless liberal infiltrators, fuck science, fuck progress, and fuck you america -> I'm getting elected again!
What kind of fucking maniac are you? Your publically advocating the maiming of innocent children for what you preceve as the sins of the parents. You should have your spine severed somewhere between your brain and your body....no wait, it's already happened for you to make such a hateful comment. I'm all for progress, better life through science, and all that bull shit. But give it a rest. You wanna maim the people that are voting and deciding this bull shit on the government level, fine, I'm all for that. It's people like you that give the freaks in the religious faction all the ammo they need to push forward with this shit. Mod this down if you like, But the parent post needs to be modded down too.
"Does your computer have IP on it?"
You're on crack. Seriously, it takes absolutely no effort to find people who are 100% pro-choice.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'll start with saying that it is good to see scientific progress, but is it possible to do this with adult / cord stem cells too? Second, everyone says that Bush is against stem cell research. He is only against federal funding to embryonic stem cell research. That doesn't mean he wants to ban it, well he does, but that is besides the point. All he ever did was say the Government can't support it. Third, other than this, I have yet to see an example of Embryonic stem cell research actually working and adult stem cells don't work, or where Embryonic stem cells actually work at all. If adult stem cells show more promise, and don't involve the taking of a human life (the reason this is all contriversial in the first place), why not use them. About the "how can we support a president who is against scientific progress" issue. It isn't that the pro-life people are anti-scientific progress, it is that they don't beleive science should be working against the betterment of humanity. At least they don't think killing for progress is right.
How complicated is stem cell treatment?
Every time I read about it, I get the impression that the subjects are simply injected with stem cells and they magically get cured. Is it really that simple, or are there additional invonveniences, like unwanted tissue types, or surgery or drugs needed?
Well that's just it, why does *science* need to be *political*? One thing they teach doctors early on is all of the things they can do "ethically", and they do this with engineers and the such as well. My question has always been "Why stop science because a bunch of people don't like it?". Science is science is science and will always be science. The Germans, though misguided in their science, were leaps and bounds ahead of us during World War 2, discovering new things at an astounding rate simply because they told their scientists that they didn't care, they just wanted it done, and they wanted it done yesterday.
So the most unethical regime in the history of mankind (IMHO) created the best science, enhancing what we knew in hundreds of different fields, pushing everyone else to the limit. Remember, it was actually German scientists who won us World War 2.
Even though this technology does have the ability to be used misappropriately, one would have to admit to him or herself that doing so in a scientific field is not good for the country and for science over all. With tremendous strength, comes tremendous responsibility, and I think the United States has shown more than anything that they're too afraid of responsibility to develop the strength scientifically, but if it's got uses as a weapon, we'll go to no ends to improve it.
Perhaps the researchers should apply for weapons grants, stating that the technology they develop will be able to help countless soldiers on and off the battlefield, returning them to war quicker than ever before. That'd probably stur the couldron a bit.
I just think it's stupid that people like Christopher Reeves has to die because we won't condone the research nessicary to keep these people alive. I mean, they've already shown us that being paralysed does nothing against intellegence (Stephen Hawking), what better reason do we need to research something as dramatically lifechanging as giving someone who's paralysed the ability to walk again?
My entire arguement is that Politics shouldn't showboat science as it's bitch. Science needs to happen for the good of the human race, while politics does everything possible to stand in the human races' way. Let the damned scientists work.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Well, let's see, there IS the question of when life begins. You can't have seen any discussion of embryonic stem cell research without encountered that aspect.
The Bush government is pro in-vitro fertilization, a practice which by design produces large amounts of unwanted embryos, blastocysts really, which are frozen down and eventually thrown away, since they can only survive for so long in a frozen state.
If your position is that human life begins at conception then I fail to understand how this practice is morally sound whilst abortion is not.
It's better to put these cells to good use methinks.
A witty
"Your abortion will be put to good use, we can find cures to diseases with your embryo". That might be the extra push that convinces her to get an abortion. Even though there are no gaurentees that there will be any breakthroughs.
Except nobody would ever say that. That's what pisses me off so much about your side. What kind of freaking monsters do you imagine doctors to be? "If you get an abortion, you get a lollypop... Come on. Do it, do it, do it. Sissy." There are way more than enough people getting abortions already to satisfy any research needs. You're still going to be throwing most of them out even if you could use them for government funded research. If it turns out we need thousands of babies for actual treatments, we can have this talk, but what you're imagining is just not going to happen.
