Stem Cells Restore Feeling In Paraplegic

Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"

Comments

Benefit of the doubt

[BWJones]

Wow, given this potential, I am surprised this work was not published in one of the bigger journals like Science or Nature? Perhaps it was submitted? I cannot get this particular journal with our institutional subscription, so I cannot examine the article first hand.

However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place. A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work and others are having to modify their protocols to use one of the "acceptable" lines of stem cells the Bush administration in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to approve for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work.

It should be noted that it is not just patients who have been paralyzed that can potentially benefit from this work. Other potential therapies to come out of stem cell work include treatments for heart disease, retinal vision loss disorders, Parkinson's disease, Cystic Fibrosis and many others.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

If she gets up and walks, I don't think you need a peer reviewed journal to prove that the therapy works!

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Atzanteol]

I agree with the sentiment against Bush's policies on stem-cell research. But isn't the type of stem-cell used in this article (umbilical cord) actually "okay" to use under the US policy?

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[dustmachine]

Umm... you wouldn't even need to read the article to see that it says "umbilical cord blood stem cells." President Bush has no problems with using cord blood stem cells -- no ethical dilemas there at all. In fact this type of thing is already being done right here in the U.S.A. It's already established and is sometimes used instead of bone marrow transplants (depends on how close the match and other factors).

Facts are cool.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's only embryonic stem cell research outside the approved lines that won't receive federal funding. In individual states, such as California which just approved billions for stem cell research, you can receive state funding regardless of what type of stem cell you use.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[BWJones]

For the one millionth time. The Bush Administration is just being strict on federal funding for embryonic stem cells researcg.

Erm, this is a perfect example of why it is people like you that keep us from moving ahead. You had a knee jerk reaction and did not actually read what I wrote. Specifically, I wrote "for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work. So, what you fail to understand is how much research is funded by the federal government. If you are unable to acquire NIH funding, that severely limits the type and extent of research that can be accomplished given the current academic infrastructure.

Stem cell research can be funded by state or by private organizations. Also, there is nothing limiting research other types of stem cells.

True, but those funds are very very small compared to the types of funding that the federal government delivers. Also, Universities prefer to receive federal funding because of the indirect costs. In fact, in some situations, it is difficult to maintain a position at a University in biomedical research without federal funding.

If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?

I love this country and I have a passion for science. What I want is for us to continue to succeed instead of being hamstrung by political agendas.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[erlenic]

Also, building roads is directly related to regulating interstate commerce, which the constitution allows Congress to do. Funding medical research isn't listed as an authorized federal activity.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[suitepotato]

If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?

They do it because it makes them feel better about themselves, more intelligent and wise than the next person. It boosts their ego. In a world where not nearly as much is going wrong and things are better than they claim, there's no need for their idiot theories, fixes, and blather in general. No need for them.

Insecurity, pure and simple. The world is bad enough without whipping up hysteria which only makes it worse and fulfills the prophecy.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Alien Being]

"hamstrung by political agendas"

s/political/religious/

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[b17bmbr]

I'm sorry, but this is pure hyperbole "A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work". Actually, it is bullshit. What there is simply is a ban on federal funding of stem cell research. Sure, they might have left, but not out of fear. In fact, many firms are funding research on stem cells. There is no ban. Period. To say otherwise is a lie. Perhaps firms aren't putting as much money into it because maybe they don't feel there's significant returns possible. On that, I do not know. Maybe they think there's better returns on umbilical cord reserach. I don't know either. But if there was a potential for profit, they'd follow it with money.

Many, myself incldued are leary of stem cell research, not because of religious hang ups,but because of the potential for abuse. The cautin is warranted. And as for federal funding, they feds have no place in funding medical research. I looked in the constitution, and can't find mention of it anywhere. So, I oppose it on a) federalist principles and b) some moral qualms. But mostly a.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[BWJones]

The US under Bush is the first administration to fund stem cell research with federal money.

This is utterly and factually incorrect. What would be factually correct to say is that Bush was the first president to address the issue of stem cell research specifically. Stem cell research has been going on for years and years before the Bush administration came into power.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[TummyX]

It seems that science poses a threat an administration such as the current one.


I'd hate to destroy your little fantasy but...

NSF budget:

1998: $3.429 billion (clinton)
1999: $3.672 billion (clinton)
2000: $3.912 billion (clinton)
2001: $4.416 billion (clinton)
2002: $4.789 billion (bush)
2003: $5.344 billion (bush)
2004: $5.577 billion (bush)
2005: $5.473 billion (bush)

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Qzukk]

The problem is that when extremists (religious or not) want to control the sheeple, they've discovered that big, complex words are just too hard for their feeble minds.

Seriously. Google stem-cell research and see how many big names out there on both sides of the issue "conveniently" igore that "embryonic" word. It's just too hard for them to pronounce or spell apparently, and when your throbbing masses can't figure out what you're saying, your message just doesn't have the impact it could have.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[BWJones]

Carefully re-read my post and respond to the points I made without inserting commentary or meaning that was not there. I did not say that Bush was against all stem cell research. I said specifically: "it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place. A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work and others are having to modify their protocols to use one of the "acceptable" lines of stem cells the Bush administration in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to approve

So, that implies directly that I acknowledged the Bush administration has allowed some stem cell research, but at the same time, has limited the kinds of research than can be accomplished. This has absolutely resulted in some scientific teams leaving the country to perform their work elsewhere.

Why has this become an issue? It was not previously an issue as stem cell research has been going in in federally funded laboratories for at least 20 years. It is an issue because it became a political issue that was religiously motivated.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Rei]

I'm starting to wonder if this article is a plant. It shows up on Slashdot, from a source that's not exactly a major news source, claiming miraculous results.... and a short while later it gets riddled with Goatse images (warning: Do Not Click On The Article If You're At Work!!!).

Not that stems cells haven't already accomplished incredible things, mind you. But this whole situation is a bit... odd.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[gringer]

So the bible would be enough of a proof then?

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[LeonGeeste]

WAH! I can't force taxpayers to pay for my research! I'm being oppressed!

Are people so addicted to government now that for the government simply not to fund something means it's standing in the way? This is not a "I hate the government" vs "I love the government" issue. Surely, reasonable people can see a big difference between "not funding" and "actively impeding". Whatever happened to the days of actually convincing people to voluntarily spend their money on your schemes? Maybe there's... no demand for what you're doing? (Before you give me an emotional speech about "my research would save dying babies..." understand that we have to make tradeoffs. Yes, saving more dying babies is a good goal. So are a dozen other things I can think of. My point is that people may have different aims than you would like. Oh, and I don't need to hear the "corporations are short-sighted" argument either. You're short-sighted too in that you spend money consuming things you don't really need rather than saving it or investing it in new technology.)

Go ahead, mod me down, I'd gladly take the karma hit if people could just consider my point.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[ikkonoishi]

Except of course that this was done with umbilical stem cells and not fetal stem cells. So you come off as a blatant political hack.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[controlguy]

This story appeared on WorldNetDaily.com -- a news website in line with the religous right! Although this is a great story and a remarkable achievement, for worldnetdaily it's a way of saying "See, you DON'T need embryonic stem cells for this type of medicine. You can use adult stem cells."

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[controlguy]

Whoops -- they did not use adult stem cells, but the point is the stem cells did not come from an aborted fetus.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Spetiam]

I propose ScuttleMonkey be barred from Slashdot. Forever.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[vertinox]

Wow, given this potential, I am surprised this work was not published in one of the bigger journals like Science or Nature?

Mostly because this news is old hat.

Here is an article and a nice pic of the lady from 2004.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt200411261 7575710440.htm

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[ArsenneLupin]

Whoops -- they did not use adult stem cells, but the point is the stem cells did not come from an aborted fetus.

Yes, indeed. These cells did not come from an aborted fetus. Somebody pulled them out of his ass, it appears...

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[dotcher]

The journal article seems to exist:

A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study

HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.

That's taken from this page.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[minimunchkin]

It's late enough in the thread that perhaps no-one will ever see this, but nonetheless here goes. As someone at risk from Huntington's Disease this is the only way to approach curing this. I am not neutral. It looks as though as a 37 year old man I will escape it. It is not guaranteed. What is is that I watched my mother die and am watching one of my sisters die. My other sister is safe. Of my 12 cousins 7 are dying of this. I just hope that whatever side of the argument you come down on you remember that for many of my family it is the only hope. I hope that you will at least think of what it would mean to you to be in this position. That, however, is all I ask. I only hope that you think before you speak.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[jcr]

Wow, given this potential, I am surprised this work was not published in one of the bigger journals like Science or Nature?

Isn't the journal they used much more specific to their field? Doesn't seem very surprising to me...

-jcr

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[caenorhabditas]

There's a huge misunderstanding that I see again and again about the federal policy on stem cell research funds. It doesn't just ban federal funding for stem cell research. It bans federal funding of any kind for research at an institution where stem cell research is performed. That might sound the same, but there's a difference.

Suppose I were independantly wealthy. Suppose I wanted to give $1 million to a large research institution (like, say, the University of Michigan) for use in stem-cell research. If they accepted my money and used it for stem cell research they would not receive any federal funding of any kind, not even for other, non-stem-cell research.

If the policy just restricted the use of federal funds for stem cell research, it woudl be acceptable to many people. But the current policy is much more damaging, and effectively ends all stem cell research except by institutions established specifically for that purpose.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[LeonGeeste]

Much as I'd like to tear you a new one about the "greatness" of the FDA, my specific point was about federal funding, not federal regulation, so that point is entirely irrelevant. The rest of your post is flat out wrong. The federal government does not fund most coporartions' drug research. (And please, please don't insult my intelligence by arguing that an unrelated tax break constitutes "the federal government funding corporations' research".) And drug research is already high risk, and still draws LOTS of investors that want that kind of portfolio. That "a few dozen have gone out of business" is therefore irrelevant. Nor need a pharmaceutical startup be small. Investors are fully capable of raising such funds. If they can't, society has other priorities.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[lukesl]

Are you intending to point out that the NSF budget actually decreased this year for the first time since 1998?

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Mac Degger]

It's not bullshit; many people have left the US to pursue their research in other countries. It is because a federal ban on funding is effectively a ban. Can't do the research if you don't have the money. And genetics research is notoriously expensive.

Furthermore, the only strains which are allowed to be used are strains which have been used for years and are now found to be contaminated. Go search; I recomend you start at www.sciam.com (Scientific American) for a laypersons explanation.

Potential for abuse? Just restrict it to single cells gained from cells which were about to be discarded by fertility clincs. No abuse possible anymore.

BTW; the internet's not in the constitution either. Nor are cars, or many other things. Gues you opose them too. Both can be used for nefarious means.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[That's Unpossible!]

Are you intending to point out that the NSF budget actually decreased this year for the first time since 1998?

So what if it does? Perhaps if we spent less money, we might not be in so much debt?

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Mac Degger]

Yeah, but look at the breakdown. Military research is pretty much the only area where there has been an increase; the other areas have pretty much seen a massive decrease in funding.

Then look at the fact that Bushco. thinks intelligent design is science. Science and the critical thinking it promotes directly presents a threat to Bushco. The proof is that hardly anyone calls FOX on it's scarce presentation of facts and figuires, or that there has been no outcry at the lack of additional information used in teh many polls FOX runs. People are too stupid and uninformed to know that a (bar)graph by itself, without a couple of bits more of information, means nothing at all.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Snaller]

However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place.

Well, I'm sure Bush would tell you, if God had wanted her to walk he wouldn't have made her a Paraplegic

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[operagost]

"After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells"

The President has NEVER limited FEDERAL FUNDING for UMBILICAL or ADULT stem cell research.

Read that again: umbilical cord blood stem cells.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[lukesl]

What I meant is that the NSF budget figures were posted to show that the Bush administration supports science, but the numbers show a decrease in funding.

Whether or not spending government money to support scientific research is a separate argument, but I would argue that it's ironic that you would imply that it is not, typing your message into a "computer" hooked up to the "internet"...

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Spetiam]

If ever we had an excuse for not reading TFA, goatse is it.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[aricusmaximus]

Your points considered and rejected.

