Scientists Create New Human Embryonic Stem Cell

Homework Help writes "U.S. scientists were successful in creating a new human embryonic stem cell. From source, "U.S. researchers said on Monday they have created a new human embryonic stem cell by fusing an embryonic stem cell to an ordinary skin cell. They hope their method could someday provide a way to create tailor-made medical treatments without having to start from scratch using cloning technology. That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable. ""

Comments

s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.

should read:

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without destroying a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable.

To echo something I said the other day: personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we take pause ask important questions that define our very humanity?

Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines. Without regard to the purported scientific use{ful,less}ness of the existing lines, the fact remained that funding was indeed provided, human embryonic stem cell research (including the destruction of embryos) was not banned, and a conservative approach was taken. Further, large research entities - such as the state of California and the University of Wisconsin System - have had little difficulty in establishing research centers to skirt federal funding restrictions and still commit federal-scale research funds to embryonic stem cell research.

The ethical considerations are important: should we also clone humans? After all, aren't you "anti-science" if you oppose unrestricted human cloning?

Just because something is nothing more than an amalgam of cells - or a single cell - doesn't mean it doesn't represent, even if only philosophically, human life. Why is it valid in the macro scale, but not micro? Note I'm not saying that even embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos - indeed, embryos that would have been discarded anyway - shouldn't be done; I am saying that there should be ethical debate and discussion: as I'm sure many would agree, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

In any event, I applaud researchers for finding a potential method that may allow embryonic stem cells to be used without the associated destruction of human embryos, thereby removing a significant and valid ethical consideration as a barrier to the further exploration and use of these cells as potentially valuable tools.

Note: I didn't vote for Bush, and don't personally support Bush's current human embryonic stem cell policy.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[slavemowgli]

A restriction on federal funding *is* a restriction of research, though. It's like trying to travel without having a valid driver's license or some other form of photo ID - you can do it, but there's gonna be a lot of hassles (try flying or booking a hotel room without photo ID!).

That's not to say that every possible study under the sun should be funded, no matter what it's about. But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Itchy Rich]

Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"...

For that to be correct you first have to define "human life" in terms that science can measure.

If you mean capable of human emotion then I would say you were wrong (others may disagree based on their beliefs) since at early stages the embryo has no complex nervous system.

If you mean "genetically human" then you're right, but so is some of the gunk under my toenails.

If you mean "has the potential to become human" then you're right, but the tense is important, i.e. it's not human yet, and we still haven't defined what being human means so can't measure the point at which it becomes "human".

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

I didn't directly acknowledge in this particular post that the restriction on federal funding does indeed effectively restrict research, but yes, I'd agree with that.

But the discrimination between what is and what isn't funded should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs.

Every ethical debate will be colored with the body of our experience. Some will be religious, some will be considered by yourself to be "objective", others will come from different philosophies. That's why it's called debate.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[b17bmbr]

you're absolutely right. we need only think "ahead" a few years and imagine what might be possible. if embryonic stem cells, than what about more mature embryoes? how about fetus farming? the potential is enormous. it's a thought i don't like.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[erlenic]

If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.
Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

It's not that simple.

The moral qualms come from the fact that today, they're discarded as a side effect of trying to help couples start a family; to bring a life into the world that will be cared for and nurtured, and to propagate our species.

Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply. As I said, we could certainly also farm humans for immense scientific benefit and usefulness. But does that mean we should? Should we potentially start a factory for human embryos that will then be destroyed for research? If it's ok to destroy ones that will already be destroyed, why not make more?

See, those are the kind of questions we need to answer and talk about. Not ignore.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Chanc_Gorkon]

You know, I, personally would never go through what some would go through to have a child. My wife and I were trying to have a second child and we got to the point where insurance would not cover it. I said we can't go any further. While it saddens me a little, I stil have my son. I do not want her to risk her life trying fertility drugs and possibly have 3 or more kids to take care of. Don't get me wrong, I love kids and God gave me a wonderful child to love everyday, but I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way. There are too many risks in the fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization, while it works, does carry with it the moral problem of what do you do with the other 20 embryos? I don't feel it's morally right to distroy the embryo's and I don't really want them to go to anyone else. I also do not want them to be used for stem cell research either. So, I won't participate in this kind of way to have a child. I will just love the child I have EVEN more then I already do (without spoiling him of course).