Skipping the theological mellodrama..
You might be able to tell me at what speed an object falls to the earth, but can you tell me why it falls? Something as simple as gravity? Science is observing events and trying to predict what will happen. Science does not purport to understand why something happens.
Um, science _does_ attempt to explain to the best of our ability why things happen. Is "gravity" not a perfectly valid answer to your question? If you want to recursively ask "Why?" to every explanation, then I challenge you to explain your faith and allow me to extend the same courtesy. I guarantee you will run out of productive statements long before I will.
The fact that you refeer to soul and "some such shit" in the same sentance leads me to believe you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that you should be the one who decides where my tax dollars are spent.
Blah, blah, blah. Vica versa. Ad nausem.
All that Bush did was listen to his constituents, who said they don't want their tax dollars being spent on embryos that came from abortions.
Woah, Woah! Hold it right there. This is where you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Embryos that came from abortions? From the wikipedia...
Embryonic stem cells are stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a blastocyst, an early stage embryo consisting of 50-150 cells. They are pluripotent, meaning they are able to grow into any of the 200 cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a cloned blastocyst, created by fusing a denucleated egg cell with a patient's cell. The blastocyst produced is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are obtained from a clone, they are genetically compatible with the patient.
200 cells is not a fetus by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is a blastocyst a fetus. These is very much a lab created process and trying to apply your morality via rubber stamp doesn't exactly line up.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
Other posters have brought up a good point. These children being born, being brought forth from the miracle frozen embryos, are given life by the in-vitro fertilization process. A process that wastes dozens of "lives" in order to create one of those IVF children.
So why all the outcry about embryonic stem cell research? Why not go after the people who are wasting and killing all these embryos in the first place? The infertile people "playing god" and destroying embryos in the first place? They are endorsing killing embryos, as it is inherently part of the process of IVF. But yet the outcry is against the research on the remains of the IVF process... where is the logic in this?
It is because we haven't had time to adequately address the moral concerns such activity raises.
It was largely agreed at the end of the second world war that the human experimentation that went on in NAZI germany was wrong. This is despite the numerous real medical advancements that were made as a result of such experimentation. Most reasonable individuals agreed that the societal cost performing compulsory experiments on essentially random members of society was greater than the benefit of the resulting medical knowledge.
It has since been agreed that, to some extent, animal experiment is okay as long as certain moral guidelines are followed. This is because cruelty toward animals has a dehumanizing effect on the human participant (as evidenced by the fact that most serial killers got their start with animals).
This puts us in a tricky situation when it comes to embryos and cloning. On the one hand, it is well established that an embryo is not the same as a person, on the other hand, an embryo has the potential the become a living, breathing member of society. So where do you draw the line? If experimentation on embryos is not human experimentation, is is certainly the cousin of human experimentation.
I'm not saying that the cost is not worth the benefit, I am only saying that there is a cost, and that we need to decide how far down the path toward human experimentation we can go before the costs outweigh the benefits.
I've never seen credible evidence that a person with a personality gets created before there is a working brain. Would love to be contradicted here with a few references to e.g. Nature? (-: Or even a few bible verses with claims that life start at conception...? :-)
I am, frankly, not holding my breath.
Now, someone might argue that a process is started at conception which would end up with a functioning human. The potential is critical. There are a few problems with that position:
- When a fertile woman smiles back at me (-: it has happened
:-), there is a potential for a new human
- Soon, all our cells will be potential humans with a little "twist"...
- Half of all conceptions ends soon with a spontaneous abortion. That means, according to the bible belt, that half of all people dies at an age of a few days. To be consistent, the believers should argue that half of all medical research should try to stop this mass death!
I could go on. (The potential argument is pathetically blurry and compare amateurs like Stalin and Hitler with tens of millions dying from spontaneous abortions... every year.)Your correct (IMHO) point is that given the assumption that life starts at conception, the rest of the religious people's position is logical. My point is that they are quite easily described as fuckwits with the same basis as "Son of Sam" had for his world view.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Snippings from this article:
... The announcement by Frist, a transplant surgeon who is considered a likely contender for president in 2008, contradicted recent signals that he would oppose the legislation, and word of his decision Thursday night caught his Senate colleagues and the White House by surprise. It also was an unambiguous sign that politics had tilted in favor of research advocates and against Bush and the social conservatives who are the core of his political base.
