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

[dr_dank]

However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as some would paint the opposition.

I understand that most of the embryo's are leftover from fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded. What moral qualms could be had for experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?

Why aren't the religious zealots freaking out about the "unborn" being unceremoniously dumped into a biohazard waste bin at the fertility clinic the same way they freak out if they experiment on it, possibly saving lives in the process?

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

[wambaugh]

I believe both the original poster and the would-be corrector are incorrect. The correct wording would be to substitute "creating" with "using". The embryos used to create stem cell lines are "extras" from fertility treatments. They will be created and destroyed independent of stem cell research.

Targeting stem cell research is merely a way of winning over voters who dislike what they perceive as the demystifying of "humanity" by science without alienating people who are in favor of fertility treatments.

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

[TheRealMindChild]

At what point do you decern the difference between cells we can destroy and ones we can't? I mean, you wouldn't have any objection to me eating an apple. It is, by your, and many others definition, alive. What is I chopped off my own arm? Am I not allowed to destroy it? It certainly is "alive". More so than the embryos that people are "destroying".
 
Would it be murder if I drown a kid that was born with no brain?
 
Personally, I think the whole idea of "life" isn't what we should or DO care about. It should be conciousness. We should not destroy a concious being. It should be illegal to destroy conciousness... not the ambiguous "life" you speak of.

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

[brunson]

If 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. They routinely fertilize 50-70 eggs for implantation and when one (or four or eight) finally takes, the remaining dozens are destined either for stem cell research or the incinerator.

At least in research they're giving their 'lives' to the possible benefit of may sick individuals. Otherwise, in the vocabulary of the Anti-Choicers, they're just abortions by the crate load.

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

[learn fast]

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".

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Alex P Keaton in da]

So it is somewhat analagous to eating chicken eggs? I never understood why vegetarians won't eat eggs. (I understand why Vegans don't) Eggs we eat are the unfertalized ones, so they won't ever become chicks. Even if we don't eat them. (Not to be totally vile, but the same way that the egg that ebds up on a maxi pad each month will never become a human)
They actually check the chicken eggs before shipping them off to be eaten....
On the converse- get caught destroying a bald eagle or a piping plover egg, and see how the government feels about the "not yet born."
I am going to be honest- I have trouble formenting an opinion on stem cells, because each time I lean one way, something pulls me back in the other direction. My question, if stem cells lead to a cure for cancer, will those who opposed the stem cell research boycott the treatment, and die?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[kermyt]

I can't believe I'm actually replying to an AC, but here goes.

I can only speak for the US, and this only applies to research that is not Black or Grey (secret or top secret status). But any publicly funded research requires the results to be public. If the research is privately funded then the results of the research is property of the private company that funded it. Private companies do not make it policy to share research. This means that _only_ publicly funded research is available for others to follow without having to pay for a patent or trademark.

I guess my point here is that Human intellectual advancement is hampered by private research. only because the results of that research are not always made public unless the private entity sees a way of turning a buck off of it.

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

[Retric]

The federal government is not allowed to fund any organization which does embryonic stem cell research. So if an organization is doing 200 studies using 1000 researchers and 1/2 of them are federally funded then you would think they could use private money to do an embryonic stem cell study. But, if they did that they would lose ALL gov funding to ALL of their projects.

Now can you see why people might object to this? It's not that it bans federal funding for research but it ALSO limits the research these organizations can do with private funding.

PS: When you look at the history of scientific research over the last 100 years most ground breaking research has been paid for by government organizations. Now if you want to give up satellite TV, the internet, computers, and most of the other advances over the last hundred years then your viewpoint might have market but that's hey you don't know what you would be giving up so it must not be that important.

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Vitriol Angst]

This is good. But I'm not clear on what is the benefit when you are starting with a stem cell and ending with a stem cell. How is the new cell different.

Also, I think the fundamental issue about stem cells and anti-abortion in general is that both sides are not talking about the same thing.

Pro-Life looks at human life as precious. Without looking at what life is being lived.

Pro-Choice is looking at when human consciousness and a valuable like begin AND end. Often, they are proponents of the "Right to Die". Brain dead is looked at as not a useful life, nor is extreme pain looked at as something people should endure.