It fascinates me that so long as people are trying to have a child, everything including THROWING AWAY embryos it's ok, but it's not ok if they are doing stem cell research. I personaly believe it's not ok in BOTH counts.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[SlayerofGods]

I'd figure on there being 2 main reasons.
1)There's no proof it will work yet. Many great things didn't getting the funding they deserved because there was no guarantee it would work.
2)And what exactly would they patent? You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.
I suppose they could patent the method of using them, but a rival company could easily take what they came up with, modify it enough so they can get their own patent and save a lot of money.

Just my thoughts.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Prospero's Grue]

If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.

No form of R&D is a licence to print money - especially at such an early stage. There is much work to do, many lines of investigation to be explored, and a lot of paths will lead to dead-ends.

The return, if it comes at all, will be long in wait - and a lot of commercial enterprises would simply not survive long enough to reap their dividends.

The potential in this, and many new scientific fields is enormous; but to try and fit that into some economic model is the kind of thing that the "square peg in a round hole" simile was invented for.

Also, it's not just one man's religious beliefs, it's the moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans. For some of us, religion has nothing to do with it.

Very true, and while I am a supporter of stem cell research, believe an embryo is a life, and would prefer that embryos destined to be discarded be used rather than wasted; I understand the other side.

This research is controversial, and runs counter to the core beliefs of more people than just religious zealots. The government has elected not to fund it with public money, but has allowed the research to continue on its own merits. I think that's the most balanced approach one could hope to take.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Note: I didn't vote for Bush- but I thought his embryonic stem cell policy didn't go far enough.

Given that- I fully support adult stem cell research, and this is an exciting step merging the two branches. Next step- creating an adult stem cell from a non-stem cell, and researching the difference between the embryonic and the adult stem cells. Either that or figuring out how to remove the 2nd set of DNA from the lab-created embryonic stem cells. Note that embryos aren't the only potential source- cord blood, if it can be kept and donated, is full of embryonic stem cells, and the embryo, now a post-birth baby, survives. This method of giving an embryonic stem cell whatever DNA we want to feed it is potentially a way to make cord blood stem cells usefull- and encourages the continuation of human life by encouraging the rich, powerfull, and impotent to support poor families that have more children than they can financially take care of.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daemonenwind]

People in concentration camps were most certainly going to die. Does that make it alright for Mengle to perform his medical testing on them? Some of his research on the effects of extreme environments is genuinely scientifically useful, but just because the subjects were "on their way out", does that make the experiements alright?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[brunson]

I'm not sure I can figure out what side of the fence you're on.

So, it's okay to create a factory for fertilized eggs and destroy the leftovers if it means someone who couldn't have a child naturally can grow one rather than adopt, but it's not okay to create them for the potential benefit of millions of people that are already on earth and suffering from debilitating diseases?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[dgatwood]

The moral and ethical beliefs of millions of Americans include the mistaken belief that all Catholics keep guns in their basements and that everyone else but their chosen protestant denomination is going to Hell, too.

IMHO, embryonic stem cell research is even less ethically sticky than organ transplant. If your infant is on life supoport with no hope of surviving, at what point do you pull the plug? Do you agree to give those organs so that some other infant might live?

With stem cell research, you're talking about taking cells from something that hasn't even evolved beyond a tiny ball of cells---far less alive than that infant---and yet most parents would gladly give up that infant's organs so that someone else's child might live, but a surprisingly high number of those same people would not be willing to give up a handful of cells from a frozen embryo so that adults can live.. It's an appalling ethical contradiction.

The ethical arguments against stem cell research are grounded in the abortion debate. Unfortunately, the [expletive deleted] Republicans have created this politically charged anger over the abortion issue. The dyed-in-the-wool religious right folks don't want to feel like they are changing their stand on destroying a fetus. Unfortunately, they can't see past the rhetoric to realize that this is a completely different fundamental issue.

The result is a group of people who have become so dogmatically indoctrinated in their position that it would take a miracle to change their minds. Because of them, legitimate medical research that could save lives is being stifled in the name of God. That's just wrong, by any definition, in much the same way that the Church stifling Gallileo was wrong....

I'm not saying there are no ethical issues. If we see people creating fetuses for the purpose of extracting stem cells, many could legitimately consider that morally and ethically reprehensible---myself included. However, as long as you are extracting tissue from a fetus that is going to die anyway, not taking advantage of those cells would be equally morally and ethically indefensible.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Once there is a need for a supply of such embryos, the creation and subsequent destruction of said embryos might be encouraged, and may outstrip today's supply.

And one day water might turn purple, but until then, how about we just make decisions based on the fact that it's blue-ish right now?