... Catholic League President William Donahue called Frist "a hypocrite." In a written statement, Donahue said: "His change of heart has nothing to do with any scientific breakthrough.... What's changed is that Dr. Duplicity wants to be president."
... One Republican ally of both Frist and the White House said Friday that Bush's position had proved impossible to sustain. The ally, who requested anonymity because of increasingly "raw" feelings in the party, said the president's position was not held by rank-and-file Republican voters. ... In Congress, Republican supporters of stem cell research said they were optimistic that Frist's support would persuade other Republicans to switch their position.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) announced that he would support legislation allowing the federal government to finance research using a broader range of embryonic stem cells. His decision substantially raised the odds that the bill would win approval in Congress and face a presidential veto, which White House strategists had hoped to avoid.
Frist said he would back legislation allowing the government to fund research using embryonic stem cells no matter when they were created.
Frist's stance appeared to put him closer to the mainstream of public opinion. In a May survey for CBS News, 58% of respondents said they favored embryonic stem cell research; 31% said they opposed it.
Commentary
I can't help but what what the political and scientific ramifications of Frist's recent actions. I wonder if Frist is really being confrontational with the White House and GOP, or could this be part of a plan to broaden Republican appeal...
Personally, I suspect the latter. The embryonic stem cell stance is one of the most-often criticized things used to criticize Republicans in general, and this could be a way of putting a damper on that criticism.
I think this will hurt Frist's chance of getting the GOP nomination, but if he gets that, it'll increase his chances for the actual 2008 election, assuming he can get people to forget about his silly remarks during the Schiavo case. I still doubt I'd vote for him myself, but I know many people would.
Because I have karma to burn...
The exact quote from John Edwards is, "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
I don't find anything particularly monstrously irresponsible about this quote. He doesn't imply that people will get up out of their wheelchairs a week or two after Kerry would have been elected. I think most people, like me, are smart enough to realize that curing spinal cord injury is a while coming.
However, personally, I'm convinced that if we put our collective ingenuity in medical research towards finding a cure for spinal cord injuries, we will get real and tangible results, as this article demonstrates. It's not a cure, but it sure is progress.
The election of John Kerry would not have necessarily accomplished this goal during his presidency, and I don't think that Edwards's quote was implying that it would. After all, John F. Kennedy said in 1961, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Even if he had not been assassinated in 1963 and re-elected in 1964, his goal still wouldn't have happened while he was in office.
It is certain that the election of George W. Bush has hindered the goal of finding a cure to spinal cord injury. He has shut down a major source of funding in an area of research that, as we can see from this article, is directly relevant to finding a cure.
The really frustrating thing is the reason given for shutting down this funding—some misguided notion that an embryo is somehow morally equivalent to a human being. I find it interesting that most of these fundamentalists have no problem at all with killing highly complex organisms such as rats, monkeys, rabbits, and so on in the name of scientific research, but a clump of nondescript cells with no capacity for thought, feeling, or any sensation at all; a clump of nondescript cells with no past, present, or future; a clump of nondescript cells very similar to the kind that we wash off in the shower every day without even thinking; is somehow sacred.
What if these same fundamentalists had insisted that researching advanced rocket propulsion techniques in the '60's was too similar to building a Tower of Babel, attempting to reach to heaven? Would John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson have cowered to this weird religious-based belief and let the Russians unilaterally own space today?
I hope not, just as I hope that in the next election, we manage to get some leadership who is willing to stand up for science that can make our lives better instead of trying to push America further and further into a new dark age of technology because of religious fundamentalism.
Whoever "they" is, they are absoutely 100% ok with killing for progress. Especially if "they" happen to be certain Republicans in the executive branch of the American government.
We take human life all the time. We take it when we have people work in extremely hazerdous conditions - like mining, or in the old days, building bridges. We take it when we decide we need a regime change. We take it when we allow the sale of tobacco products, or alcohol. We take it when we allow people to operate motor vehicles. WE take it when we revolt against an oppressive government.