The difference between a human cluster of embryonic cells and those of a monkey or a rat are only in the genes that eventually will be expressed. Personally, I don't see the difference morally between Embryonic stem cells and somebody taking a bath. Both entail killing human cells that carry a human genetic code. The idea that we are killing human life by using the Embryonic Stem Cells will be stood on its ear as soon as we can make a human from a skin cell, or any number of cells not currently involved in reproduction. So is it that the gene is sacred? Or the fact that a cell is involved in reproduction? Is a person created from a skin cell going to be just as valid/human as a "natural born" person.

I think, when you look at life and humanity from a consciousness/value perspective --then it is a lot easier to deal with new advances in science and leads to rights and ethical treatment for new type of life we have not yet considered.

The ethics of "Right to Life" don't seem to be based on value of life at all, but in preserving either a sacred DNA or a sacred reproductive cell. Note, that there is no issue with non-reproductive cells, nor is their any issue with DNA. It seems, that because it is human DNA involved in reproduction it automatically becomes sacred. The ethical quagmire this will put us in will only get worse as science continues. There hasn't been enough discussion of what we actually value when we say the word "life".

I think the bigger issue comes when we can tinker with genes to "improve people". Many would say that increasing intelligence, or reducing disease would be OK. But it is much harder to really define what makes people smarter or more useful. And any improvement ends up becoming mixed with Social Engineering. But we cannot ignore that. We are going to Engineer Society just as much by ignoring differences as we are by creating them. If the wealthy can enhance (and they will--maybe overseas) then aren't you going to end up with a lower tier of humanity by NOT making it affordable/acceptable for the lower classes to enhance?

But then, what do we want to improve--and what are the results? Some may want to tweak people to become "more religious" or "less likely to prefer same sex" -- these are probably going to actually end up being the "easier" of things to change. This will probably be the hardest and most difficult ethical debate humanity has ever faced (until robots think, that is). I don't think present society is up to the debate, because we still don't seem to have caught on to really understanding WHY we hold certain beliefs. We also seem to have become addicted to self-righteousness on both sides that will hamper our ability to find common ground.

I personally think, a lot of this issue is clouded by positions people have taken and personal identity and positions are more polarized by political opportunism. Until that changes, I don't feel very hopeful.

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

[dachshund]

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.

This is a line I see frequently from people who really should know better. As if nobody was having this debate anyway, as if it wouldn't happened without the President f*ing up research for years.

What's particularly aggravating about it is that iit basically means "sure maybe it was a bad call, but it's all good because we had this good debate". Or in other words: "yes, the position is probably wrong", but at least I made us kill a few years talking about it. I would almost rather people be firmly on the other side than to offer such a lame justification for bad decisionmaking.

Worse, instead of giving us something to debate, the President tried to have it both ways with a poorly thought-out "compromise" that looked good, but really wasn't-- and he then ignored the issue for years. So while most people were figuring out that the President had not actually offered a reasonable compromise at all, years of progress slid away. Meanwhile the public has discussed these issues ad nauseum (for years!) and come to a broad consensus in favor of research. Yet the President and many members of Congress have made it clear that there's still no room in their philosophy (or their constituents' checkbooks) for digression on this issue. So that's not much to smile about.

If any "side" of this argument has the right to be aggrieved, it's the pro-research folks, and the scientists who have had their work shut down for reasons inadequately explained, and inadequately justified. Not the people who can't even justify the decision on its merits, but hide behind the notion that scientists were just looking to chop up embryos without "debate".

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

[Johnboi Waltune]

I never understood why vegetarians won't eat eggs.

It has something to do with the way the chickens are raised, locked in tiny cages for their whole lives, choking on their own filth, and forced to live as egg factories. They become physically and mentally ill in that environment, demonstrating self-mutilation behavior and a drastically reduced lifespan.

Many vegetarians will buy "free range" eggs, which cost much more, but are harvested from chickens that are not kept in cages.

Here is some good documentation of the ways hens are mistreated.

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

[skarth]

Exactly right.

(cut to Buchenwald, 1945)...

GI #1: Hey, what's this? A lampshade made of human skin? That would look good at home.