Are people so addicted to government now...

On Addiction:

Consider major government spending projects:

Columbus' discovery of America (Spanish Monarchy)
U.S. Involvement in WWII
Internet (via DARPA) and important comp-sci projects (Berkeley Unix, MIT AI lab).
Space program
Interstate highways

So, Mr. Geeste, free yourself from addiction! All you have to do is

not use GNU tools (remember Stallman was at MIT AI lab)
the internet
return Europe to the Nazis
not live in the U.S. (government funding discovered the new world, after all!)
not use Cell phones or any satellite-based technology
stay off of government funded interstate highways

The fact is that there are some projects (including the ones above) that are either too large, too basic or too far reaching political scope that only the government can and should fund and run them.

Surely, reasonable people can see a big difference between "not funding" and "actively impeding".

Yes, there is a difference. However, why not lower funding for all medical research? By selectively prohibiting Federal funding on stem-cell research (as opposed to other medical research), the Bush Administration effectively has hamstrung national research on stem-cell reasearch.

Whatever happened to the days of actually convincing people to voluntarily spend their money on your schemes?

Fine - here are some government programs that I would like to be convinced on:

A billion dollar bridge to nowhere
A missle defense boondoggle

If you support thses programs, please tell me why these deserve Federal funding so much more than stem-cell research that may lead to tremendous medical advances.

Oh, and I don't need to hear the "corporations are short-sighted" argument either. You're short-sighted too in that you spend money consuming things you don't really need rather than saving it or investing it in new technology.)

Translated into a syllogism:

Premise #1: Corporations are short-sighted when it comes to basic research
Premise #2: People are short-sighted about stem-cell research
Conclusion: The government shouldn't fund stem-cell research

Now tell me again how the conclusion follows? Because I sure don't see it.

Go ahead and mod me down

This is an attempt at reverse psychology, and a pathetic show of egocentric defensiveness. Please refrain from using this Slashdot cliche. Either stand up for your ideas or refrain from posting.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[That's Unpossible!]

What I meant is that the NSF budget figures were posted to show that the Bush administration supports science, but the numbers show a decrease in funding.

They show a decrease in funding FOR ONE YEAR. The funding increased every other year, and it has increased beyond just the level of inflation, so I am trying to understand how you feel Bush has really decreased funding overall? The implication that was being proven wrong by those statistics is that the Bush administration doesn't support science funding.

Whether or not spending government money to support scientific research is a separate argument, but I would argue that it's ironic that you would imply that it is not, typing your message into a "computer" hooked up to the "internet"...

The government created the internet network, but to suggest that it wouldn't have formed on its own is a bit whacky. Did the government invent the idea of networking? Did the government invent ethernet? Nope, that was Metcalfe @ Xerox. Did the government invent/popularize computers? Nope, that honor goes to many companies. Did the government invest billions of dollars to commercialize the internet? Nope, the thanks there also goes to many, many COMPANIES. Before the internet, I was posting messages like this on BBSes, and then on national networks like AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. The government didn't invent those either. Did the government invent TCP/IP or the World Wide Web? Nope and nope.

And so the government funds the creation of arpanet, for the military (ARPA). They funded this, along with thousands of other projects, using taxpayer money.

What would have happened if the taxpayers held onto that money, and invested it in companies? Is it possible we would have something even better than today's internet network?

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[jaiyen]

If she gets up and walks, I don't think you need a peer reviewed journal to prove that the therapy works!

There is a picture of her doing just that here (sorry it's 3MB PDF file, pic is on page 30).

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[ahodgson]

A billion dollar bridge to nowhere [salon.com]
A missle defense boondoggle [csmonitor.com]

Duh. No one likes paying for other peoples' pork. They just can't seem to give up their own. Which is of course the problem.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[TummyX]

There is a small decrease in funding for 2005 but despite that the funding is still 1.5 times greater than the funding in 1998 (higher than the level of inflation). Somehow you think that that means that the Bush administration doesn't support science?

I guess if there were smaller increases in 2002, 2003 and 2004 without a decrease in 2005, you would like it better?

Sheesh.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[bkirkby]

ouch. i was gonna point out that your insinuated jump to conclusion about the evil bush admin banning this kind of research was off base until i realized so many other people caught you on your amateur observation.

what was even more entertaining was watching you try to slink out of it by claiming people wre putting words in your mouth AND then following up by putting words in other people's mouths (below when someone makes the claim "the bush admin is the first admin to provide federal funding for stem cell research" to which you reply "stem cell research was done before the bush admin").

amazing.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Kohath]

So, what you fail to understand is how much research is funded by the federal government. If you are unable to acquire NIH funding, that severely limits the type and extent of research that can be accomplished given the current academic infrastructure.

Too bad. I think the relevant words are: beggars can't be choosers.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[lukesl]

They show a decrease in funding FOR ONE YEAR. The funding increased every other year, and it has increased beyond just the level of inflation, so I am trying to understand how you feel Bush has really decreased funding overall? The implication that was being proven wrong by those statistics is that the Bush administration doesn't support science funding.

First, the rate of inflation in scientific research costs is significantly higher than the rate of inflation in consumer goods or whatever. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I remember hearing 7-8% per year quoted for biological research. I don't know what it is for NSF-funded research, but it's also high, so even though it looks like NSF funding had been increasing dramatically during that period, it hasn't.

Second, a lot of money for basic science research was reallocated to homeland security-related projects still administered by the NSF, so effectively the decrease in funding was much larger than what the total numbers indicate.

Did the government invent/popularize computers? Nope, that honor goes to many companies.

It's hard to pinpoint when computers were invented, but I thought it was basically for military applications in WWII, including code-breaking and the Manhattan project, which were obviously both driven by huge government spending. And contrary to what you say, the development of TCP/IP was directly funded by the government.

What would have happened if the taxpayers held onto that money, and invested it in companies? Is it possible we would have something even better than today's internet network?

I would argue that we wouldn't have anything at all. Industry and academia work on different problems, and the early development of most worthwhile technologies goes through a long, tedious stage where they're not remotely profitable, and therefore of little interest to industry. It's not a question of whether industry is better or academia is better--both are important, and they play complementary roles. The work done in federally-funded research labs today will be the basis of industry research tomorrow, so it is a worthwhile investment for a country to make.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[lukesl]

First, as I mentioned in another post, the increases in funding are barely above the level of inflation. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Bush administration isn't in direct control of those budgets. They can't cut funding as much as they would like to, but they've tried. Thankfully, congress is a little more sane. If you're actually interested in looking at this more in depth, here's an interesting link. The thing that kills me is that NASA, the only big "science" branch of the government that IS a waste of money, is going to see their funding increase, but only for manned space exploration, which has little scientific value.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[falconwolf]

Whoops -- they did not use adult stem cells, but the point is the stem cells did not come from an aborted fetus.

Because "Umbilical cord cells are considered "adult stem cells" they did use "adult stem cells". Don't ask how they can call stem cells from the umbilical cord adults but they do.

Falcon

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[falconwolf]

BTW; the internet's not in the constitution either. Nor are cars, or many other things. Gues you opose them too. Both can be used for nefarious means.

One, cars weren't developed by the government, they were developed by private enterprises. Two, while the feds did develop the internet originally it was a military project funded by DARPA.

Falcon

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[vague_ascetic]

"Too bad. I think the relevant words are: beggars can't be choosers."

It seems that taxpayers aren't the choosers either

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[vague_ascetic]

"For the one millionth time. The Bush Administration is just being strict on federal funding for embryonic stem cells researcg.

Stem cell research can be funded by state or by private organizations. Also, there is nothing limiting research other types of stem cells.

If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?"

The Bush Admin is repugnant in their placing more value on a zygote than an Iraqi citizen, in their fixing the facts and evidence around the policy of War Upon Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.

Maybe Mr. Bush should explain his "morals and ethics" to Specialist Tomas Young.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Mac Degger]

No shit. Next you'll tell me the www was develloped by Tim Berners Lee whilst working for a (multi)government funded CERN (no private investment there). Also...who pays the military?

Anyway, that's not the issue...it was stemcells and strains which are sanctioned by the US government being useless due to contamination, forcing researchers to go to other countries (like the UK).

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Hokutoku]

Don't forget Alzheimer's!

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Coolfish]

Actually Bush's policy is that this could have been done with a faith based initiative. A group of people would surround the woman and pray, and then this sort of miracle could have occured. In fact what's to say that's not what happened with this other lady and this whole stem cell thing is baloney just like evolution. Maybe we should consider both possibilities, just like with creatio^H^H^H^H^H^H intelligent design??

*tongue firmly in cheek, fingers firmly in ears*

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Surt]

Actually, you do. That's what prevents faith healing from getting a lot of scholarly respect.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[aricusmaximus]

I confess to chuckling when I saw the mod. No, I did not ask anyone to mod you down.

Perhaps you may wish to take the time to consider the possibility that the modder did not think you "tore me a new one", and quite possibly found your post to be offensive and trollish.

You seem reasonably intelligent, so take some time to consider that you're not perfect and you're not always right, and other people might have views worth considering

I know this is not typical Slashdot behavior, but do give it a try.

Some practice in critical thinking might also be in order - maybe you'll learn some techniques to trounce me next time **and** get modded up instead of down. I would start with the fallacy files and then maybe check out "The Craft of Research". Not that I'm claiming I'm a great debater, myself. On the other hand, I'm not consistently getting modded down at this point.

BTW, I will concede that there's an argument that the funding situation is actually turning out better without Federal funding. I just don't believe that private funding is best in all situations.

Until next time, Mr. Geeste...

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[Surt]

That was the point. The so-called back surgery with stem cells could be a scam too, pretty much right up to the point where they get their work through peer review.

Wow

[kushboy]

I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but that seems pretty amazing. Does anyone with more knowledge know how amazing it is?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I am more knowledgeable and yes this is very amazing.

It's Eviiiiilll, don't you all see?

[Audent]

Come on, helping people regain sensation in their long-dormant limbs? Where can it lead?

Oh the humanity!

Won't someone think of the children!?

etc.

ahem. Sorry. pre-emptive sarcasm mode, OFF!

Re:It's Eviiiiilll, don't you all see?

[Pusene]

In other news, the makers of Viagra, Pfizer, is suing Korea for copyright infringement. An official is quoted saying: "Only we are the makers of medication which makes sensation return to long-dormant limbs."

Re:It's Eviiiiilll, don't you all see?

[Espresso_Boy]

Evil doesn't even begin to describe it. I know how I feel after 20 minutes. Can you imagine how it would feel to regain sensation after 19 years?

Two words:

Pins and needles!

Re:It's Eviiiiilll, don't you all see?

[Stuart Gibson]

Come on, helping people regain sensation in their long-dormant limbs? Where can it lead?

I don't know, but I hear George A Romero is buying stock.

Stuart

Yoda Says:

[dwayner79]

FTA: "One patient does not a treatment make."

Re:Yoda Says:

[barawn]

It does for that patient.

Re:And what did it take....

[schnikies79]

read the article..

"Umbilical cord cells are considered "adult stem cells," in contrast to embryonic stem cells, which have raised ethical concerns because a human embryo must be destroyed in order to harvest them."

Stem cells work!

[redgopher]

So then, if the stem cells are placed next to a Shakey's Pizza, they would become another Shakey's Pizza! And you'd have your own Shakey's Pizza where you didn't have to charge yourself to eat!

Re:Stem cells work!

[JoshRosenbaum]

Damn! You beat me to the Shakey's Pizza South Park reference! Oh well, I guess I can wait until the next stem cell entry. Most likely that'll be this weekend, when it gets duped. ;)

Non-Embryonic Stem Cells

[TigerTale]

A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work and others are having to modify their protocols to use one of the "acceptable" lines of stem cells the Bush administration in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to approve for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work.

You are referring to Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The story clearly states that umbilical cord stem cells were used in this particular experiment. You are conflating two separate, if related, issues.

With apologies to Trey Parker & Matt Stone...