We've got several hundred guys whose job it is to make up new laws. If people start farming abortion clinics, I bet one of them will get on top of it pretty quick. And we'll all support them, because your opposition isn't a bunch of jerks. None of us want to see humans being bred just to be killed.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[daveschroeder]

I'm not on any side of the fence. I'm simply laying out the arguments.

We already had a societal debate on whether it was worthwhile for the purposes of fertility. The answer is apparently, "yes, it is."

We must also have the debate on whether it's okay, on a potentially much larger scale, for medical research. It's not a foregone conclusion, by the way, that embryonic stem cells are necessarily a magical panacea for all disease. The may in fact be very useful. But to paint them as the end-all be-all (not saying you, personally, are doing that) is just as disingenuous as the opposition.

I already said I, personally, support unrestricted human embryonic stem cell research.

I also support fertility clinics.

My positions are perfectly consistent, so don't try to paint me as some kind of fence sitter. What I'm trying to say is that ethical debate is warranted for new uses of human embryos that require their destruction. The fact they're already discarded (i.e., destroyed) for fertility purposes doesn't negate the need for any debate for new uses. Further, as I said, such use may at some point outstrip supply for fertility clinics. Then what do we do?

I'm not saying I have the universal answers to these questions, just that they're there, and shouldn't be ignored. I know what my own personal opinions are, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is my assertion that debate on this topic is very valid and warranted.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[TheRaven64]

You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.

Don't be so sure. The patent rights for a gene sequence go to whoever first discovers it. You can have a plant growing in your garden for years and then be sued because it contains a patented gene sequence. Ludicrous? Yes.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[twiddlingbits]

Most Americans are ignorant about Stem Cells and only hear the Marketing Hype that they promise "cures" for everything from A to Z. Who would NOT be for something that does that?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[lgw]

you find it morally or ethically objectionable to destroy human embryos then you'd better get down to your local fertility clinic and start protesting.

Don't say that too loudly, you'll start something. There are people who feel this way. You may try to dismiss them as religious nutjobs, but in a representative government, even the nutjobs' opinions count. You can't say "there's no debate on this issue, because those who disagree with me are idiots".

This is a very cool technology, because it *deos* let us ignore the debate on harvesting embryos and move on to doing useful research!

Re:s/creating/destroying

[TomSawyer]

I'm not sure I can figure out what side of the fence you're on.

This is very telling of why there is such little progress on these issues. Instead of focusing on seeking truth too many people are seeking sides.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Clod9]

>Why aren't the religious zealots freaking out about the "unborn" being unceremoniously dumped into a biohazard waste bin

As a religious zealot, I'd say that most of us ARE very upset (not "freaking out", though) about this. But it is within the law for people to do so, so there's nothing we can currently do about it.

As for "freaking out" about experiments on embryonic stem cells, that activity in itself isn't one I see a moral barrier against; far from upsetting me, I could wholly support that research, even to the point of encouraging the use of my tax dollars for it. The problem is that if there is a demand for embryos, then more people will step in to supply them by getting abortions, and THAT'S what I have a problem with. It's like the organs-for-money debate, except the donor (the embryo, the one being sacrificed) doesn't get to have a say in the matter.

Should people be able to have abortions? Maybe--I've yet to see rational debate in America on this question.
Should people be able to have abortions purely because of their lack of planning? I'm against it.
Should people be paid big bucks by research clinics to have abortions? Definitely not.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[frgough]

*sigh*

Not all research funding is federal funding.

The reason there is so little private funding of embryonic stem cell research is because it's so unpromising.

Adult stem cell research is producing results NOW and so is what is being funded.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[CrazyTalk]

People in concentration camps were "most certainly" NOT going to die - they could have been released by the Germans and lived. It's not like they had a fatal disease. Different situation altogether, and circular logic.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Skye16]

Most people who are against it are also for in vitro fertilization for couples who otherwise couldn't have children. nevermind that an excessive number of eggs are harvested and fertilized before one is selected and transfered back into the uterus (excessive is a strict definition in this case - I'm not talking hundreds of thousands or something, just more than will be necessary for the procedure). nevermind that these eggs are either kept frozen or destroyed after the woman becomes successfully impregnated.

really, pick one stance and stick with it. either embryos are alive and need to be protected, or they aren't and don't. I don't see how destroying embryos on the way to having a child is somehow more ethically acceptable than curing "everything from A to Z".

