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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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..

[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.

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.

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!

[biglig2]

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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.