As a society, we routinely accept the sacrifice of human life when we believe the benefits to society outweigh the sacrifice, and sometimes even if not.
It is simply not logical to be OK with sacrificing american lives and spending billions of american taxpayer dollars blowing thousands of living, breathing, thinking, feeling, walking-around Iraqi children to little bits to potentially improve Iraqi society and at the same time have a panic of conscience at the suggestion that millions of federal dollars be spent sacrificing a few hundred embryos smaller than a pinhead that are going to be discarded anyway to potentially provide medical relief to hundreds of thousands of American citizens.
paintball
An early embryo does not have even a single functioning neuron, so certainly it can't have any kind of conscious existence, and it is a far stretch to say that it has a "soul".
The reasoning seems to be that it has the "potential" for becoming a human being. But once cloning is perfected, every cell in our bodies will have the potential for becoming a human being, no different from an identical twin. So every time we shed a few skin cells, we are discarding millions of potential human beings.
In this sense, a pre-neuron embryo is no different from any other mass of tissue in our bodies.
Perhaps we should take these people's reasoning to its logical conclusion, and forbid the destruction of any tissue at all from our bodies. To which senator should I mail my feces for preservation?
Now, of course, if you really want to get into a sticky situation, imagine if some well intentioned doctors developed a technique for reembedding miscarriages. I'm sure it would be considered a modern miracle for women who are having trouble getting pregnant. If this technique became well known and successful I'm sure we'd see some people claiming that women who fail to get the procedure are negligent. Now not only would some states being telling women they can't abort a pregnancy willingly, they'd also be saying that they can't abort a pregnancy naturally. Knowing this is likely, is it ethical for a researcher who develops a technique for reembedding miscarriages to suppress that research?
Scary stuff.
How we know is more important than what we know.
> What makes the life of a fly or ant that you've most certainly killed less
> precious than the frozen embryo that never developed into a human?
The same thing that:
- makes _your_ life more precious than said fly
- made it precious when _you_ were a _human embryo_
You might be able to tell me at what speed an object falls to the earth, but can you tell me why it falls? Something as simple as gravity? Science is observing events and trying to predict what will happen. Science does not purport to understand why something happens.
Actually, science is all about determining why just as much as how. Admittedly, how is usually the focus because until you really understand how, determining why is kind of tough.
All that Bush did was listen to his constituents, who said they don't want their tax dollars being spent on embryos that came from abortions.
Embryonic stem cells don't come from abortions. They've *NEVER* come from abortions. You stick your DNA into an egg cell, let it grow to a few hundred cells, and voila.
There'd be no point in getting stem cells from aborted fetuses, because those aren't *your* stem cells. They won't work in your body.
Bush just simply said that no government money will be spent on NEW embryos.
Which basically halts all government money for stem cell research. Those embryos will never do you or me a lick of good, because they're incompatible with both of us. Those were for *research*, not actual *use*.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Right... Aside from inappropriate use of new technology, I suppose trying to change eye color with needles and dyes or doing sterilization experiments on people in concentrartion camps is fine as long as the goal is science. I suppose you have never been to see Auschwitz? Blue eyes good, brown eyes bad...
Hmmm, yes a "clump of cells" as long as it wasn't the "clump of cells" that turned out to be you.
If it was the clump of cells that would have turned out to be me, I promise you I wouldn't have minded at the time, and after that I wouldn't be in a position to be minding anything.
"We've got no business causing spinal injuries to animals, or any injuries for that matter. Test them on humans if humans are who they aim to benefit."
Right, glad you volunteered, just lay down please this won't hurt a bit...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Do tell, Anonymous Coward, why is taking stem cells from a donated and otherwise perpetually frozen embryo equal to killing a human?
Interesting. Do you think that a human embryo is not human?
Is a human foetus human? How about a child? Or an adolescent?
What defines human for you?
Is it the presence of intelligence? In which case do you consider people less intelligent than yourself less human?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
So if the argument is that you can't kill a human baby because a human baby is not property then it's a total strawman argument to claim that it is ok to kill a zygote on the grounds of what it is capable of. You have to face the argument, is a zygote property? To answer that question I think we have to agree on a few things. I own my own body, you own yours.