[ScoLgo]

What the article doesn't say is that the staggering results are not due to the infusion of stem-cell material, but rather that her body was taken over by an inter-galactic cockroach bent on turning every country on Earth into a third world country employing strategically positioned WMD's that will all be concurrently detonated at the culmination of a 'World Peace' summit...

"Hu-rrooh..."

The paper's title, abstract, and URL

[Anonymous Coward]

Title:

A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study pp. 368 - 373
            K-S Kang, SW Kim, YH Oh, JW Yu, K-Y Kim, HK Park, C-H Song, H Han
            DOI: 10.1080/14653240500238160

Abstract:

HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.

http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(hibl2tibmt1yldq lfhsywa55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=pare nt&backto=issue,8,9;journal,1,40;linkingpublicatio nresults,1:107693,1

Re:The paper's title, abstract, and URL

[Hentai]

Wow. This girl makes a wonderful testimonial to the power of modern science.

Congratulations to the research team that pulled this off, and my heartfelt thanks in case I ever (gods forbid) find myself in need of similar treatment.

We may not end all human suffering in our lifetime, but we're certainly getting there incrementally, in steady steps. Wow.

Re:Miracle Treatment

[evil agent]

If god wanted her to walk, he would have allowed it through the use of stem cells. Oh, wait, he has.

Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[EdwinBoyd]

Does this mean that these cells were not harvested from an aborted fetus? If so this treatment could really take off without all the ethical and political problems that plague conventional stem cell treatments.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[KevlarTheSleepinator]

precisely. in TFA it states theyre adult stem cells (in this case which came form the umbillical cord), which are not harvested from living embryos and because of this dont require an abortion or any other ethically-debatable things to happen.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[erlenic]

This is exactly the type of research that pro-life groups have been advocating as an alternative to embryonic stem cells for years. Remember, there are four types: embryonic, umbilical, adult, and something I don't remember right now. The pro-life arguements against stem cells are all against embryonic only, because of the abortion issue, as you seem to already know.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[tfoss]

Does this mean that these cells were not harvested from an aborted fetus?

Here's the huge misconception about embryonic stem cells: They are not from aborted fetuses.

Embryonic stem cells from from blastocysts (on the order of 50-100 cells) that are derived from in vitro fertilization attempts where the fertilized eggs are to be discarded. It is one of those issues that has been clouded with talk of abortion (usually by opponents ESC research), and thus reasonable discussion is frequently overwhelmed by hysterical chatter that doesn't even relate to the topic.

If you are cool with IVF, then there is little reason to be upset about ESC research. If you aren't cool with ESC research, then it seems illogical to be ok with IVF. Abortion really does not enter into the discussion.

-Ted

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[DavidTC]

You tard.

Embryonic stem cells aren't taken from aborted fetuses. Otherwise they'd be fetal stem cells. That wouldn't even work, as the point of stem cells is that they have failed to differentiate.

Embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos. You know, those things that sit on the shelf at a fertility clinic, and get thrown away when one of them works?

And if they're so damn precious, why aren't you lunatics doing something to stop that practice?

You idiots are claiming that murder is immoral, so we shouldn't be able to donate our body to science. Instead of, I dunno, actually doing something about all the murdering. Um, whatever.

There isn't even a good contitutional challenge to fertility clinics. You could probably completely outlaw them, and you could certainly outlaw the practice of making multiple embryos at once.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[DavidTC]

And if someone truely cares about '100 cells that could be a life', I have to point out that, at that stage of life, it is still even odds for a pregnancy to 'not take'. So half those people wouldn't exist anyway.

Wait, I forgot. It's okay if God kills them. We shouldn't work to save the hundreds of millions of 'babies' that die that way each year. Just the few hundred thousand who die in fertility clinics.

Wait, no, the pro-lifers apparently don't even care about them. Maybe they don't think life starts at conception after all.

Wait, unless we're talking about the morning-after pill. Which is so evil it still hasn't managed to get FDA approval after a damn decade, despite being as safe as birth control pills.

I wish pro-lifers would pick a damn story and stick with it. If life starts at conception, surely a family who spends time and money to make six 'babies'. have one die after two days in the womb, give birth to another, and kill four is much worse than a woman who gets an abortion.

If you pro-lifers think that's not comparable, it's because you realize that 100 cells is not a 'person'.

But right now dead 'babies' appears to be okay if 'God' or rich people do it, but not okay if poor or unmarried people do it.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[MochaMan]

discussion is frequently overwhelmed by hysterical chatter that doesn't even relate to the topic

Hysterical
Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; ... by definition, wouldn't hysterical chatter relate to the topic of embryonic stem cell research? ;)

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[willpall]

You beat me to it, but said it better than I would have.

This is the one thing that irritates the shit out of me. I can understand that there are people who regard abortion as murder. That is not an unreasonable position to take. I can further understand the opposition that would arise if stem cell research did depend on a supply of aborted fetuses. But this is a case where those who oppose IVF could find at least a little solace in the fact that the otherwise discarded embryos are being used to provide life and well-being to others.

It reminds me of the vegan who wears leather shoes. What a hypocrite, right? Well, maybe not. Many vegans own animal-derived products from the time before they chose the lifestyle. They feel that to throw them away without getting the full use out of them is a needless waste of that animal's life. What's the pointof that? Sure, they won't buy animal-derived products in the future, but that doesn't mean that they should waste what they already have. Along similar lines, I can understand if people are opposed to creating embryos for the sole purpose of getting stem cells. But I can't for the life of me understand those who prefer that the embryos be tossed in the trash.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[BillyBlaze]

And what's wrong with that? If doing something bad creates an opportunity to do good, then, given that the bad thing has already been done, surely it's better to take the opportunity for good than to waste it. If you're going to kill them anyway, you may as well use their organs.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[Ihlosi]

And what's wrong with that?

The precedent this creates, the change in attitude towards the bad thing(tm), and of course the potential for abuse.

Have a "donor" for organ X who is unwilling to donate ? Let's just frame him for murder, and we can even harvest the organ minutes after his death. Or, depending on the laws of the country you're in, framing for murder might not even be necessary when something much simpler (drug trade or whatever) will do.

Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells?

[DavidTC]

Exactly.

Although I'm not so sure they're on firm moral ground with the first 'baby' that died. Is it morally acceptable to create a 'person' you know has a 50% chance of dying in the next few days?

Let's frame this with full-size people.

Let's say someone invents a matter duplicator. And it can duplicate people as well as anything else.

Let's assume there's a job so dangerous that it has, say, a 50% death rate each day.

So people merely make a copy of themselves and trade off each day with the copy. When one of them dies, they duplicate themselves again and keep going.

Is this even vaguely acceptable in society? Is it even vaguely moral for a company to operate like this?

If we, as society, actually think life starts at conception, we must not only stop the waste in IVF, we must also look at the risks to the 'babies'. In fact, we need to take a long and hard look at the morality of pregnancy at all.

Well...

[Seoulstriker]

However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place.

It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.

(BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

(BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)

I hope you don't get modded down here, because it's a good point. I might respect the position of someone who, after much deliberation, believes that embryonic stem cells should be used. However, anyone who thinks that using embryonic stem cells is a no-brainer either doesn't understand the ethical considerations at stake, or simply doesn't believe in ethical considerations at all. Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.

And yes, also the research here was done with umbilical cells, and the US government has absolutely no problem funding research using umbilical cells. The federal government simply put restrictions on the funding of gathering fetal cells, which is a long way from outlawing stem-cell research.

Re:Well...

[Atzanteol]

It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.

Wha-? I'm blinded by politics? I'll have you know that I'm typically a Bush supporter, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says and does. He's not Christ reborn or anything.

I have a mind and makemy own decisions thankyouverymuch. I disagree with much of the US policy against stem-cell research *for ethical reasons*. Though I can certainly understand the trepidation some may have towards it.

But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.

This is just the stupidest thing I've ever been accused of. I gave no reason for why I disagree with the President's policy on stem-cell research and yet you tell me I don't think ethics should be involved. Right....

Re:Well...

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

...sufficient ethical justifications.

Obviously, I'd benefit from an introductory college course in ethics, but this being Slashdot, I'll ask anyway. Is there a good reference online that describes "Ethics" (capital E) in a fairly general manner, such that the basic axioms like "the ends justify the means" are refuted in a logical and consistent manner? Is there a good book I should be reading on Ethics? Self-study is important to me, and I'd hate to re-hash well known arguments in a debate with someone more knowledgable than I. Appearing stupid or uneducated online is sort of par for the course, but I'd prefer to avoid looking stupid.

Re:Well...

[Guuge]

It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells.

Hasn't this been discussed enough on slashdot already? Yes, the current administration has not specifically outlawed the production of adult stem cells. No, this does not mean that there is no effect on adult stem cell research. Given the choice, the modern stem cell researcher would prefer not to be encumbered by arbitrary rules about stem cell production, even if the rules only apply to a subset of all stem cells. Thus there is now a disincentive to do stem cell research in the US.

(BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)

Now you're beating a Straw Man. Of course there need to be ethical considerations in science. We should follow some sort of ethical system, but there's no reason why this system needs to be based on Judeo-Christian mythology.

Re:Well...

[dillon_rinker]

*for ethical reasons*.

Are your ethical reasons are so strong that you are incapable of expressing them in mere words, or do you simply believe that people will be more likely to believe you if you don't state your ethical reasons?

This is just the stupidest thing I've ever been accused of.
You align yourself politically with the anti-Bushies, you take a position held by those generally incapable of understanding the ethical dilemma, you fail to clarify your ethical position, and other people are stupid for drawing the reasonable conclusion about you from the admittedly few facts that they have about you?

I have a mind
So do other people. Don't expect them NOT to use it. Don't expect them NOT to reason from limited facts. We have a vanishingly small subset of facts available to us; waiting for the whole set of facts to become available is a losing proposition.

Re:Well...

[jallen02]

Plato on Ethics

Re:Well...

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

nyone who thinks that using embryonic stem cells is a no-brainer either doesn't understand the ethical considerations at stake, or simply doesn't believe in ethical considerations at all.

OK, I'll play, but only because I'm curious. What is the ethical problem with using embryonic stem cells from fertalized eggs that are being thrown away from a fertility clinic? They are other wise going to be thrown away or disposed of, so why not put them to use?

What I get confused with is how people are against that particular use, yet aren't against the fertility clinic itself, which outside the scope of this argument is throwing away fertalized eggs...aka "murder" to the extremists.

Now granted, there are plenty of other ways to use embryonic stem cells as well, but weve completely killed on good use but claiming all uses are bad.

Re:Well...

[ikkonoishi]

What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.

What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.

Having looked upon those rationalizations look again at your arguement.

Re:Well...

[Hentai]

Are you familiar with the concept of "out of sight, out of mind"? Basically, fertility clinics are good because they let barren women conceive (insert happy face and thumbs up). They also require that SEVERAL embryos be created, many of which are destroyed (insert frowny face and shaking finger). This is bad, but in order to acknowledge that it is bad, we'd have to stop letting rich white women have the precious little babies they so desperately want (back to happy face and thumbs up). Therefore, we simply choose to pretend that the frowny-face thing we regrettably mentioned earlier isn't actually happening. Unfortunately, if we start actually deriving uses from said frowny-face, we have to actually own up to the reality of its occurance - which noone wants to do. So we avoid doing a good thing because to do so would involve acknowledging that another good thing we're already doing has a side-effect that many people would call bad.

It's called "doublethink".

Re:Well...

[FredThompson]

The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs. At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?

THAT's the issue. Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls.

That statement also shows the inextricably parallel issue of defining when human life begins. By definition, the choice to end a human life, especially one which has viable potential, is...shall we say...controversial.

Under legal definitions which were decided by U.S. courts, not the U.S. society, human life starts after the baby's head exits the mother. That's an over-simplification, true.

Rhetorical point: When does a baby truly become a person? When does a minor truly become an adult?

Can you see it from the perspective I just described?

--

On a related note, given the huge number of people who want to adopt babies and can't find them as well as the people with fertility challenges, it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people.

"No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people.

I've not been there myself and really don't know what would be involved. This is just an idea that came to me after watching friends struggle to have children.