Personally, I have no problem harvesting embryos, even if a woman consents to being a "farm" for eggs. An embryo is no more a human than cake batter still in the mixing bowl is a cake. Obviously, this is where my opinion diverges from many of you. That's okay. All I ask is consistency in our respective positions.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[smallpaul]

You know, I, personally would never go through what some would go through to have a child. My wife and I were trying to have a second child and we got to the point where insurance would not cover it. I said we can't go any further. While it saddens me a little, I stil have my son. I do not want her to risk her life trying fertility drugs and possibly have 3 or more kids to take care of. Don't get me wrong, I love kids and God gave me a wonderful child to love everyday, but I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way.

Maybe God is trying to tell you to adopt.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[edwdig]

I would argue that an embryo is precisely an equivalent to someone on life support. Left outside of an uterus there is absolutely no hope that this embryo will sprout into a full blown human.

The same argument can be made about an infant or a toddler. If you left an infant or toddler in the woods on their own, the odds of them surving to be an adult on their own are almost zero. Very young children are only slightly less dependant on others than they were when in the womb.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Irish_Samurai]

The interesting facet you bring up, that most Americans are ignorant about Stem Cells, is a real grey area - a grey area exploited by both sides of the coin.

Who gets to detirmine what the criteria for ignorant is? How is that criteria applied? To say that most Americans are ignorant on subject X is a completely elitist and useless statement. I know what the definition of ignorant is, but that information does nothing to map the threshhold of its applied definition.

The jury is still out on exactly what stem cell research can and cannot help. The only reason intelligent people agree that it can't cure EVERYTHING is because that is the only sane stance to take. An absolute cure all technology is just too good to believe, and most likely too good to be true. So, by default, you must assume it cannot cure everything. Come on, they are still doing research on how to GET the cells.

There are also people out there who understand the available research data, but prefer to lean their arguments towards the ethical implications. In the perspective of their opposition, they are often deemed ignorant. I think the biggest contributing factor is a widespread belief in situational ethics and moral relevatism. Their application creates paradoxes such as the acceptance of embryos being destroyed during fertilization procedures while their destruction for research purposes is not accepted. If you are unable to resolve that conflict internally, and thereby take an opposing view, you are ignorant.

It's statements like that that create the real hurdles in an open and honest debate on the subject. The only purpose they serve is to shift focus from the central arguments at hand, to making one feel that they have to defend their intelligence.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Retric]

Government's get a better return on investment from innovative research than private firms. BR>
Take Satellite TV which is really an outgrowth of several gov funded research programs such as Radar (British), Rockets (Germany, US, Russia), Digital Computing, (British, US) Ect. Now all of those programs and much more where needed to get satellites into orbit but the these Governments got more than just TV satellites out of them they also got weather sat's, GPS and SPY sat's Ect. No single company would find research into rocketry, computing, and radar as useful as these governments do because they get revenue from any person or organization that uses that technology.

Because Governments get revenue from research until the end of time vs. 20 year patents they are much more motivated to release research to everyone and to look into things that don't pay off for years. Do you think the US Gov got less value out of UNIX than Bell Labs?

Research is the only reason why you're not sleeping naked in the woods. Every thing from the P4 to the most club is a direct result of past research. But hay just because it was so useful thought human history does not mean it will continue to be so. Let's slow down avoid looking into things that will not pay off in the next 5 years because that's about as long as corporations are willing to wait and that's just fine with you.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I personally feel if God wants us to have another child it will happen.....the normal, old fashioned way.

I've noted many times that almost all successful, mainstream religions are founded on people absolving themselves of personal responsibility. Your statement is just a way of saying, "I'm not responsible for what happens god is. It's all god's fault."

I lose a good deal of respect for anyone who makes such a statement. If god wanted that baby to survive he'd pull him out of the river himself, why should I get my feet wet? Take responsibility for yourself already. If you have more children or not is up to you and your wife and biology (and a little physics). Don't expect god to knock her up or change her biology.

As an aside, please don't have any more children. We're suffering both an overpopulation problem and a problem with orphaned children. There are thousands of 8-15 year old children with no families and no homes. Most of them are minorities. Please adopt one if you want another child.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[greenegg77]

A little nit-picking here - an egg is not an embryo. An embryo is created when sperm fertilizes the egg, thus merging the DNA from the father with the that of the mother. So, to use your anology - an egg is the cake mix, the sperm is the milk, and they form a cake.
The question is not if it is ok to throw out the cake mix or the milk, but is it ok to throw out the cake while it is baking. Would you not say that the cake is no longer just cake mix and milk, but something more, something unlike its parent components?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Mornelithe]

No, you're missing the point. These embryos aren't going to go on to become babies at all. It's a choice between:

1. Using them for research
2. Throwing them away

There is no, "let them go on to become babies" option. There's nowhere to put them so that they'll grow. There is no life support for these particular embryos anymore. They've already been taken off life support.