This is a false dichotomy. The reason that humans are considered different from other animals is that we are sentient. That is the distinction. So it is completely reasonable that the law considers a human embryo, which is not sentient, to be property while a baby is not. And it's important to note that this is already the position that the law takes. Embryos are considered the property of the people who produced them. Many (if not all) of the embryos that are currently used for this research are ones that were about to be destroyed.
If we define a woman's body to include anything that grows within it, regardless of how that growth is initiated, then it is clear that until a fetus is removed from her body it is her property.
But that isn't how a woman's body is defined. This is a non sequitur.
Sure, no problem. A lot of people like to think that an embryo is morally a person, but in our practical day-to-day lives, no one really treats it as such. Ponder this:
These are just a few ways off the top of my head in which even conservatives do not treat an embryo or fetus as the moral equivalent of a human being. I'm sure if I put some more thought into it, I could come up with plenty more.
No, we're not. That's my point.
But the clump of cells wasn't me, therefore it's irrelevant. I keep seeing people confuse something's potential with it's reality. Just because something has the potential to be something else doesn't give it the status or rights of that thing it may someday become. As someone else pointed out, if my mom had had an abortion, it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me because I simply would have never existed. This is far, far different from my present life being ended by someone sneaking in and killing me in the middle of the night, because at this point, my existence isn't potential, it's reality.
Using your logic, one could just as easily say that if Osama bin Laden's mother had had an abortion, the world would arguably be a much happier and safer place, and because of this, women should have more abortions. It's a non sequitur and I reject such arguments. Let's make important decisions like this based on what what the reality of the situation is, not what it may or may not be someday or what it could or could not have been if something had been different.
Or framed in a different way, it's very possible in the near future that we'll be able to clone human beings from the intact DNA contained in any of the millions of cells in our bodies. At that point, should we start saving every sloughed off cell because the potential exists for it to be a person? Additionally, we probably have the technology now to freeze our extra cells to save them for the purpose of becoming new human beings when such technology does exist. Should we never let any of them go to waste now? Of course not, everyone knows that's silly. The same holds true for the clump of cells that is an embryo. Just because it has the potential to be a human being someday doesn't give it any special or sacred status today.
I'd much rather kill 100 mice than have 1 person die. In fact, that makes me think that perhaps we should fight all of our wars with mice. You know some kind of organized mice fight to determine who wins.
There are two types of stem cell research currently being conducted. Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. The only most people hear about is embryonic, which, as I'm sure most of you know, kills the embryo. This type of stem cell research seems to just now be taking off.....in rats, not real people. HOWEVER, adult stem cell research has had quite a bit of success over the past few years. Real human people have benefitted from this research. Stem cells are taken out of the adult who has an injury (for example from the spinal cord) and are reinjected into the host and, many times, regain the ability of whatever it was that was lost. Embryonic stem cells are usually rejected by the recipient due to different types of whatever, I don't know exactly, I'm not a scientist. Adult stem cells are never rejected because they come from the person. Adult stem cell research does NOT kill anyone or anything. If only the government would support adult stem cell research and not embryonic I believe we would have seen many more advances in this area.
There is a product called Ambertose that has helped me greatly. I had a ruptured disk in my neck that damaged the nerve root controlling muscle on the top and back of the right shoulder and the bicep. It took 6 months to be able to raise my hand over my head. Since taking this product I have reained about 70% use of my shoulder.
This product seems to stimulate stem cell production in adults. Go to mannatech.com and check out the reasearch. It works for me and might help you, I'm not trying to sell anything.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Not all people think that moral concerns with animal experimentation come from the "dehumanizing effect" on researchers. Some of us think that animals have rights or at least moral considerability in themselves.
Much of this debate could be solved by once and for all agreeing that the mere fact that the research subject is human is not morally significant. Right now, many people are willing to grant a cell rights because less than 1% of its DNA is different from all other organisms save other humans. That's ridiculous.
A better approach is to ground the high moral consideration we give humans on their developed traits, such as self-consiousness, a capacity to suffer and enjoy, and a desire to live.
On this model, an animal would have some moral considerability (it can feel pain), but arguably not enough to enjoin medical experimentation that can improve human lives. And a clump of cells has zero moral worth.