GI #2: What are you doing? You can't take that with you!

GI #1: Sure, why not? The person whose skin this was is already dead. It was going to be thrown out anyway. Might as well make use of it now. Besides, it's not like it's a whole person either. It's just their skin.

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

[neoform]

since when is a living human the same as a few cells?

I shed "human cells" every day in the form of hair and skin.. would you call those cells "human" ?

having a brick doesn't mean you have a house.

cells are cells, they are not humans.

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

[KaushalParekh]

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.

You can not patent the "sequence" of a gene. The whole genome sequence is freely available to the public.

In simple terms what you could patent is the discovery that "this piece of sequence does that" or how it functions in nature and how can it be utilized.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome /elsi/patents.shtml

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

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I prefer brown eggs. I like getting them while they are still warm. People never believe me until they actually try them, but eggs that have been out from under the hen for just a few minutes before you cook them taste very different than what you get at the supermarket, or even free range eggs.
A lot of city folks will buy free range stuff that is 5 times as expensive than the regular stuff, yet not very different in either taste or the way the chickens live. I know city dwellers like to think that those of us who were raised on farms are idiots, but we do get a chuckle out of being able to sell an egg for $2 because the chicken was, um, "happy"....

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

[mOdQuArK!]

Really? Government-financed research is at least in the public domain, and any entrepreneur who can see an opportunity is welcome to take the results of that research & run as far & as fast as they can go.

By contrast, and especially with the current state of our "intellectual property" laws, anything developed by a private interest will be doled out at whatever rate will maximize profit - and any attempts at competition will be ruthlessly stamped out.

Do you really think leaving basic research up to private concerns yields the most benefit for society?

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

[Clod9]

By this logic, if my child is a pain in the neck I ought to be able to cut his throat and burn him in the wood stove. And if you discover that I have done so, I should say "mind your own business!"

I violently disagree with the idea that all people should keep their damn noses out of all the affairs of other people.

Unless, of course, you claim that "a fetus is not a human being" and has the same rights as, say, a fly. But if you say that, then we can have a meaningful discourse about the nature of life, man, and society. But I don't think you want that.

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?

Re:s/creating/destroying

[Skye16]

Also, when you mention the egg is not an embryo - I'm aware. IVF procedures usually have multiple eggs being fertilized at any given time. Once they determine which eggs have been fertilized and which haven't, they then insert (more than one) egg into the uterus. It often happens that many of these zygotes/embryos die, but usually at least one makes it through. Sometimes a lot more than one. But they usually still have some left over, to make sure that the lady has, indeed, been impregnated, and if not, then they don't have to go through the entire IVF procedure again. They can just insert new zygotes/embryos that they have sitting around from the last time through. This is good if she isn't pregnant. But if she is pregnant, and she knows she doesn't want any more children, the zygotes/embryos are either frozen or destroyed.

Or at least that's what wikipedia told me :)

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.

Re:Great!

[biglig2]

Perhaps you'd like to try this totally untested stem-cell treatment for that nasty cough of yours?

Before anyone starts flaming..

[RailGunner]

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.

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.

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[pointbeing]

I'm just glad I am not a witch (I'm not made of wood).

But do you weigh the same as a duck, heretic?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[fireduck]

So what is your stance on the destruction of unused embryos at fertility clinics? Why hasn't there been as vocal outcry from Christians regarding that as there has been for stem cells from embryos?

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[Zemplar]

I'm just glad I am not a witch (I'm not made of wood).

But do you weigh the same as a duck, heretic?

"She's a Witch!"

"Buuuuuurrrrrrnnnnnnn Her!"

Re:Before anyone starts flaming..

[eheldreth]

On a completely different look at in vitro fertilization and if we as a society should allow it is the fact that there are a lot of orphaned children that need families. By allowing in vitro fertilization we not only generate the ethical questions raised above, but also create an environment in which children that would have been adopted by otherwise children less couples are raised without proper parental love and care. I think we would be better off finding caring homes for these children, than just creating more children through artificial means.

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:Before anyone starts flaming..

[SlayerofGods]

Ohhh the bible is just the cliff notes. That makes sense, God is all powerful, but yet can't express himself properly.