The original point was that, once you decide to take the baby off life support, do you donate the organs, or bury it? He argues that most parents would choose to donate the organs and save other lives.

He's not arguing that we should pull people off life support to harvest their organs when they have a chance of survival. That's a straw man.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[mikehoskins]

Regarding the debate, Bush is losing.

Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".

Most Americans thought slavery was a good thing and that "people of color" should not have the same rights as those who were not "people of color."

So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make.... Does 50.00000001% or 99.999999999% make it *right*?

Of course not.

I wonder how barbaric we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[uptoeleven]

A little more nit-picking here.

You ask is it ok to throw out the cake while it is baking?

Let's define "baking".

In terms of embryonic stem cell research the "baking" is not that the cake has been in the oven. It's not even that the cake has been waved in the general direction of the oven. The cake in the case of stem cell research is more at the stage where the person with the mixing bowl thinks "Ooo I'd better put the oven on" then puts the bowl down, wanders over to the oven and switches it on. It's the baking that's done at room-temperature while the baker is at the oven peering through inches of grime at the temperature guage trying to work out whether that half covered number is a 5 or a 9.

When a woman miscarries do we have a full-blown funeral? No.

Moral questions are being raised and left unanswered by people whose beliefs preclude the concept of making the laws, by which they live, apply to new situations. Is it not the prime duty of all people to ensure that those who are alive are able to remain so? In some religions abortion is permitted where birth would damage or even kill the mother. Therefore some religions are already drawing a distinction between living and the "not-yet-living".

Would it not be sensible to assign a sliding scale to the viability of embryos? Thus a 2 or 3 day old clump of stem cells is clearly not viable and therefore not as "alive" as a foetus after 3 months. And a foetus at that stage is not as alive as a feotus after 6 months, which in turn is not as alive as a baby just about to be born.

How "alive" is a bunch of cells at 2 or 3 days? Is it as alive as a full grown adult dying from a disease that could only have been researched and cured had stem cells been available?

Also since stem-cells are the building blocks of life, surely these synthesized stem cells are just as viable and able to produce a live baby as the stem cells sourced directly from an embryo?

Great!

[BlackCobra43]

How long till we see anything coemfrom this?
Months? Nah
Years? Maybe.
Decades? Seems to be the most likely.
Don`t mean to rain on this parade, but if there's one thing that's even slower than game develoment (*cough*DNF*cough*) it's medical research.

Flamebait

[1967mustangman]

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George W. Bush, find objectionable. = FLAMEBAIT

Re:Flamebait

[slavemowgli]

Insightful, too, though. The president has a moral obligation to do what's best for the country as a whole instead of acting out of his own personal religious beliefs.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[MightyMartian]

Before anyone starts flaming Christians or George W. Bush - Christians are not opposed to stem cell research - only the source of stem cells being aborted humans. We have no problem with stem cell research when the stem cells come from umbilical cords or adult cadavers. Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.

I'd like to explore your belief that all Christians are against using aborted fetuses. I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman of God and all things Christian.

Morals vs progress

[Lord_Dweomer]

It is always fascinating to see what holds us back from scientific progress. I'm not saying one side is correct on the issue of stem cell research (although personally I'm all for it) but it really makes you wonder how far we'd be along scientifically if we did not have these debates. Sure, we might all be dead because of it, but we might also be immortal.

The other fascinating thing to see is what sorts of scientific loopholes people discover to get around these moral issues. In this case, it serves a dual purpose, but interesting nonetheless.

So at the dreamers end of the scale of possibilities, where do the geneticists on here think we'll be in 10 years once we've charged ahead with developing stem cell research?

No better way to say it than...

[The Woodworker]

From the perspective someone who has had 3 people in their family die of cancer.

They find it objectionable...fuck'em. Let's see what their attitudes are when their ass is on the line.

Re:No better way to say it than...