--

Watch, 5 will get you 10 the bulk of replies to this will be flamefests.

Re:Well...

[pnuema]

What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.

Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted. You can't reverse an execution.

What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Next question?

Re:Well...

[DavidTC]

We should follow some sort of ethical system, but there's no reason why this system needs to be based on Judeo-Christian mythology.

I don't recall Christ having any moral objections to using the tissue of dead people to help living people.

If he had, you'd have thought someone would have brought it up WRT organ donation at some point.

Re:Well...

[Atzanteol]

You align yourself politically with the anti-Bushies, you take a position held by those generally incapable of understanding the ethical dilemma, you fail to clarify your ethical position, and other people are stupid for drawing the reasonable conclusion about you from the admittedly few facts that they have about you?

Okay, I was going to ignore you but this is just too retarded. Did you think that *maybe* if you don't have enough facts, you *should't* be drawing conclusions? Mmm? Perhaps? Dumbass.

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

How about this for an analogue:

Why don't we grind up our dead as a food source? Ok, lets get rid of health considerations. Why don't we feed our dead to zoo animals? Use them for fertilizer? Really, they just end up in holes in the ground anyhow, right? Eventually, it's all fertilizer, it goes back into the food chain, so why not put the bodies to immediate use?

A lot of ethical considerations are raised by the simple fact of it being abhorrent to profit from the harm or death of others. Yes, even if they are going to come to harm and die anyhow. Should we grind up babies and inject them into other people, in any case that the baby is soon going to be dead either way?

So, yes, there's a bit of an issue here, which is where the ethical dilemma comes in: to what extent is an fetus a "baby"? To what extent does a human life with no hope of survival deserve respect? I'm not saying a fetus is equivalent to a baby, but they aren't totally dissimilar. I'm not saying we shouldn't use embryonic stem cells, but can you seriously tell me that the question doesn't warrant a pause and some consideration before you say "yes"?

Re:Well...

[jcr]

What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms?

Oh, for crying out loud. Why don't we just cut to the chase and yell "Hitler!" ?

-jcr

Re:Well...

[ray-auch]

What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.

Problem is that they aren't (all) - therefore your whole basis is incorrect. Probability of discovering miscarriage of justice in timeframe of typical life sentence is far from negligible (based on experience to date).

If embryo cells are taken at scheduled destruction date (eg. if can only be kept for limited time by law), probability of any other result is nil.

What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.

Prisoners are used in medical research.

Re:Well...

[IthnkImParanoid]

Those people are people with lives and thoughts and feelings (and maybe souls if you're of that disposition). The embryos don't have (and won't ever have) lives and thoughts and feelings, and if they have souls the way fertility clinics operate is the true problem, not just whether we use them for stem cells when it's determined they won't be implanted.

Re:Well...

[zippthorne]

Introductory college ethics courses seem to be more interested in indroducing the terms of interest and promoting trying to understand all the points of argument rather than refuting or supporting any one specific axiom.

Or at least, that's what my anecdotal experience of one class seems to indicate.

In that class, "utilitarianism" was the name given to the principle of "maximizing 'the good' for as many people as possible" Which if follow logically to its extreme could be used to justify killing a small village if it enables millions of people to live an extra year.

Of course, that's a gross oversimplification and the other principles could also be taken to similar outlandish results, but "taking to the extreme" is one method of analyzing ethical situations.

(Ok, one argument was "refuted" in my class, the "slipperly slope" argument. Despite the fact that it is plainly obvious to exist and everyone I know could probably point out at least one instance where it had favorable results and at least one negative. though they wouldn't agree on which to put in which column.)

Re:Well...

[E-Rock]

I always thought it was a more theoretical argument.

Today unused embryos are worthless trash, if legal for research they'd be a very valuable commodity. This might give the incentive to overcollect embryos or start paying women to donate embryos only to turn around and sell them.

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

I'm not very familiar with any online works specifically. "Ethics" of course, has a couple meaning and some nuances. However, the idea that "the ends justifies the means" is generally held to be, almost by definition, in conflict with ethics. This is because "ethics" are the principles which govern actions, and not outcomes.

If you're really interested (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt despite being modded a troll) I'd tend to recommend Plato or Aristotle. Google for "Nicomachean Ethics" and you'll probably find a free version. There are plenty of works out there, but no authority.

Re:Well...

[Saint V Flux]

Actually, the 'cruel and unusual punishment' part was referring to cases such as when a man was skinned alive in the colonies during the 1600's or 1700's -- today they have a rather skewed idea of 'cruel', though depending on what medical research is being done on them it could legitimately be cruel.

Re:Well...

[gooser23]

What is the ethical problem with using embryonic stem cells from fertalized eggs that are being thrown away from a fertility clinic?

Other than the view that not allowing fertilized eggs to naturally develop is murder (or similar views), there is no ethical problem with using embryonic stem cells for... well... any use. Make good with what you got, right? The problem with this is that the abundance of fertilized eggs is artificial. Parents want kids made from their own DNA (and perhaps don't want other people using their DNA), so leftovers aren't shared. The abundance is also artificial because there are other (more ethical -- in the sense that resource efficiency is ethical) choices than fertility treatments: adoption (of orphaned/unwanted/abandoned children & otherwise to be aborted pregnancies) & simply having no kids come readily to mind. So, to me the real problem (that you alluded to) is not using what would be otherwise discarded embryos, but rather the existence of the fertility clincs themselves.

Re:Well...

[tfoss]

1. Life in prison != death (and likewise, forced medical testing != life in prison).
2. Criminal justice system is not infallible, thus punishment with non-reversible methods is problematic
3. If you argue that 8-10 cell cluster == person == prisoner, and they all require equal treatment, you are necessarily opposed to IVF anyway.

The ethical question is of using materials otherwise intended for disposal for research purposes, assuming you've accepted a use of the materials for one situation already.

-Ted

Re:Well...

[cloudofstrife]

I seriously doubt that anyone would ever tell someone that they cannot have a child because the embryo needs to be used for stem cells. That is assuming way too much about how far scientists would go. If embryonic stem cells are ever used, they would have to be donated or, possibly as suggested above, be created from the eggs that are being thrown out from fertility clinics.

Re:Well...

[Mr. Slippery]

What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.

Non sequitor. The zygote or morula is going to be destroyed at time T, whether the method of destruction is research or the incinerator, whereas you are considering killing now a person who would not otherwise die until some unknown time in the future.

A closer example would be, what is the ethical problem with using the bodies of condemned criminals for research after they are dead? (Punting the ethical issues surrounding state homicide for the moment.) Provided that the victim of execution agrees (since we generally recognize an ethical right of people to have their corpse disposed of in a matter that they approve of), I don't think there are any, and thanks to one such person we have the Visible Man project.

We might consider that the parents have a proprietary interest in the cells in question, and that disposal should be according to their wishes; but assuming that is addressed, if the cells are about to be destroyed anyway, research seems ethically superior to the trash can.

Re:Well...

[Dorothy 86]

Because you mentioned souls.... here's why we of that disposition would say you're wrong.

Psalm 139:19

13For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother's womb.
14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

That should just about make our stance clear.

Re:Well...

[Cryptnotic]

Amendment VIII

Actually, I would prefer if ethics existed regardless of law. Oh wait, they do.

Thanks.

Re:Well...

[tfoss]

At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?

Is life? Really? Based on what (& therefore, whos) definition?

-Ted

Re:Well...

[FredThompson]

I seriously doubt that anyone would ever tell someone that they cannot have a child because the embryo needs to be used for stem cells. That is assuming way too much about how far scientists would go. If embryonic stem cells are ever used, they would have to be donated or, possibly as suggested above, be created from the eggs that are being thrown out from fertility clinics.

I wasn't making assumptions about "how far scientists would go". I was thinking about laws, bureaucrats and predatory business practices. My knowledge of fertility clinic practices is next to nil. I was just trying to answer the question with a simple response while trying to avoid the all-too-typical Slashdot creation/evolution/abortion/murder flamefest. Why are fertilized eggs "thrown out"? I don't know. Maybe some of them are truly beyond the point of being possible babies, maybe some of it is purely economics when there is no payment to keep them. I was thinking about fertilized eggs which have a reasonable chance of being babies, not the bad ones, so to speak. We have enough "bad eggs" walking around in society :P

Re:Well...

[IthnkImParanoid]

Just because I don't espouse christian beliefs doesn't mean I needed a clarification on how christians feel about souls or when life begins; even atheists and agnostics aren't as a whole ignorant of your position. I understand your stance. I just don't think Psalm 139:19, or any other biblical passage, should form by itself the basis of (secular) public policy.

Re:Well...

[Mac Degger]

Logical phalacy alert! Embrionic stem cells are not people! If you are against the use of less than a hundred living human cells (which have served their purpose) for medicinal purposes, you should never wash yourself again, as literally thousands of living cells get washed away!

This is not a joke, or an attempt at one: it is simply what happens when one washes (not to mention the bunch of micro-organisms which you wash away which are symbiotic to humans, but that's neither here nor there). Knowing that, what's the difference between a bunch of living cells and a bunch of living cells? Is it that cells which come from the vagina are holy? So it's just women who should never wash?

Clue: there is also one logical phalacy in this post; bonus points if you can find it and explain why it doesn't matter for /this/ argument.

BTW: I do agree that medical (and for that matter all other) scinece is filled with ethical questions.

Re:Well...

[Seoulstriker]

You don't get it, it's a rhetorical question. You have to see the forest through the trees, and the point is that you need to consider the ethical questions of each case. But you still haven't.

Better luck next time.

Re:Well...

[cloudofstrife]

From my understanding of the "eggs being thrown out" topic, I assumed that the eggs had something of a shelf-life while being frozen. Nearing the end of that shelf-life, when they won't be inseminated by someone looking to have a child, they could be used for stem cells. Or at least that's what I would do.

Re:Well...

[addbo]

erm... I think you're missing the point of the person you're replying to... I believe he was trying to compare people in jail for life terms to embryos. He was trying to show that if there is an ethical problem with treating prisoners like they're dispensable there would be similar ethical problems using embryos from fertility clinics in such a dispensable fashion. Which was in response to some other guy asking what is wrong with using embryos if they will be thrown away anyways... In my opinion this is really comparing two different things... and the arguments for one cannot easily to be transferred to another... it's the basic "apples and oranges". It's very debatable whether an embryonic cell has the same consciousness and feelings that a full fledged prisoner... but you'll get into the pro-choice/pro-life debate if you go into that... my own opinion of the subject is that test tube embryos that are really only just a few cells large which would be used to fertilize a want to be mother are not yet human... they are just stem cells which are ready to transform and divide into all the cells that are required for humanity... just like a grain of sand is not yet a bottle or a monitor screen or a table until it is molded into the form it takes... these stem cells have not yet specialized and I don't believe are concious... or at least are about as concious as say the e-coli bacteria living on your kitchen counter (and we don't seem to have problems spraying our counters with anti-bacterial washing agents... think of the children!) just my clarification and two cents

Re:Well...

[Mac Degger]

In the netherlands, a human who knows his life is about to end in even more terrible misery than (s)he already is in is (after consultation) allowed to kill him/herself. It's considered humane. It is also something which we readily recoignise worldwide for animals...furthermore, it is considered cruel to let a dog or cat suffer for longer than neccessary. ""No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people." As it is heartbreaking to a couple to give up their child for adoption. Forcing them to give their fertilised eggs to other couples results in that situation, really. Interestingly enough, in the US it is considered by the religious people to be a crime to have an abortion (usually the removal of an unwanted potential child). However, it is perfectly OK to send a wanted and loved child into a situation where it is very likely that he/she will get blown up by an IED. I know a lot of this post isn't really an answer to your post...but ethical questions beg more ethical 'paradoxes'.

Re:Well...

[Morganth]

Typical Slashdot--fine, I'll bite. You guys don't read much actual Philosophy, do you? Makes it kind of hard to analyze Ethics if you've only done it from the comfort of the omniscient armchair.

Embryos being disposed of and prisoners who are given life terms being killed early are two very, very different things.

