Slashdot Mirror
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.
""
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.
Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.
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.
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.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Perhaps you'd like to try this totally untested stem-cell treatment for that nasty cough of yours?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
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.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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.
I am against this, because I was only for stem cell research as a byproduct of killing babies.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
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.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
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.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
They're trying not to. They'd rather not be forced to pay for it, via taxes.
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.
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.