[theStorminMormon]

For starters, I don't think anyone has proposed any use of stem cells to fight cancer. So while I respect the emotion of your position, you seem to have no grasp of the actual specifics of the issues whatsoever. That makes you both passionate and uninformed. A dangerous combination. Putting that aside... My grandfather - who was extremely healthy, relatively young, and whom I was very close to - passed away last summer from stomach cancer. My wife's mother (I actually LIKE my mother-in-law) has been battling breast cancer for 15 years and is currently going through yet another round of chemo. Diseases like this suck, and I hate them. But the truth is that I believe that even if I myself had cancer, I would refuse a treatment that involved using stem cells from an aborted embryo. For the same reason that I would refuse to have my life spared by the killing of an infant, a toddler, or any other human. Sure, you can taunt me and claim that I don't know because I haven't been there and that such high-minded principles fall by the wayside in the struggle for life istelf. But those are my principles, and they are what I beleive in. No matter how bad the experiences in your life have been I think you need to be open to the possibility that other view points can also have compelling motivations and stir up just as much passion as your own. Finally to the argument in general, I'm specifically opposed to stem cells harvested from destroyed embryos. I am also uncomfortable with the use of "discarded" embryos, and I am also uncomfortable with the whole notion of discarding (or even freezing) embryos that are left over from fertility treatments. I say "uncomfortable" and not "opposed" because I think conviction should be a function of both your opinion of the relevant facts and your degree of certainty in the relevant facts. I think it would be good if more people followed that principle.

Don't believe the hype

[Mobile Unit of the G]

There's a lot more to the genotype of a somatic cell than DNA: cells accumulate a whole bunch of 'markers' such as methylated bases and proteins stuck to the DNA, and repeat units that fall off the ends of the chromosome with every cell division.

Nature has good mechanism for making sure germ line (reproductive cells) stay in a good state, but manipulated cells never seem to be 100% right. Clones often end up with poor health and life expectancy because of this, and I'm afraid stem cell therapy will end in poor results, maybe even cancer.

It's bizzare that stem cells have become such an issue for the left and the right. I see Democrats screaming at the top of their lungs so we can have more research into medical treatments that we can't afford, while Republicans are blowing the ethical issues entirely out of proportion.

And the economist might say...

[stienman]

Scientists were bound to find other less ethically charged sources of stem cells once the market for easy obtained cells was restricted. In other words, had the restriction not existed it would be unlikely that this path of research would have been explored as vigorously as it has.

As an aside, one reason the government's restriction on using federal funds is causing so many problems is due to the way research organizations request and use federal grants. If scientist A is doing embryonic stem cell research in scientific foundation XYZ's labs without government funding, then it is likely that
no one working in those buildings, or under the auspices of foundation XYZ can do legitimate gov't funded stem cell research. The reason can be as simple as part of the money of any grant goes towards the general lighting and HVAC "pool" of resources and then is used as needed. That means that some of the gov't funding is going to be paying for lighting in the area where stem cell research is going on that is lot eligible for gov't funding. It is possible, but costly (administrative costs as well as physically seperating mechanical and lighting systems) to strictly seperate all resources, but for most organizations it is more profitable to work completely within gov't guidelines and regulations so as not to restrict other research.

Of course these stem cells may have different properties than embyronic stem cells. But until we have some useful treatments involving the current fully-funded stem cells then why are these specific types of cells so coveted when we have no idea if they will actually be better or worse than other stem cells we can get from other resources? And why are run-on sentences so annoying?

-Adam

Re:Objective Morality

[Alphanos]

The question here is one of morality, not whether the science is valid or not. Surely you would not say that anything is moral in science, so how do you plan on objectively defining morality? The only method that is really practical in a democratic country is to define it based on majority opinion, rightly or wrongly, which is (in theory at least) the same way the legal system is set up. Whether you like it or not, it seems that the majority, or at least their elected representatives, view this particular type of research as an immoral thing.

Also, since it is an issue of morality, arguments based upon the merits of the science are mostly irrelevant. The lack of federal funding isn't due to the politicians (and public) not understanding what the benefits could be, but because they do understand that certain prerequisites exist which they are unwilling to accept.

Speak for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Christian who believes that NOT researching embrionic stem cells is a sin. I also believe that George Bush is going to burn in hell, as he is the proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing."

Christians don't invade countries on the basis of lies. Christians don't steal elections. Christians don't execute people.

Christians don't act like George Bush.

Not "create", they "synthesized"

[FredThompson]

Nope, these guys didn't "create" a cell any more than a potter creates clay. They took existing material and manipulated it.

Re:Screw you hippy tree hugging anti stem cell tur

[YrWrstNtmr]

I am sick of people being against this. If they don't want to have anything to do with stem cells, then don't.