The main argument trumpeted by people against embryonic stem cell research is that embryos are worthy of "being saved," which is to say, they have "moral value." These same people, to be consistent, have to be against forms of very early abortion and even some forms (if not all forms) of contraception.

The basic thing that vexes these people is that they have never studied the potentiality principal. They think the mere fact that an embryo has the potential to become a human being gives it moral value, makes it "worthy of being saved." This is because they know human beings have moral value, and so conflate "a thing with potential to be something of moral value" with "a thing that has moral value." However, this argument is spurious, as I'll try to show.

For one thing, many things have the potential (i.e., have some causal relationship) to the creation of a healthy infant child. As someone else once suggested to me, one such thing is a glance of flirtation toward a fertile young woman. From that glance, there exists the potential for intercourse; from that intercourse, the potential of conception; from that conception, the potential of a human child in the form of an embryo.

If that example seems too cooked up, think about miscarriages. Hundreds of thousands of "babies" die from miscarriages every year. So, since that constitutes an essential mass death of a significant portion of the human "population," shouldn't we be devoting massive scientific research dollars to stopping miscarriages?

The reason both these things seem absurd is because saying that embryos have moral value is completely arbitrary. Harm cannot be done to embryos in the same way harm cannot be done to chairs or rocks. The chair or rock doesn't have a hope, an aspiration, or a direction which is thwarted by the said harm. The rock or chair doesn't care about the said harm. The crux of the matter is, the rock or chair isn't conscious, and that's why they have no moral value.

The only people who might care about the rock or chair's harm is the owner of the said rock or chair. But that is only due to a relational property between the owner and his objects, and hasn't a thing to do with morality. (For example, when considering whether humans have the right to harm other humans, it serves no one to say, "Okay, but what if the person harmed were your mother?" Introducing the familial relationship simply distorts the inherent morality of a thing, since it makes the decision relational, based on other notions such as loyalty to one's family, etc.)

The reason we see harms to dogs or cows as worse than harms to chairs is because we know that dogs or cows can a) experience pain, b) in dying or being severely harmed, be deprived of their right to continue the life they were already living. Chairs experience no pain, conceive of no harm, and have no life of which to be deprived.

One can make an argument for defending the late-term fetus (which may be conscious) from abortion, but preventing the embryo from use in scientific research based on the idea that the embryo is a "human life" is, morally speaking, quite unsound. This is because embryos have no moral value of their own. They are things which may, one day, become things of moral value, but that does not mean they are morally valuable now.

To take to your prisoner example, human beings have moral value even if they are savage criminals sentenced to life imprisonment. This is because they are conscious human beings who still have a right to life within our moral framework. Using them from scientific research sets a moral example that humans, in general, are usable in har

Re:Well...

[That's Unpossible!]

When does a baby truly become a person?

When it can live outside the womb of the host mother.

When does a minor truly become an adult?

When the minor lives independently from his/her guardians and accepts personal responsibility for his/her life.

it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people

As long as the donor consents, absolutely.

Re:Well...

[Catskul]

Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted. You can't reverse an execution.

Considering that you could use that argument against the Death penalty in general, its mostly irrelevant to the parent post's argument.

Try this pararallel: Suppose in the Italy they executed murders by draining their blood, and in Switzerland the govt opposed that form of execution. Should the Switzerland accept dontations to its blood bank by Italy knowing where it came from, even considering that Italy would just throw the blood away otherwise?

Re:Well...

[An Onerous Coward]

The problems with your analogy are so obvious, I find it remarkable that you even attempted to make it.

First, people in jail are people. Not "potential people given a nine month incubation." They have memories, experiences, and personalities which should not be taken from them except under the most extraordinary circumstances, if at all.

Next, medical research is both dangerous to a person's life and potentially extremely painful. A frozen embryo has no life to take away, and has no capacity to experience pain.

Using stem cells from otherwise discarded frozen embryos is still a no-brainer.

Re:Well...

[operagost]

This is a red herring. For what crime have the embryos been convicted, then? Why can't they be saved?

Re:Well...

[CastrTroy]

"The ends justifies the means" is not always in conflict with ethics. I would say it's ethical to steal food to feed your family, some would even say it's ethical to kill an intruder, to save your family. In both these cases, things end up better for you, but only by someone else suffering a loss. Ethics is only in contrary when your the bread maker or the intruder.

Re:Well...

[CastrTroy]

How do you really reverse someone having to spend 20 years in an 8x10 cell. You obviously can't reverse death, but it would also be quite hard to give someone 20 years of their life back. The best you could do, is allow them to spend the rest of their life outside of jail. However, life after 20 years in jail tends to be a lot worse than life for those who haven't been in jail.

Re:Well...

[CastrTroy]

The logical fallacy you seem to be missing is that humans are just a bunch of living cells. Mind you, we are quite a large bunch of living cells, that are able to perform some pretty good tricks. When you look at the lump of cells that has the potential to become a human, then you may as well be talking about a human. However, if the embryos are going to be thrown away, they will never become a human, and therefore it's probably better to use them in research.

Re:Well...

[Maxo-Texas]

Wouldn't an even closer parallel be using criminals for experiments after their scheduled time of execution?

---

Tho personally, since i don't believe in souls in the first place, much less attached to small cell clusters, I don't see a problem with using them to heal cripples.

Re:Well...

[nwbvt]

"Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted."

Only if you find that out in time (before they are killed or die naturally). And incidently, if you find out they are innocent before they are executed, you can reverse a death sentence.

"What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII "

Ethical. Constitutional. Two different things.

And, since it looks like you missed it, Rhetorical Question.

Re:Well...

[fossa]

Don't be daft. If one believes that a embryo is alive and deserving of life (you were an embryo once), then your agruments apply there as well.

Re:Well...

[Maxo-Texas]

Just in case I wasn't clear- after their time of execution but you don't kill them then- they die in the course of the experiments. Since they are legally dead as of the execution time, you use them for other purposes.
---
Seems equivalent to using living cells for experiments because they were already scheduled to be dead by then.

Re:Well...

[CastrTroy]

You really should read, "A Modest Proposal", but Jonathon Swift. On another note, why shouldn't we put dead bodies to good use, or at least make it an option which people can write into their will. I guess you could write it in, but would your family accept that? There was an article about a guy who made biodeisel from dead cats. I'm pretty sure we could use just about any organic matter to produce bio deisel. Do we already have enough dead stuff being produced to replace gasoline in our cars? Remember on WaterWorld, where the dead were used, instead of just being left to rot. I think that at some point, once we reach about 10 billion people, we will have to start to find a better use for human remains than filling holes in the ground.

Re:Well...

[fossa]

>> When does a baby truly become a person?

> When it can live outside the womb of the host mother.

I wonder... would your opinion change if the unborn fetus could be succesfully transplanted to another, possibly artificial, womb?

Would your opinion change if the mother was far from any society and the new born child faced certain death without the mother?

It seems that your definition is highly dependent on external circumstances. Not that that is a deal breaker necessarily, just interesting.

I propose a compromise: allow the extraction of the live fetus from a woman's womb at any point. After that, it's on its own, to fend for itself or be saved by a motivated third party.

Re:Well...

[g0_p]

Wait a minute here.. You are painting an overly exaggerated picture here with your remarks.

The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs.
No one is asking for permission to cut up people and harvest their organs. Organ donation for science or to save another life is a routine thing that a large number of people have no ethical issues about. Similarly, people should be allowed to donate fertilized eggs for research in just the same way. (I stress on the fact that people should willingly donate it knowing full well what it will be used for. Just as it is the case with organ donation.) Why should the government have a problem with that?

Under legal definitions which were decided by U.S. courts, not the U.S. society, human life starts after the baby's head exits the mother.

Actually the courts decide that human "life" starts about 24 weeks after conception - which is about the time that the fetus becomes viable according to the doctors/scientists and as accepted by the court. After 24 weeks, aborting a baby without having a really good reason (as deemed by a doctor) is a crime. So this definitely covers the case of if a fertilized egg is viable or not.

As someone else mentioned, this regulation from the government has no other basis other than politico-religious reasons.

Re:Well...

[Dorothy 86]

I didn't mean to say you were ignorant, I only clarified it because you lumped Christian groups into the same train of thought you were advocating, and most wouldn't feel the same way.

Re:Well...

[zbose]

I just wanted to say that was one of the most intelligent and well thought out posts I have ever read on Slashdot. I truly enjoyed reading it and now I am even considering getting an into to philosophy type book to read.

Thanks.

-zb

Re:Well...

[fossa]

... don't read much actual Philosophy, do you? Makes it kind of hard to analyze Ethics if you've only done it from the comfort of the omniscient armchair.

so... libraries don't have armchairs?

the mere fact that an embryo has the potential to become a human being

There's your mistake... I think those on the other side of the fence treat an embryo as a human being. Assume this other sider believes in a "soul", and it is this "soul" that is the defining mark of a human being. I really can't see any point for the soul to come into existence except at the moment the egg is fertilized. Though perhaps I have misunderstood those on the other side.

For one thing, many things have the potential (i.e., have some causal relationship) to the creation of a healthy infant child. As someone else once suggested to me, one such thing is a glance of flirtation toward a fertile young woman. From that glance, there exists the potential for intercourse; from that intercourse, the potential of conception; from that conception, the potential of a human child in the form of an embryo.

I must be gone now, for it is my moral obligation to make babies with all the fertile women I've laid eyes on today. (I like this "philosophy" stuff!)

Re:Well...

[nwbvt]

Sure, try these:

• Plato
• Hume
• Kant
• Mill
• Nietzsche

etc.

No, those are not the kinds of references you are probably thinking of, but studying ethics is not like studying Calculus. There is no definitive resource that proves or refutes any given belief.

Re:Well...

[Idarubicin]

The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs. At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?

THAT's the issue. Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls.

Of course, you can do the same thing that is done to prevent trade in human organs: make the sale (and purchase) of sperm, ova, and embryos illegal.

Embryos can be donated for medical research, or to other couples, or disposed of--whatever is fine by the ethical lights of the parents.

Researchers can't get grants and can't publish their work if they aren't able to describe where their samples come from; they would go to jail if they report that they paid for materials. Without a cash incentive for fertility clinics or couples to generate excess embryos beyond what would be used for fertility treatments, you avoid the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of research.

Re:Well...

[Politburo]

Today unused embryos are worthless trash, if legal for research they'd be a very valuable commodity. This might give the incentive to overcollect embryos or start paying women to donate embryos only to turn around and sell them.

A trivial problem. Make it just like donating your body to science when you die. It's illegal to sell your body parts, but completely legal to be an organ donor.

Re:Well...

[snuf23]

"To conclude, embryos have no inherent moral value. They only have moral value if you believe potential to have moral value gives something moral value, which I believe to be a kind of circular argument and a conflation of ideas."

Which would be a great argument if you were debating with a rational, scientific person. However, most of the objections come from people who have a religious orientation and some level of belief about association of a "soul" to the embryo (potential child). Miscarriage (many of which happen before the pregnancy is even evident) is a "natural" event and therefore within the realm of God. As in, you might not like it, but it's in God's plan and so it is acceptable. Deliberately creating and harvesting the embryos is not natural and not God endorsed.

(Disclaimer: These are not my beliefs, I am just illustrating that people who are anti stem cell research are not usually coming from a scientific perspective.)

Re:Well...

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

Thanks. I'm not sure how I ended up with a "Troll" moderation, but I appreciate everyone's responses. I guess I was looking more for a general survey of "Ethics" as a topic. It's always good to have a place from which to start.

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

Are you suggesting that we have fetuses write wills?

Re:Well...

[GreggyBUIUC]

I rarely post on slashdot, but i just wanted to agree with zbode and thank you for one of the only "read more" comments that i've read in its entirity.

Very well done.

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

Is that an issue of the ends justifying the means, or the immediate context justifying the means?

The reason I said ethics and the attitude that "the ends justify the means" are, by definition, in conflict is that, if your ethical principle is that "the ends justify the means", then there must be no principle for "proper" or "moral" action beyond that. It's a dead end. No actions, then, can be ethical. No action can be judged good until the long chain of causality has played out, the results are known and measured, and the end is judged to be good.