This result matches many people's moral intuitions. All you have to do is give up the notion (originated in the same places that today's fundamentalists cite) that being a human makes you automatically special, from the moral point of view.
We're talking human beings.
No, we're not. This is the thing that "Human-at-conception" camp, which refers to itself as "pro-life" constantly ignores, no matter how many times it's brought up. All human cells do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Embryonic stem cells are not individuals for a variety of reasons.
Those who want to assert that life begins at conception frequently fall back on logic that flies in the face of longstanding legal precedent. They say embryos are human, for example, because they represent a unique set of human DNA. But if this definition of what is human were true, it would be okay to kill a twin as long as the other twin remained. It's not. A human is more than simply a set of cells with unique DNA. And we've recognized that for thousands of years. The set of cells must also pass a certain stage of development. Otherwise, any stem cell which could potentially be cloned through somatic cell transfer would be human.
While many socieites differed radicially from ours in terms of their legal code, and assigned rights to a patriarch, a family, or a nation, our society assigns rights primarily to individual human beings.
Cells don't have rights until they become individuals. An individual is one person, and one person only. Never two or three or possibly four people. An individual is only one person. An embryonic stem cell is one or two or possibly three people, or none at all if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall.
Likewise, the often repeated canard of 'what if you were aborted doesn't support those who say people are humans at conception unless you also don't believe in contraception, or any other act which would prevent the birth of a person. After all, if my parents had gone to the movies instead of making me, I wouldn't be here either. But what kind of logic is that? This is a case of assuming what you're trying to prove. People who don't believe than individuality starts at conception will never be persuaded by this argument, because they don't believe that they were 'them' at conception. They believe they were still a 'pre-individual.'
Hmmm, yes a "clump of cells" as long as it wasn't the "clump of cells" that turned out to be you. Strange how the "human" dividing line moves so.
Moving? Are you claiming that he's applying one standard to himself, and another standard to other people. If so, I really don't think you understand his argument. But if you're saying that there are a lot of people who disagree with you and hold different moral standards which they apply to all people then yes, you're absolutely right.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
The embryo is part of the species homo sapiens. But it is *not* entirely the same as a sentient creature we usually think of when using the word "human".
Most people would be against killing the latter for the benefit of others. The former? That isn't so clear, but in any case don't mix those togheter when discussing stem cell research.
- These characters were randomly selected.
doesn't 'end' at the same point. Its all just a continuum. We are not creating life. Merely a terminating branch.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I find it interesting that most of these fundamentalists have no problem at all with killing highly complex organisms such as rats, monkeys, rabbits, and so on...
Heck, forget the monkeys--what about their bland willingness (or even outright blood lust) for killing non-christians? "Thou shalt not kill" isn't all that hard of a concept.
It doesn't say "thou shalt not kill people who look like you".
It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill except for oil."
It doesn't even say "Thou shalt not kill unless they started it, in which case it's fine to open a little Whoop-ass on their sorry Is-le-amic butts."*
I wouldn't mind the fundementalists (of any flavour) nearly as much if they actually pratciced what they preached instead of running around like a bunch of anti-social nitwits, blowing up buses and abortion clinics and killing people--or voting to have somebody else's kids go kill them--in the name of their god.
--MarkusQ
* What it does say about "they started it" is "turn the other cheek."
This sort of research has been done over and over since the 1970's, with various levels of success. Not to say that it isn't good, but a cure is always 10 years away and I don't see any real cure available for at least 50-60 years.
Mice are different from humans and just connecting nerves don't work as you have to connect the right severed nerves together. Mice can't tell us how the "repair" feels is the movement just relex is it controlled?, it has been shown that a human can still walk if only 5% of his spinal cord still functions (which 5% i don't know?, but that don't mean he is not affected in other ways and functionality is severly impaired ). With nerve repair you could get a case of reflexes wired incorectly and constant spasm occuring or your soft touch nerve conected to the pain nerve channel causing extreme discomfort at the slightest touch. The grey matter of the spinal cord does alot of processing of nerve signals before it gets to the brain and how can this processing be programmed correctly?