Please, that's BS
This new take that bible is not to be taken literally is an attempt to give meaning to a book that has largely lost it's meaning in the modern world. The bible was written by combining a bunch of second hand stories and by a bunch of people with nothing better to do then follow around a guy who said he was the son of God.
If your willing to admit that the is not the word of God then why obey it at all?
For all you know Moses was lieing when he said the commandments were written by God and he jotted them down himself. But you still believe that killing is against god don't you? Why do you pick and choose the parts of the bible that need 'interpreting' and the parts that are clear? I'll tell you why, because it's an attempt at justification of your beliefs. Your weak mindedness can't allow you accept that there might be no God, that some question might go unanswered, that you need God to give your life meaning. And so when forced to choose between what's right (example being women's rights, which the bible is also against) and your faith that says they shouldn't have any rights you try to have your cake and eat it to.

The hypocrisy of it all just piss me off to no end.

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.

And another thing...

[imstanny]

I just read an article about this, don't know how close it is to this one, but it was stated that the converted stem cells retain the DNA of the doner. The significance of this is that any organ or body part derived from that stem cell could be safely transplanted into that person without fear of rejection. Nifty.

Re:And another thing...

[Just Some Guy]

I just read an article about this

<western>We don't like yer kind 'round here.</western>

Re:And another thing...

[fbartho]

From what I remember from other articles concerning transplantation of organs/cells... its not the DNA that triggers the rejection... at least not right away... Initially your body recognizes cells as foreign by their surface proteins... each person has a more or less unique pattern... hence why family members are more likely to provide good transplants... the proteins are close enough... That's how certain diseases get beyond our defenses... they infect a cell, and suddenly have our surface protein pattern and hide from our immune system...

This is also why some of those stem cell lines that had been created on a feed of mouse(?) skin and blood were contaminated... the surface proteins bled between the cells, and suddenly the stem cell lines had mouse proteins and thus could never be implanted in people... the host would immediately notice the proteins and would attack the cells as a foreign body "rejection"

Great news!

[Swamii]

Even though this is good news for science and the future of medicine, this is Slashdot; I feel like I should start an inflammatory politically charged internet argument that will result in hundreds of follow up posts and lots of angry name-calling.

So, allow me start us off:
I hate Bush. Discuss.

Re:Great news!

[erlenic]

Boy, you need to listen to more patriotic country music and stay away from all those hippies at the local college. They'll rot your brain out. That's why you hate America. But with time...and country music...you can heal your wounds. Try shooting guns too...lots of guns.
</stereotypical redneck accent>

Re:Great news!

[Tmack]

I preffer shrubberies myself...

tm

Re:Great news!

[Methuseus]

I hate bush too. I like it nice and smooth down there.

Oh, you're talkinga bout President Bush? I hate him too, but for different reasons....

Re:Great news!

[WillAffleckUW]

I preffer shrubberies myself...

Ah, yes, but are they African shrubberies, or North American shrubberies?

Personally, I'm kind of partial to South American shrubberies ...

GPL'd Biology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooops, I read that as
"U.S. scientists were successful in creating a new human embryonic stem cell from source."

Do stem cells run on Linux?

Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Science, like life, will always find a way :) Btw with regards to the first post, I believe that the line defining a person varies according to ethical belief, and argument 99.9% of the time in matters involving such belief tend to be pointless. I could make an argument saying that masturbation is mass murder and at the other end, that a child does not qualify as a sentient being. I personally believe neither, but I'd just like to point the futility in arguing such points unless either side is willing to keep an open mind.

I still long for the day...

[csoto]

when we can have baboons, fish and any other creature with eight asses. What a glorious day that will be!

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?

Re:Morals vs progress

[MightyMartian]

To me the ethics issue is rather a moot point. Since the laws do not ban those embryos from being aborted, it seems to me that the law has already dealt with the ethical issue. Now what's left is to see whether those embryos will be used for research, and possibly to cure a whole host of disorders, or whether they'll be tossed into the burner with the kidney stones and bandaids.