Re:Well...

[afaik_ianal]

Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted. You can't reverse an execution.

What does that have to do with the question posed by ThatDamnMurphyGuy? You can't always reverse the creation of an unused embryo like you can a jail sentence. There comes a point in time when the embryo needs to be destroyed. I don't know the medicine of it, but it seems plausible that stem cell harvesting could take place instead of the destruction. The problem with analogies, are they are nothing more than analogies.

As an interesting side note, the probability of an implanted embryo surviving is very low. (Casual perusal of web suggests anywhere between 50% and 90% of embryos do not survive - depending on which reports you beleive). The actual act of implanting an embryo will probably kill that embryo. Is that analogous to 90% of criminals dying as they walk out of prison?

Oh, and IANAD either :).

Re:Well...

[poopdeville]

That's a good analogy, and by abstracting from it and the original case, we come to the central ethical question in this debate: Is it a moral obligation to reject the product of an action we find objectionable? I suspect the answer is "No," but I could easily cook up examples that make it seem really counter-intuitive.

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

Embryos are simply configurations of human cells...

People are simply configurations of human cells.

The crux of the matter is, the rock or chair isn't conscious, and that's why they have no moral value.... To conclude, embryos have no inherent moral value. They only have moral value if you believe potential to have moral value gives something moral value, which I believe to be a kind of circular argument and a conflation of ideas.

It makes me wonder whose definition of "moral value" you're using. I would say that a chair can certainly have value. Destruction of a chair, in spite of its lack of consciousness, can most certainly be a moral issue, and therefore the act of destroying it might be said to have negative moral value.

Besides all that, you're conflating "morals" and "ethics", which leads me to believe you ought to be more generous with your combatants' philosophic attempts.

Re:Well...

[falconwolf]

there is now a disincentive to do stem cell research in the US.

There is only a disincentive to stem cell research if you consider you want governemnt to pay for it. If researchers want federal funding then they can use the stem cell lines already approved but if they don't then they can use other lines of stem cells. It's a strawman, lying, or else the person don't know what they're saying, to say stem cell research can't be done in the US.

Falcon

Re:Well...

[Dhalka226]

Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.

If you know ethics is tricky business perhaps you should not have made the latter half of that statement.

There are many ethical theories which essentially say exactly that. Utilitarianism, for example, talks about the greatest ratio of good to bad for an outcome; it essentially amounts to "the greatest good for the greatest number." And while it offers no advice as to how to weigh good and bad, I think it's safe to say that the long-term potential of this research far outweighs the short-term problems. In other words, the ends would justify the means.

Utilitarianism is not exactly a crackpot ethical theory either. It is highly popular. It is something we use all the time in our daily lives without even knowing it, even if we don't necessarily agree with it in all cases. If I have $100 I'm going to donate to a charity and I can either donate it to help provide vaccinations for childhood diseases for 10 children or provide free Viagra for three nursing home patients, I'm going to give it for the research. It's exactly what utilitarianism would tell me to do whether I know that or not.

The problem with ethics is that just about any theory, when presented with extreme situations, has a tendency to fail. Or if not fail, to feel incomplete or unsatisfying. They also tend to beg the question by qualifying the validity of an ethical theory by holding it up against our pre-conceived notions of what an ethical outcome to a situation is.

Ethics is a tricky subject. Let's keep that in mind before we attempt to degrade anybody's interpretation of what it means to be ethical and force upon them our own.

Re:Well...

[MonkeyOfRage]

Modding the parent 5 insightful? C'mon, kids - there's nothing insightful about giving legal answers to ethical questions. Please don't drink and mod.

Re:Well...

[Morganth]

"You can't use philosophy to determine whether or not a physical being, regardless of its current state of development, exists or merely has the potential to exist. It clearly exists and it is clearly human. What some folks choose to say is that the embryo/fetus isn't a 'person'."

It "clearly" exists and it is clearly human? I assume it here refers to the embryo. Saying an embryo is "clearly human" leaves you with a very implausible definition of humanity. It, for example, allows that dead people are "people" to, whose bodies should be protected as vigorously as live ones. Since, after all, your definition of humanity has nothing to do with any qualitative aspects of it (like consciousness, having and leading a life, conceptualizing one's future, etc.) but instead focuses on what you term as a kind of "raw physicality of the thing," that is, that the embryo is physically human since it came from two humans conceiving/reproducing. But then, so did the dead person. And so did any other configuration of my cells (my donated kidney, my cells washed off when I wash my hands). But these aren't people. I'm me, but these cells aren't me.

When I say embryos are just configurations of human cells, and you mockingly reply "so are people," you make it seem like I forgot that. I didn't. I pointed out that what makes human beings, well, human beings, is this magical thing called "consciousness," which you can debate separately if you like, but we all agree embryos aren't conscious. When I say embryos are just lumps of cells, I meant that's "all" embryos are. People are lumps of cells configured in such a way that they are conscious beings.

It's not that some refuse to call an embryo a person. It's that some people insist on calling an embryo a person, even though they can't provide any criteria to show us why it deserves to be called a person. I provided mine: it's consciousness. At some point in human development, humans get it... psychologists are still debating whether it's in the couple months prior to birth or whether it's even a bit later than that, and the consciousness debate will rage on for a long time probably, but we're about as close as our postmodern intellectual culture gets to being "sure" that embryos don't have consciousness.

Re:Well...

[Morganth]

See response above for why this nonsense about "humans are just collections of cells" is missing the point. Consciousness is the key thing.

You say, "and also by missing the fact that people are more sympathetic to an animal than to a rock or a chair is not because we know they feel pain. It is because they are more like us than a rock or a chair. Hate to break it to you but a fetus is still more like us than any deer that i've ever seen."

Wrong. This may be your intuition, but it's pretty easy to see past. For example, imagine some alien life form comes down from another planet which is made up of completely different materials than we have ever seen. However, we can tell that the alien life form experiences pain, is conscious, can communicate with us, has goals and aspirations which might be halted by harm caused to him. He may not be anything like us from a physical point of view, or even from an aesthetic point of view, but we still would think it wrong to hurt him.

Your statement is raising the question, "but how are the animals like us? In what way?" The answer is that they are conscious.

To say we should make moral judgements based on how things look is really insanity. My perfect likeness carved in wood and painted photorealistically should not deserve any moral protection. The alien life form who looks nothing like me but is a thinking being does deserve some, however.

Fetuses do look like us, and that's why many people feel a sentimental attachment to them. But that's just playing into the same reason a really good 3D model of a baby that does something funny might make us laugh. It's because our brain, constantly drawing connections based on our senses, begins to equate the 3D model with an actual human, and thus allows us to feel all the sympathetic connections. If you see that really good 3D model die, you feel sad, for example.

Our brain does this same trick for a fetus, especially since fetuses have been photographed and seen so closely in macro lenses, and seen to resemble humans so much. But we shouldn't be making moral arguments just based on how things look, and if you don't see the reason why not, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I don't think many serious people would take up your line of reasoning. Potentiality works much better, and they toss the argument of what gives someone inherent moral value off to the side, to be debated at a later debt.

Re:Well...

[ozmanjusri]

I'm not sure how I ended up with a "Troll" moderation

Having "Xenophon" as part of your nick and pretending to be naive about ethics? Or did you think The Apology of Socrates was a romance novel?

Re:Well...

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

"Xenophon" was my grandfather's name and is my middle name. It made for a cooler-sounding nick than all of the Doctor-Who-themed names I came up with back in the BBS days. And, perhaps unfortunately, being well read in ancient Greek philosophy isn't a pre-requisite for having a Greek name. I don't speak any Greek, either. (Of course, my non-hacker friends would say otherwise.)

Re:Well...

[Jim_Callahan]

Actually, its just the potential moral value = actual moral value argument that's invalid. The "all organisms with complete human genomes have souls (usually, one soul per genome, thus excluding dead skin cells, etc, separated from the largest mass posessing the unique genome)" + "things with souls have moral value" => "Embryos have moral value" is entirely valid, since embryos are organisms with a complete human genome. It's perfectly rational.

The simple "embryos have no inherent moral value" is not itself a rational statement, but an assertion devoid of logic. To demonstrate rationality, you have to demonstrate a chain of causality from base assertions to a nontrivial solution. In this case the extent of the logic is "non-conscious things have no moral value" + "embryos aren't conscious" => "embryos have no moral value". The rest of the grandparent is a series of strawmen, which are fine for making points but don't actually support the main point in any way.

When it all comes down to it, the two assertions in question are equally valid. They are both one step removed from the base assertions, and the base assertions both consist of an arbitrary statement of an ill-defined term (consciousness and soul) and an arbitrary, unsupportable assertion as to the moral value of said term (soul = good, consciousness = good). Careful definition can swing science into the favor of the consciousness decision, but careful definition can do the same for the soul argument. Even then, science cannot by its nature make moral commands, so wether the people involved are scientific or not is irrelevant.

So, in conclusion, your point on the 'scientificness' of the debaters involved is irrelevant, and both of your examples exhibit roughly equivalent rationality. Rebuttal complete.

Re:Well...

[Jim_Callahan]

It grows, has the potential to reproduce(species requirement), posesses a metabolism, responds to some stimuli, and posesses mecahnisms for controlled (internal) motion. Yup, that would be life.

Of course, I'm assuming you want to be consistent in your definitions: i.e. that, using the biological sciences consensus of what constitutes an 'embryo', you'd also use the same consensus definition of life.

Re:Well...

[Jim_Callahan]

Actually, the reason that suicide is illegal in the US has little to do with morality, and much to do with preventing people from defrauding life-insurance companies (i.e. it was the best way to deal with an economic concern at the time). And people that are actually considered 'children' are not allowed to be soldiers, here or anywhere else. In fact, even where it's allowed (say, Palestine), becoming a soldier pretty much voids your child license, as it were. In this light, your statement about IEDs is entirely incorrect.

Also, it's not considered 'a crime', it's considered 'immoral'. A crime is very specifically an action committed in violation of a state or federal law. Sorry to nitpick (wait, no, I'm not) but the distinction between morality and law is quite important aroudn here, as, our government structure being above all things practical, the two often diverge widely. The general perception, and what usually actually happens, is that laws are considered enforceable and necessary to enforce, while morals are not. In the US, anyhow. i wouldn't know about the general attitude in the Netherlands.

Also, I'd like to note that sperm and egg donation is completely voluntary, and follow the obeservation with a query as to what planet you live on, because it sounds restful to be that far from reality all the time.

Re:Well...

[Jim_Callahan]

True, you found the artificial womb loophole that would allow even a zygote to attain person status. I would go with the activation of the senses and the analytical processes, personally. The ability to acquire data and interpret it is what makes a person whatever he is, really.

Re:Well...

[Mathinker]

Interesting...

Ever worry about that "gray period" sometime in the (probably far)
future which we will experience when AI systems start to approach the
point where almost everyone will consider them as having
consciousness? By your argument, after that point, we will have to
start treating them as people (something which I generally agree
with).

With an AI system, the problem of deciding if it is conscious is
much more difficult; with organic organisms we ordinarily use the
criterion of "responsiveness" heavily, but that fails badly with
AI systems, as they are (almost) all responsive.

I think we're in for a tough time, ahead...

Of course, much of the religious right will probably have no problem,
by canonically denying the possibility of a non-organic entity with a
soul.

Re:Well...

[Ihlosi]

Good question. Is anyone who isn't conscious at present "fair game" ?

Re:Well...

[Dr. Manhattan]

psychologists are still debating whether it's in the couple months prior to birth or whether it's even a bit later than that, and the consciousness debate will rage on for a long time probably, but we're about as close as our postmodern intellectual culture gets to being "sure" that embryos don't have consciousness.

I agree with you in most features of this argument, except this one. We know that brains are necessary for (human) consciousness, but we just don't know what about the configuration of a human brain is critical. There are odd cases (such as a hydrocephalic with about half the normal brain volume who nevertheless shows no obvious mental impairments) that illustrate how little we really know about this subject. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution and put the provisional limit much earlier.