Apparently salamanders can fully regrow lost limbs and their entire nervous system, this don't mean that humans can though.
in summary:
research = good
spinal injury = bad
mice!=men
Warning independant examinations have shown that upto 48% of what I say can be WRONG
embedded linux
I mean, they've already shown us that being paralysed does nothing against intellegence (Stephen Hawking)
Well, duh. Being paralyzed is a huge dexterity hit, intelligence doesn't enter into it.
~Will
sig?
I've got advanced multiple sclerosis, and the ONLY hope I have for sutvival, let alone being able to walk again, lies with stem cells (plus some way to remove the scars already on my nercous system). Most people assume this means embrionic cells, but there are other ways. For example,in nasal cavity tissue, there are stem cells that can, and do, differentiate into neurons. This would help not only myself, but many others, with MS, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, ALS, and possibly even Alzheimer's and BSE.
I realize that these won't cure verything, but why is this research being ignored in favor of embrionic stem cells? There are no moral issues here, no politically-demanded guidelines to be followed, only a chance to help lots of people before they wither away and die. Yet, from what I've been able to see, this avenue is being soundly ignored by researchers.
'I am truly baffled.
Lemon curry?
I'm under the understanding that the glial stem cells found in umbilical cords are much easier to manipulate and have shown more applications in therapy while embryonic stem cells are still very difficult to impossible (by today's methods) to control. If I am wrong I would love to be corrected just don't flame me as right-wing religious fundamentalist. I have no qualms with gathering stem cells from frozen embryos scheduled for desctruction. It would be wasteful to simply throw away stem cells. The bottom line for me is that umbilical stem cells have seen more real world applications, while emryonic stem cells tend to be theoretical and experimental. So while both lines of research need to be pursued, the line with more results not promises should recieve more (but not all) of the funding. I honestly do not think most people would support farming embryos in labs and harvesting them for their stem cells. We should do what we can to eradicate debilitating diseases, but we cannot forge ahead damning morality when morality is what motivated us to cure diseases in the first place. Lastly, we must remember that there is no cure for death and old age. Modern medicine has greatly increased our living standard while lengthening our lives, but each person has to prepare for one's self for death in a way that eliminates fear and hysteria. Death is part of life and should be seen for the beauty that it truly is. It is not the end of a slow decline but the final conclusion to life (hopefully) well-lived.
"Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate."
And the reason science answers how rather than why is that why, requires intent. Intent requires god.
If you are asking Why do we exist or why does this happen, you are already assuming that god, or some omniscient, omnipotent creator exists and asking what their intent was.
Deleted
Bill Frist is aware that even if the Senate manages to pass increased federal funding for this research, fellow Republican George Bush (Jr.) will follow through on his threat to veto the bill. This is more likely an event of standard political maneuvering than a ray of hope for stem cell advocates. Remember that Frist is considered a major Republican contender for president in 2008.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
I am of the opinion, cold-hearted as this may sound, that until a fetus is capable of surviving without the 'life support' provided by the womb of the mother, it is not a human being, and is in the same category as a cancerous growth or tumor.
Let's face a fact, one that most men probably don't know, and probably alot of women, too: Having a baby is bad for your body.
It causes a depletion of calcium from the bones. Every child a woman has increases he risk of osteoporosis. A fetus sucks up other nutrients like crazy, too, which means that the 'host,' or 'mother,' if you prefer, has to eat a great deal more. Children are often compared to parasites, but that is exactly what a fetus is, in a most literal sense. It does nothing beneficial for its host (from a sexual selection standpoint -- children only count when they are able to reproduce), and causes a great deal of damage and stress to the host.
Also, looking at it from another way, in why I feel that there is nothing 'wrong' with destroying an embryo or fetus, I submit that killing something that is alive is 'wrong,' but that killing something that 'may become alive at some point' is not. It is only recently, in the past hundred years or so (in the 'developed' world) that infant mortality rates have become so low. Children often did, and in many places around the world, still do, die before they are born, via miscarriage and complications in birthing, among other things more exotic.
So, no, I really don't see anything 'wrong' with abortion or with destroying little buds of cells that haven't even had a good go at division. I don't feel a twinge of regret when I use listerine every morning, and I kill many orders of magnitude more living things when I do that than when an embryo is destroyed.
And no, I do not view this as being cold-hearted. I think other people view it as such, because the vast majority of people (like the 'Majority' of people who voted for King Bush II) are incapable of reason.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"