This whole debate is simply railing about closing the barn door after the cows have come home. If all these people who find stem cells from aborted embryos so despicable really meant it, they'd be demanding an end to the use of reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization. I still wouldn't agree with them, but at least there would be some consistency in their platform.

It would be one thing if we were talking about actually producing an embryo whose only purpose was to produce stem cells. Yes, that would be a pretty thorny issue, but these embryos already exist and it seems to me that if they can be used to produce therapies with promise for everything from Alzheimers to spinal cord injuries, then it is cruelty in the extreme to withhold those embryos that are being aborted legally anyways.

Sure, down the road, we probably won't need embryos at all, and our understanding of developmental biology will allow us to do all these things and much much more, but for the moment, this research holds an enormous amount of promise, and is using what is already there.

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.

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.

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

[dbenhur]

I really have to respect opinions so firmly rooted in fact.

For starters, I don't think anyone has proposed any use of stem cells to fight cancer.

From the National Institutes of Health's Stem Cell FAQ:

Healthcare Questions

1. Why are doctors and scientists so excited about human embryonic stem cells?

Stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research. To start with, studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process.
...

2. Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet?

... HSCs (hematopoietic stem cells) are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

The problem..

[Renraku]

The problem with stem cells is that conditions must be met for those cells to become differentiated cells.

Take a skin-type stem cell. It will have to have some kind of trigger to tell it to turn into a skin cell and not say..a nerve cell that attaches to the skin, or an oil-producing-cell, etc. These triggers are tiny, have to be given at the right time, and probably won't be easy to produce.

Its like having a batch of nano-goop that will eat the resources available and turn itself into an object, but you have to find out how to tell it that, by hand.

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.

Re:Flamebait

[MillionthMonkey]

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

Even if it should say "destroying" instead of "creating" in that sentence, why is it flamebait?

Re:Infidels: ( +1, Patriotic )

[bigattichouse]

But you completely forgot to mention Flying Spaghetti Monsterism! I am sure the flying spahetti Monster would have something to say about stem cells... perhaps involving "mast cells" or some other piratey theme.

Stem cell research, and federal funding...

[dividedsky319]

Just wanted to mention a random fact that I heard about medical research and federal funding.

Say a company gets federal funds to research cancer, or MS, or any other disease. Most places are involved with the research of many diseases/cures/whatever.

If one lab, or one person even, involved with that company is researching stem cells, federal funding for ALL projects is cut off. Even if the stem cell research within the company is being funded entirely by private sources.

It's because of this policy that a lot of labs aren't able to do any stem cell research.

On that note

[Nf1nk]

I am against this, because I was only for stem cell research as a byproduct of killing babies.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[Brolly]

Actually, the National Institute of Health is the federal agency that assigns the funding in question. The NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human services, which is part of the executive branch, which the president is the head of. There's your constitutional basis.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[convolvatron]

its not illegal. its just that the agencies responsible for handing out research money, part of the executive branch, have made this their policy.

think about how many state laws have been passed under the threat of witholding highway fuding.

there are lots of ways the three branches can push something in and of themselves. they can choose to block something (veto, fillibuster, amendment), but it costs.

This is science at its best

[dachshund]

I think if there's anything that anti- stem-cell research folks should glean from this, it's that scientists are knocking themselves out looking for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. These aren't just a few "good guys" or religiously motivated researchers bucking the trend, they're mainstream scientists who are much more concerned with continuing this promising research than they are with winning any sort of debate. This should seem obvious to most people, but listening to the rhetoric on the other side, you might get a very different impression.

Unfortunately, a lot of this research gets picked up by the anti- side and used as evidence for the (false) view that scientists are just "lazy" or politically motivated, and there are lots of alternatives to embryonic stem cells just lying around if they were willing to use them. Unfortunately, most of these alternatives are not ready for prime time, and won't be for years, maybe decades-- if ever (in fact, you'll see many of them melt away, never to be heard from again once science proves them dangerous or unsatisfactory). Most scientists would like to see this research happening now, because even if it takes decades to result in a cure, a five year head start could mean useable treatments a few years earlier than if we wait. And in some cases, that could save thousands of lives.