Re:Well...

[anthony_dipierro]

That statement also shows the inextricably parallel issue of defining when human life begins.

This is a pet peeve of mine, but human life began millions of years ago. The issue is when does a particular human lifeform get independent rights as a human being.

Re:Well...

[anthony_dipierro]

What is the ethical problem with using embryonic stem cells from fertalized eggs that are being thrown away from a fertility clinic?

As long as you're absolutely sure that the stem cells would have otherwise been thrown away, I guess the ethical question is similar to that of organ donation. But if you're not absolutely sure about this, it's more like the ethical question of eating veal.

What I get confused with is how people are against that particular use, yet aren't against the fertility clinic itself, which outside the scope of this argument is throwing away fertalized eggs...aka "murder" to the extremists.

Most likely "the extremists" are against the fertility clinic itself. I'm not sure how extremist you'd have to be, though. If I really thought about the issue I'd probably come to the conclusion that I'm against fertility clinics. I wouldn't call it murder, but I would say that it's unethical to intentionally create and throw away embryos just so that someone who isn't able to have a child naturally can have a child without adopting. If on the other hand you're using the embryos to save lives, I think it's a much more difficult question.

Re:Well...

[Ankharan]

", we'd have to stop letting rich white women have the precious little babies they so desperately want (back to happy face and thumbs up)." I do not see any condemnation for the Poor baby making factories.... Looks like someone is buying into the "entitlement ideology." Rich white folk... why is it always okay to use the rich white folk aregument and not use the poor black folk as a way and means to describe or convey the problems with our society? Makes me wanna hurl. Think about this... if the rich, let us use a income level... say, those that make a million a year. Very finite number and an elite club, stopped for one week, buying, paying taxes, supporting others (employees would be a support), this country would be in utter chaos. You should be thanking the rich for being rich. You should thank the rich for being the top payers of a clearly discriminatory taxing system. I don't make that kind of cash per year, but I do make a healthy sum, many consider me rich, I don't. Not when I am taxed 38.5% of my income, with few to no deductions and someone else is either not taxed or is only taxed 10 to 15%. I guess it is okay to rob those that have because they have and other do not. May as well support the idea that it is okay to hold a person up in the street because they are obviously better dressed or appear to have more money. The justification for nit picking is amazing. Talk about no ethics and double talk. Rich white woman, it makes me sick to even think people actually swallow this kind of thinking. Just as sick to think that poor black males are the dregges of society.

Re:Well...

[Mac Degger]

Sure...you're not allowed to drink, but you can duie for your country: you're an adult now!

"Also, it's not considered 'a crime', it's considered 'immoral'."

No...their stated aim is to overturn Roe vs Wade and thus make it criminal. Therefore, to their mind, it isn't just immoral, it is a crime which since Roe v Wade doesn't have the force of law behind it, but soon will again.

"while morals are not."

Which is why those ten commandment tablets are popping up left and right?

"I'd like to note that sperm and egg donation is completely voluntary,"

You left that very open for interpretation in your original post (in fact, you weren't talking about donations at all, you were talking purely about use), which is why I made the point that certain people wouldn't like their zygote to be donated to couples who wanted it, which might be the reason why it isn't done that way.

As for your parting comment; wow...now I'm really upset. Really.

Re:Well...

[indifferent children]

humans are just a bunch of living cells

We are made of living cells, but what makes us human ethically, and often legally, is not the cells, but our minds. A doctor can amputate or remove a person's: hand, foot, arm, leg, teeth, eyes, internal organs (many), etc. Even part of a person's brain can be removed (as in the case of brain tumors) without ethical or legal problems. But in most jurisdictions, a doctor is not allowed to deliberately kill a patient. So what is the difference here? It is the killing of an individual's mind that constitutes murder, not the killing of any set of billions of cells.

Look at the case of Terri Schiavo; she had no mind, so allowing all of her cells to die was allowed. Even many of those fighting to keep her alive tacitly agreed on this point. Sen. Bill Frist (who is also an M.D.) opined that she did not appear to be in a 'persistent vegitative state'. He did not stand-up and say that a mindless mass of cells must be kept alive. He felt a need to say that there was a mind present. In general, once 'brain death' occurs, a person is legally dead and life support can be removed.

If an embryo has a mind (not just a brain, but a mind), then the ethics of dealing with a human individual should be considered.

Re:Well...

[Free_Meson]

These embryos were never in a woman's womb, though. Did God "weave" them in a test tube? Because these embryos were formed in a process other than that described by your passage, why would you assume that your passage would apply?

Re:Well...

[indifferent children]

Correction: frozen 'eggs' are never thrown-out from infertility clinics, because eggs cannot be frozen for the purpose of fertility. Only sperm and already-fertilized embryos can be frozen. Very early-stage embryos are the things being thrown away.

Re:Well...

[indifferent children]

It grows, has the potential to reproduce(species requirement), posesses a metabolism, responds to some stimuli, and posesses mecahnisms for controlled (internal) motion. Yup, that would be life.

An early-stage embryo that is a mass of say, 200 cells does not possess a metabolism or respond to stimuli or possess mechanisms for controlled (internal) motion. Thus by your definition it is not life, so any drug or device that prevents implantation should certainly be allowed (RU-486).

BTW, the 'potential to reproduce' is not a requirement for an indiviual to be a member of a species. That is a tool for biologists to divide populations of organisms into different species. A human child, born without gonads is still a human, and it is not legal or ethical to kill them just because they have no potential to reproduce.

Re:Well...

[Ihlosi]

does not possess a metabolism

It certainly does. How else is it getting the energy to make more cells ? It breaks down certain molecules to generate energy, and it assembles new molecules it needs. Catabolism and anabolism, both of which make up metabolism.

responds to some stimuli

It certainly does (implantation on contact with a suitable surface, for example)

so any drug or device that prevents implantation should certainly be allowed (RU-486).

RU-486's purpose is not preventing implantation (that can be done with much simpler hormones, medically), but to disrupt an already existing pregnancy. RU-486 is a chemical abortion drug, not a morning-after pill/emergency contraception.

Re:Well...

[Red Flayer]

"What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways."

How long do you think a life sentence is? I'll give you a hint, it's not until the prisoner dies.

The average prisoner sentenced to "life in prison" is released after about 15 years.

The ethical problem is that though they may be prisoners, and have limited civil rights, they are still humans. They are not property to do with as we wish.

Re:Well...

[Muad'Dave]

They think the mere fact that an embryo has the potential to become a human being gives it moral value, makes it "worthy of being saved." This is because they know human beings have moral value, and so conflate "a thing with potential to be something of moral value" with "a thing that has moral value."

I think you overlook the millions of people that believe that an embryo is a human being, not something that has the potential to become a human being; therefore making the rest of your argument spurious.

Re:Well...

[Raven_Stark]

Morganth, since you seem to know something about philosophy, perhaps you could help me with something I've been struggling with.

I think it should be legal to use embryonic stem cells which were going to be discarded anyway, but I don't really know why I think that. The logic you, myself and others use makes use of unprovable principles. In this case I guess it is that there is such a thing as "moral value" although perhaps this is logically derived from even more fundamental principles, I don't know. My point is, at the base of it all is what amounts to an untestable guess. That we can all agree that it is a good guess doesn't change the fact the it is still just an untestable guess. Doesn't that make all of philosophy rather dogmatic?

Science, mathematics, and I guess everything seems to have this problem at their roots.

Is there at least a "solution exists" type answer?

Real life example of why this is a problem. I recently encountered a man who aims to literally turn the USA into a theocracy. His plan involves asking everyone who disagrees with the Christian religion to leave the country. He would then execute those who refuse to leave. (Ultimately, he'd also execute those who left since his long term goal is world wide theocracy.) I said everyone has a basic right to life. He said I was being just as dogmatic about that as he was about the existence of a God who would advocate mass murder of infidels. Well, I for one, can't logically prove from nothing that everyone (or anyone) has a right to life. He went on to basically say rightness is whatever the majority says is right or is determined by whatever group has the power to get its way. If the majority think there is a God who advocates mass murder of infidels then it is right to murder all the infidels (read Jews, Muslims, and all other people of different religious persuasions including many Christians, and of course atheists, homosexuals, fornicators, etc).

His parent class seems to be Dominism/Reconstructionism which also includes several well known Christian leaders. The Christian Right and Christian fundamentalists also seem to inherit much from the same parent class although they don't usually openly advocate mass murder. They all believe might makes right (democracy can trump individual rights if the masses say it's okay.)

Anyway, I guess I'm going off on a tangent. How do you deal with all this?

Re:Well...

[Guuge]

I don't recall Christ having any moral objections to using the tissue of dead people to help living people.

As much as I'd love to chat about good ol' Jesus, he isn't really relevant to the mythology in question. What I'm talking about is the concept of "soul" and the mythological tradition (not in the bible) that holds that these entities have these properties:
1) They are full-blown human beings.
2) Embryos each contain one of them.

Without this concept the ethical case against embryonic stem cell research falls apart.

Re:Well...

[Dorothy 86]

It isn't so much the "womb" to which I was referring. You've got to understand that at the time the passage was written, they didn't have test tube babies. In their context, being in the mother's womb was the only way there was. Today, not even going into the ethical situation test tube babies bring up, in our context, this is still the start of a life. Whether brought around by Sex or by artificial insemination. It's still the beginning of life, and God is still in charge.

It's a contextual thing; the transcendental truth is that God weaves life, not the fact that it's done in a womb.

Re:Well...

[Bob Uhl]

Well, a lot of us are consistent in our view: we decry the murder involved in stem cell research, and we decry the murder involved in 'throwing away' unwanted children. There are even some who will adopt the unwanted, have them implanted, give them birth and raise them as their own.

Actually, there's a religious argument that an embryo does not have a soul (essentially, it boils down to the fact that it can split into identical twins, but that a soul cannot be split, and thus that an early-term embryo cannot have a soul), but the scientific evidence is quite clear: from the moment of conception there is a new member of homo sapiens. Kinda amusing that this is the one case where religion might be less didactic than science.

Re:Well...

[kria]

*waves!!! frantically*

Re:Well...

[Morganth]

"So a human who is sleeping, and thus not conscious would have no moral value?"

Sorry, again, here I was assuming some background reading about what "consciousness " is. Unfortunately, in Philosophy (this is a flaw of the subject), terms are often quite vague to start off with, and Philosophers make a habit of trying to really define a term. When debating with people who haven't studied it, I forget that consciousness takes on a different meaning in regular discussion. "Consciousness" as I'm using it has nothing to do with "being awake" or "being asleep." Whether you are awake or asleep, you are conscious. You are not "unconscious" when asleep, merely with a potential to awake--your brain doesn't "shut off" when you're asleep. It simply doesn't provide you with the constant stream of sense-input you associate with a waking state.

Comas are definitely a gray area. I really don't know enough about the brain states of humans in comas to make any judgement about whether they are still "conscious," but I'd say they probably aren't, especially if it's a coma from which that person will never recover. If it is a coma which one can recover from (and, after which, be conscious) I can only assume that the brain was either a) in a conscious state the whole time or b) "broken" into an unconscious state (i.e., it no longer functioned) but then "healed" and went into a conscious state again. Again, this (b) possibility makes comas very much a gray area. However, as I like to say to friends: gray areas don't mean you have the wrong principle, as long as your principle works when we have clear-cut cases. For example, the moral principle that "killing is wrong" has lots of grey areas: what if the person you are killing killed your entire family? What if you fire a gun at a target on a wall and slip and shoot your friend instead? But that's not to say the moral principle--"killing is wrong"--is bad, just because one can find "grey area cases" in which killing may not be wrong. It just means that things like time and causation can be confused, and things like intent or potential to avoid an accident or negligent action are hard to measure.