They're trying not to. They'd rather not be forced to pay for it, via taxes.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[n-baxley]

The objection is that if the use of these embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply. What then happens when all of the "natural" embryos are used up? There will be money, possibly federal money, available to entice someone into creating more embryos. Now the embryos are not just a byproduct that would have been thrown away anyway, but the product itself. Therein lies the problem. It's currently a byproduct because there is no market for it, but if the market is built the system will be abused.

Re:Objective Morality

[TheRaven64]

I agree. I would much rather live in a country which is hesitant to commit to stem cell research because of ethical grounds (with which I personally disagree) than one which allows `medical research' programs which involve torturing thousands of Jews, for example - the other end of the same scale.

Stem cell research should definitely proceed eventually, but only after clear ethical guidelines have been worked out that will prevent it degenerating into something along the lines of cloning entire humans as organ donors.

Baby Farms

[Shakes268]

I think a lot of the conservative outlook is not on the effect of funding it now but what happens down the road once precedents are set and the lines are ethics are crossed to a point of no return. Imagine large facilities that do nothing but farm embryos for stem cells. Ebay "Selling embryo!" and many other horrible things. Scavengers who kill pregnant women to sell off embryos, etc. It can lead to a lot of bad things if not kept in check.

Re:What's The Prob?

[MightyMartian]

I can't disagree with what you say, though I think everyone has come to the agreement that McCain will never sit in the Oval Office. That the press and the Republican Party let a guy who spent the Vietnam War safely in the Air National Guard besmirch the character of a guy who was an actual POW will always be beyond me. But that's neither here nor there. What is real is that the Republican Party has become the party of the panderers. Whether guys like Frist really believe what they say, when you see a flipflop on stem cell research, you just got to wonder what values the guy actually has. The US is falling behind in the sciences, and these guys would happily win a few elections, and the future be damned.

Someday is today

[gillbates]

Doctors hope to someday use embryonic stem cells as a source of perfectly matched transplants to treat diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's and some injuries. [emphasis added]

Currently, doctors are already using adult stem cells to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and some forms of cancer.

Which lends me to believe that the debate about embrionic stem cell research has very little to do with actually creating cures for diseases. It seems to me that the debate is more about the role of science in society than the actual results it produces. It would seem to some that science is man's highest endeavor, capable of doing no wrong. To them, anything, no matter how horrible, is justifiable in the name of science.

But what is really interesting is that the opposition to embrionic stem cell research is not an opposition to science or discovery, but rather an affirmation of the dignity of the human being. They see science as the servant of mankind, not mankind as the servant of science. The fundamental objection of embrionic stem cell research is not an objection to discovery, but rather that the research is being done with a secondary objective of allowing science to arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human.

And this is the fundamental battle over embrionic stem cell research. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with removing the role of the church from ethical decisions in public policy.

Interestingly, I still find it ironic that some people believe there is a conflict between science and religion:

• Religion finds answers the ethical questions facing all of mankind.
• Science explains the natural world.
• Together, with the ethical guidelines provided by religion, and the knowledge provided by science, society can make decisions which preserve both the dignity of the individual and benefit society as a whole.

I still find it strange that some people believe that science alone can answer all of the questions facing mankind, or that religion alone can sufficiently explain the natural universe. It's all knowledge folks; it enlightens those who are willing to accept it. Insisting that science somehow "proves" God doesn't exist, or that an ancient religious text "scientifically describes" the creation of the world benefits no one and only shows one's ignorance.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[WombatControl]

My point, if it's not clear, is that embryonic stem cells are taken at a stage when it is not individually unique. A lot of people also seem to be happy with either in vitro fertilization or birtch control pills while opposing embryonic stem cell research.

That isn't entirely accurate. A blastocyst is a genetically unique individual, it has DNA that differs from both mother and father. I don't have problems with birth control, since embryos don't always implant naturally. I do have a problem with an environment where human beings become little more than commodities to be exploited. Where's the difference between harvesting "unwanted" children for medical research and ESCR? There are plenty of overpopulated countries where kids would just die of diseases anyway? Why not use them for research? Embryos are genetically unique individuals, which is why they deserve some measure of protection. A society that starts viewing certain human lives as less worthy of protection than others is not a society that's on a healthy ethical footing.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[dougmc]

Of course, your summary isn't really honest either --

The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life.

You're painting the pro-choice crowd with an awfully broad brush here. A large number of `pro-choice' people (including myself) don't really like the idea of killing embryos for whatever reason, but are pro-choice because we think it should be up to the mother (and father, though probably to a smaller extent), not the church or the government.