You'll also notice that most of the embryonic stem cell research plans currently being proposed make use of excess embryos from IVF clinics, and only after effort has been expended to reduce over-production and boost embryo adoption (which currently is not very successful, but might take off with enough encouragement). Surprisingly few mainstream politicians and scientists are strongly advocating therapeutic cloning, although that technology has even more promise.

Re:This is science at its best

[tnk1]

Most scientists would like to see this research happening now, because even if it takes decades to result in a cure, a five year head start could mean useable treatments a few years earlier than if we wait. And in some cases, that could save thousands of lives.

Sure, and if we'd discovered this two hundred years ago, we'd all be immortal or something now. Or maybe not.

I mean, can someone tell me what the big rush is here?

The fact is that everyone is going to die at one point or another. If thousands or millions die tomorrow, there will still be thousands or millions to save tomorrow. It's not like the human race is depleting itself.

Living longer doesn't make the world a better place for anyone, by itself. Sure, you cure AIDS and then the same person dies five minutes or ten years later of something else.

What makes that extra bit of life worthwhile is a world you actually want to live in. It may be nice to save the old lady dying of a disease, but when you keep her alive for another decade, is she going to be any happier living on that tiny social security check for that much longer? Is she is going to appreciate the fact that you kept her alive by using embryonic "waste products"?

I think we've got our shit bass ackwards in this whole situation. We already have people living unprecendentedly long lives but there is still grinding poverty and an increasing amount of impersonal behavior, such as treating viable humans as waste products to be recycled for research.

Scientists aren't doing anyone a "favor" by looking at other options, they're doing what they should be doing: finding solutions that actually advance humanity rather than simply prolonging it in it's current form.

Re:Can someone please explain to me...

[anaesthetica]

Executive orders do not have (and never have had) the force of law. Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order, and the Supreme Court can strike orders down (and has in the past). The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers.

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.

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.

I'm sick of having all this karma anyway.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

That's damn right. Plus, if we allow this, we have to allow people to eat their children's embryos. And if it turns out that eating the embryos does, in fact, give them the child's strength, then what's to stop them from eating other people's embryos? Or even their pre-teens? Imagine the problems that would cause. It's a very slippery slope that we shouldn't head down.

What is life?

[PIPBoy3000]

I think the biggest issue here is exactly how people define life. Right now the focus seems to be around "if there's conception, there's life", though there's all sorts of issues that make things complicated. Stem cells from umbilical cords seem fine to most folks because it's something typically seen as tossed away. Extracting bulk stem cells from people's brains is probably a no-no, though stem cells from fat tissue is fine.

The bottom line is that there's no obvious definition over what constitutes a living person and what isn't. As someone with a master's degree in biology, I've decided there never is going to be one ("life" will be one of those words like "justice" or "freedom" that mean many things to many people).

What people will find, of course, is that there's a way to reprogram adult cells so that it looks and acts just like embryonic stem cells. Of course, that means that you could turn it into something that looks an awful like a human being. If any cell in your body has the potential for turning into a full-grown human, does that mean liposuction is murder? If I create a stem cell from scratch, can I grow them to term and sell them as non-human slaves?

I'm not necessarily advocating either side in the debate, only that it's one of those ethical decisions rather than something science dictates as fact. I suspect it'll be argued over for many decades to come.

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.

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.

You don't speak for "Christians" in any case

[ianscot]

Christians are not opposed to stem cell research - only the source of stem cells being aborted humans. We have no problem with

Hey, as long as you're speaking for all Christians everywhere -- evidently including me and my extended family, despite none of us ever having signed over any plenipotentiary powers to you -- why don't you go ahead and just tell us what God thinks? You're already speaking for other human beings whose minds you plainly DO NOT KNOW; why not go for the Go(l)d?

See, there's a subtle distinction to be made, there -- or really a not so subtle one, yeah? -- about your own views versus those of all Christianity. It's a distinction that you've missed a handful of times in the course of your three sentence post.

Which makes me a little wary of handing over any sort of moral authority to you and your like-minded authoritarian wannabes when it comes to medical science. You dig?

Questions for anti-ESCR people

[Stickerboy]

From what I hear, most conservatives base their opposition to embryonic stem cell research based on their belief that life begins at conception, producing a unique organism that God grants a unique soul.

I have several questions for all of you:

1) Conception takes place before implantation in the uterus. If you don't already know, many contraceptives work by blocking implantation. Since a conceived zygote is being blocked from developing further (and will die), is this murder?

2) At the stage the cells are taken from (blastocyst), a biologist could divide the inner cell mass (any one of which is used for embryonic SCR) and what would happen is that twins or triplets would develop. If you believe each child is given a unique soul at conception, does that soul also divide into two or three? Or does God give "last-minute" souls out?

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.

Re:Questions for anti-ESCR people

[MikeyTheK]

On 1, the Catholic Church believes that all birth control, save "the rhythm method" is wrong. As for the comment on invitro, the Church is also opposed to it because of the associated destruction of embryos. I believe that both of these positions are dead on.

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: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.

Are you sure about that???

[clonan]

So the egg and sperm were dead before you tossed them in a test tube together?

The truth is, life is a continuous chain that extends back billions of years. This will be true regardless of what happens in a clinic.

While I agree with you on some parts, I think our overall positions are very different. I agree that the organism created by the combining of an egg and sperm starts at conception. I disagree on the point that it is a human life....

It is certainly a human cell. It has the full compliment of genes...but so does a skin cell. If you took a skin cell and put it in a petri dish would you call it a human life? Would you debate over it? Would some people kill over it? A single skin cell is fully capable of becoming a full grown human being through cloning. In fact there is only really a single step difference between growing up a skin cell and growing up a fertilized egg....

On top of that, the bible disagrees with your asertion that human life begins at conception. There are many different refferences to life begining with the first breath. Therefore human life only begins at birth... Plus the bible very clearly states that an unborn fetus is NOT the same as a child after birth. If you accidentally kill a child you could be stoned...if you accidentally caused a miscarriage you couldn't.

Re:Flamebait

[Red Flayer]

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.

Strictly speaking, he does not have that obligation, nor that power. He can recommend to the Congress "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." He must do what is necessary to uphold the law of the land.

But the power to act lies within Congress, and any recommendation by the President is based upon his personal opinion, which may or may not reflect what is best for the country.

This is why there is a separation of powers, so that the Congress can hold a President, who either oversteps his authority, or is an idiot, in check.

Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[alexhmit01]

Stem-cell cures are probably two decades away, if proven viable.

No side of the stem-cell debate is AT all honest.

On the left...
The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.

This is more about politics than anything else. A prohibition on federal funds isn't a prohibition on research. Bush was the first President to approve ANY funding, and allowed it for pre-existing lines. That may not be enough lines for major research, but it should have given a start to doing some of the basic research to determine if this is viable. Unfortunately, people would rather play politics. I expect the pro-choice crowd to be EXTREMELY upset at this research, that manages to create research lines WITHOUT destroying life, as many of the vocal members aren't focused on the research, but a believe that every embryo destroyed someone secures their agenda.

On the right...
Federal funding is generally key to any EARLY stage research. Cutting off federal funds DOES slow down basic research.

This is a closet attempt to deal with their moral issues with IVF, not the activity, but the discarding of embryos.

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.

Do you think that if every undergrad biology student could get a vial of embryos as part of a basic lab class (if you listen to the argument on the left that there is NO MORAL question), this research would have been heavily pushed or developed?

The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life. The pro-life crowd wanted to start developing embryonic rights. Somehow, Bush managed to placate the religiously motivated conservatives while allowing the research to go on, and low-and-behold, someone may have found a solution that solves the whole problem.

Alex

Re:Irony that the sitaution is solved...

[Theaetetus]

The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.

Not quite - current researchers say they're about 3-5 years away from starting human trials in repairing spinal cord injuries with stem cells. More here, though due to the halt on federal funding, this has been somewhat derailed (we were 5 years away in 2000).

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.

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...

[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.

Why no cure?

[modecx]

Because they don't want you to be cured.

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.

Here's a thought ...

[tilleyrw]

... that is best expressed by George Carlin:

A fertilized egg does not always implant successfully on the uterine wall and is then flushed with the next menstrual cycle.

So this means that every woman alive is a serial killer...according to the Roman Catholic church.

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.