I suspect that there may have been a few pro-choice people who are as you said they are, but I suspect it's a small minority.

if you listen to the argument on the left that there is NO MORAL question

The `left' says there is no moral question? It may be that the `right' is generally `pro-life' and the `left' is generally `pro-choice', but these are hardly hard and fast rules. And I'm not aware of many `pro-choice' people who would claim that there is `NO MORAL question' about abortion (and stem cell research) at all.

Nazi research

[John Jorsett]

I'd compare this issue to that of the exploitation of Nazi medical "research". Nazi scientists compiled a lot of data on what the limits of human endurance were, such as how much cold could be withstood before death ensued. You can imagine how they acquired that data. There were those who wanted to make use of it, because, after all, the people were dead in any case and perhaps some good could come of it. Others were horrified at the very idea of exploiting data that came with the taint of human suffering.

If we can benefit from the use of embryonic stem cells without the ethical and moral problems inherent in obtaining them from actual embryos, isn't this a win for both sides of the issue? I submit that anyone who objects at this point isn't interested in medical advancement, but has some other agenda, for which this issue is just a proxy.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[JWW]

We're always 5-10 years away from true breaktrhoughs, which 5-10 years from now are still 5-10 years away.

See: Flying Car

I think the previous statement about 20 years is a fairly balanced guess, but we'll see about that 20 years from now. ;-)

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's been considerably great results in stem cell research already. 65 viable treatments have been found. The only thing is, that is from ADULT stem cell research. The nice thing about adult stem cell research is that there are no sticky ethical/moral problems. The bad thing is, despite the fact that there's great results, everyone and their mother is focused on embryonic research.

A great link on adult rtem cell research is located at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Re:What is life?

[PIPBoy3000]

You joke, but throughout the years, people's definition of who is human has changed wildly over the years. It used to be that in order to be counted as human, you had to be of the same ethnic background, religion, gender, and/or economic background. Of course, there's nothing in science that nicely categorizes people and non-people.

On a personal note, I would greatly prefer stem cell research to be more open than it currently is. I think it should be matter of course that growing new organs is a high priority. I had a coworker in the same boat as you. She's doing surprisingly well - got married, sailed around the world, and is coping with the progression of her eventual kidney failure. Best of luck to you.

And Cord Blood is ignore because?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm lost as to why Cord Blood is ignored, especially new discoveries like this http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7864 that they can make it embryonic in character? -- Or do we just want to push for Embryonic, blindly, because we don't want to allow anyone to question our ethics?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The objection is that if the use of these embryos for stem cell research is allowed then the demand for them will rise sharply... It's currently a byproduct because there is no market for it, but if the market is built the system will be abused.

So if people enjoy shooting at cars, and occasionally kill someone that's ok, but if we allow salvage companies to make a profit recycling those cars there will be a profit motive and more people will shoot at cars?!?

What the hell kind of logic is that? Either it is right or wrong. Embryos are naturally aborted about half the time. More embryos are aborted when more are created using fertility drugs. This has been the case for thousands of years. Now all of a sudden, it is wrong for that to happen and we have to minimize the number of times it happens? And we have to minimize it not by banning fertility drugs or researching ways to prevent embryos except when desired, but by banning the use of dead embryos for medical research? I'm sorry but if you want to stop embryos from dying you're going about it the least efficient way, and a way that is most detrimental to your fellow humans (you know the ones with developed brains that can think and move and do things). I try to be open minded about spiritually based beliefs but it is really, really hard when you beliefs are not even consistent with one another and then you come up with convoluted arguments as to why it is ok sometimes, but not others. Make up your mind.

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[John Newman]

If this discovery is confirmed then it means that Bush's compromise worked out wonderfully, whether you like him or not. He allowed the basic research to continue, and scientists found a solution.

I can ignore your insulting but expected demonization of the "left", but this bit is just absurd. It's "comfirmed" that Bush is a genius? No, it's evidence that scientists are willing to make heroic efforts on behalf of all of us desipte the inane restrictions Bush put in place. There's no rational argument that the science will go more rapidly without federal support than with. There's no argument that the billions of dollars that have been appropriated from state taxes and private donations could have been spent more productively if the federal money was there instead. There's no question that the recent breakthroughs in Korea would have happened here first if our government acted as enlightened as Korea's (?!). There's no question that scientists have already left the US out of fear of further restrictions being enacted in the future.

It is patently absurd to assign any credit to Bush for the hard, innovative work of dedicated scientists. He put a huge roadblock in their path, and they're figuring out how to laboriously claw their way around it. I see this as yet another sign of how fast this field could have moved if we gave it a decent level of support.