Even some concepts we have that seem very clear-cut have gray areas. Take your concept of a "table". What is a table? Think of modern artists in furniture design who fused the concept of "table" and "chair" to produce something that seems to be a hybrid between the two. Okay, so maybe you define table functionally: something onto which one can place objects. But now imagine a "table" whose surface spins around at high speed, so that nothing can be placed on it. Is it still a table? Okay, so maybe you define it physically, like a surface atop any number of "legs". But now imagine a table that hangs from the ceiling by steel wire. Etc. etc. I know this seems rather nit-picky, but that's really what gray areas are, and that's why I think they're fun to think about, but ultimately one should evaluate a moral principle by its general-case performance, and then make sure it doesn't do "insane" things in rational gray areas.

What my argument above tried to do is show that a) since embryos are clearly not conscious beings (nor were they ever conscious beings), they don't demand a special moral protection and b) moral protection has only been granted to them because embryos have the potential to become conscious beings, the so-called potentiality principle, which has other unacceptable implications.

I really think some great points were raised, however.

For example, one problem with my consciousness argument is what another poster raised: that "strong AI", should it ever come about (and thinkers like Jeff Hawkins in "On Intelligence" make me believe it just may some day) would give us responsibility to give these new robots moral value. I don't know if there's something wrong with that, it just may seem unnatural because AI machines are so different from us, but then again so is the example I gave of an alien life form.

Re:Well...

[Sgt_Jake]

I think you're missing the process called 'narrative'. His point was exactly that NO ONE is condemning the 'poor baby making factories' even though they do EXACTLY the same thing that moralists are condemning - destroying potentially viable embryos. His use of 'rich white women' and 'thumbs up / thumbs down' is used to put his story into a more enjoyable context, not necessarily a statement about elitism or race. I found it quite entertaining, and saw his point clearly. You, however, have had a _personal_ reaction to his eloquent use of the english (or perhaps "Ameri-can") language, specifically the "rich" or "white" words, which means that those words are charged with additional meaning in your mind. You should look to that.

And everyone knows the Mexicans are the dredges. Or the French, depending on which year of which animal those crazy Chinamen are in... are we back to Indians yet?

Re:Well...

[tfoss]

It grows, has the potential to reproduce(species requirement), posesses a metabolism, responds to some stimuli, and posesses mecahnisms for controlled (internal) motion. Yup, that would be life.

By that definition, pretty much every cell in your body qualifies. If you are equating a fertilized egg and a skin cell and (to be relevant) an umbilical cord stem cell, then you've pretty much lost the debate about why a blasocyst is special.

Of course, I'm assuming you want to be consistent in your definitions: i.e. that, using the biological sciences consensus of what constitutes an 'embryo', you'd also use the same consensus definition of life.

I'm not sure there is a consensus definition of life. That's the problem.

-Ted

Re:Well...

[indifferent children]

The individual cells have metabolisms, and 'respond' to a few crude stimuli, but there is no organism-level metabolism or stimulus/response. But you're right about my confusing RU-486 with a morning-after pill.

Re:Well...

[Retric]

That is not nearly the problem you're presenting. When given two choices the person looks at the near and long term consequences that they know about and make judgments based on their limited point of view. Thus, "the ends justifying the means" can work as to foundation of an ethical system even if the final ends are not known.

PS: Is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that someone dies worth it if you save 10,000,000 lives? Why?

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

PS: Is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that someone dies worth it if you save 10,000,000 lives? Why?

What you're describing is more of a moral dilemma, not an ethical dilemma. The distinction is a fine one, but it's there. Morality might tell you that it's better to take a small risk with one person than to doom many. Ethics, sometimes, boils down to questions like, "Am I the right person to make this decision?"

Sometimes, even if you know what the "right" decision is, ethical constraints might prohibit you from making that decision. Another example: You're a defense attorney defending someone you know to be utterly reprehensible. If you get this guy off the hook, he'll steal, rape, murder, and generally inflict a lot of harm on a lot of people. You know, for a fact, that they guy is guilty. You're pretty sure that he'll be ok in prison, and in fact he might be just as well and happy there. One might argue that it's "moral" to not-quite try your hardest, it's harder to argue that it would be ethical.

The distinction between morals and ethics might be comparable to the distinction between justice and legality. They often line up and relate to each other, but they aren't the same thing. Morals tend to deal with goodness and compassion while ethics deal with things like duty and large-scale ramifications.

Re:Well...

[RespekMyAthorati]

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics/.

Re:Well...

[snuf23]

"I never understood comments like this about how things man does are not natural or "endorsed" by God. Why would God give us the intellect and capabilities to harvest eggs and many other things?"

It's because it becomes a moral question. God gave us the intellect to build nuclear weapons as well. God gave man the capacity to viciousness that can lead to the murder of millions. The point is that mankind is supposed to act morally.
The question is simply: is harvesting embryos morally correct by God's law.
Somehow I don't think there is a passage in the bible that states the correct answer bluntly (although I'm sure there are whackos out there who would consider the murder of innoncents to be descriptive). However because an embryo is a "potential child", killing the embryo is killing the potentiality with human hands - rather than by an unavoidable "natural" act. So the same argument applied against abortion is applied here.
Now you imply that no one complains about the excess eggs in a fertility clinic. A quick search on google shows things like a bill in Kentucky that makes it illegal to fertilize more than one egg for IVF. Or the findings that there are 400,00 0 frozen embryos in storage, partially because the parents have moral qualms about getting rid of fertilized eggs they don't need. It seems like no one thought about it too much before the stem cell issue came up, but I would expect to see legislation passed in some states which will make IVF more difficult.
I'm playing devil's advocate here - as these aren't my personal opinions.

Re:Well...

[Retric]

The study of Ethics is more about what people in specific cultures feel is right than it is about what is absolutely right. Morals tend to be generic rules that are based on ethical principles. But, in the real world you need a system to specify which is worse the sending one innocent man to jail or not punishing 10 guilty men.

What do you do if you're the defense attorney for a man who is willing to take the blame for a murder committed by his son? Should a battlefield doctor risk his life, knowing that if he dies more of his countrymen will die without his help, to save a foot solder? How about the army's best general?

The reason why the above are ethical dilemmas is because they are situations where there are different Moral principles in conflict. Triage is a vary simple case of this. "When many peoples lives are at risk go where you can do the most good." But, how do you rank good? That's what Ethics is about. Most doctors agree that it's better to give a heart transplant to an otherwise healthy 20 year old than an 80 year old with a 6-month life expectancy.

My point is the ends justify the means works as part of a moral and ethical system. Ethics becomes complicated when you realize that you don't know things. The 80 year old might be working on a cure for AIDS and the 20 year old might be on death row for human sacrifice, but that does not mean you need to know everything before making a decision. However, understanding that you could be wrong is part of the basis for acting as a defense attorney for someone you think is guilty and many other situations where ethics point to a different conclusion than morals might suggest.

PS: Philosophers like to try and codify things like "absolute good" but that is no grantee that such things exist. You can make an analogy that volcano's are like the bowl movements of animals, but that's just blowing smoke as it where. The central problem with philosophy is that just because an argument sounds good does not make it correct. Thus, western thought moved on and codified the principles of science so that you could have some basis for judging the validity of ideas in the real world.

Re:Well...

[nine-times]

The study of Ethics is more about what people in specific cultures feel is right than it is about what is absolutely right. Morals tend to be generic rules that are based on ethical principles. But, in the real world you need a system to specify which is worse the sending one innocent man to jail or not punishing 10 guilty men.

That's something like what I was saying, right? I can't quite tell if you mean to argue.

My point is the ends justify the means works as part of a moral and ethical system.

Perhaps as "part", in that 'intentions' and 'expected outcomes' play a role, but that doesn't mean that the ends, alone, justify the means.

Philosophers like to try and codify things like "absolute good" but that is no grantee that such things exist... [snip]... The central problem with philosophy is that just because an argument sounds good does not make it correct.

All these thousands of years that people have been trying to state "the problem with philosophy", and you think you got it in a sentence? Let's not even begin to attack that one unless you're willing to set aside a couple months of your life (minimum).

Thus, western thought moved on and codified the principles of science so that you could have some basis for judging the validity of ideas in the real world.

So you agree that science is a subset of philosophy? It was some of the same people who wanted to codify "absolute good", in fact, that also sought to codify the philosophic pursuit into science. In engineering terms, this limited scope lead to rapid progress. Make no mistake, good science is a branch philosophy with a limited scope. If not, how can you begin to judge the validity of ideas in the "real world" without establishing what you're inspecting when you inspect the "real world"?

Re:Well...

[dooglio]

Man, I have to say, I'm truly frightened of your friend.

Tell you what, ask him if he considers himself a Christian. If so, then ask him what he thinks of Matthew 7.1: "Judge not that ye not be judged." Or how about Matthew 5:39: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Ask him how he can reconcile his position on mass murder, or even judging "infidels" in the face of that. I'd really like to know.

Re:Well...

[Firethorn]

So would you consider a baby entirely incubated in an artificial womb to have a soul or not?

When does the 'weaving' take place? Would an embryo, never placed within a womb, only existing on a culture dish count?

Re:Well...

[luna69]

> However, anyone who thinks that using embryonic stem cells is a
> no-brainer either doesn't understand the ethical considerations at
> stake, or simply doesn't believe in ethical considerations at all.

Ah, how exactly does this follow? You're being silly, using hyperbole to get your point made, then leaving this illogical nonsense dangling.

So: I do believe that using embryonic stem cells is a no-brainer. And I most definitely do understand the ethical considerations, and the science. And I do believe in ethical considerations.

Your statement above, designed to neatly and tidily put people into a manageable group for purposes of dismissal, is clumsy, illogical, and wrong. If you want to debate the ethics of using embryonic stem cells, fine. But this sort of blanket statement doesn't further the discussion. It is, in fact, little more than a playground insult: "nah nah! you're a nincompoop!"

Re:Well...

[Dorothy 86]

yes it would, and I'll cite another post I made along these lines: here

Re:Well...

[nyssa]

I think Hitler would have no problem with human embryonic experimentation.

Re:Well...

[Retric]

I can't quite tell if you mean to argue.

'The study o' ... 'expectancy. ' was an attempt to define the terms 'Ethics', 'The study of Ethics' and 'Morals' in a clear and explicit fashion. It might have been excessive but I it's easy to 'ague' about two completely different things in text based communication systems so I like to be clear.

but that doesn't mean that the ends, alone, justify the means. You are making the assumption that there is a correct ethical system. There is a wide verity of ethical systems that are inherently consistent (Aka they don't have internal contradictions) but are vary inconsistent with each other. As I recall in early Mesopotamia there was a law where if you built a house that fell down and killed the son of person who you built the house for then your son would be killed. Harming someone who is uninvolved with the incident as punishment might seem strange to us but it can still work as part of a system of ethics.

Come to think of it Ethical systems don't have to be consistent to be used. So you can study systems that use variations on 'the end justifies the means' concept even when that seems to contradict other parts of the system.

All these thousands of years that people have been trying to state "the problem with philosophy", and you think you got it in a sentence?

Yep. "I think therefore I am." Vs. "Nope. You don't think or exist everything is random." and there is no way to judge which is correct. Or to paraphrase what Thomas Aquinas said "Philosophy s a house built on sand."

So you agree that science is a subset of philosophy? No, western thought is not the same thing as Philosophy. When early astronomers started using circles within circles within circles to define motions of the planets and someone said 'that's not a useful approach let's uses a model other than circles to define planetary motion' he was not creating a subset of the circles within circles idea. Science is built from bits and pieces of math, history, logic, and Philosophy but it's not a subset of any of them. It is a separate discipline unto its self. EX: Philosophers and Historians don't have any concept of 'Peer review before publication'.

If not...without establishing what you're inspecting when you inspect the "real world"

I don't need to define gravity to walk. I don't need to understand chemistry to set something on fire. Most people assume there is a real world and don't bother trying to define what that means.

Science is built on a few basic assumptions that are far less limited than most people think they are. EX: 'There is an unchanging rule set that defines the actions of everything within reality.' If there where a God then the unchanging rules set might be 'things operate as god wills them'. See the idea works if there is a God and it works if there is no god. If the 'world' as we know it where a computer simulation then the unchanging rule set would apply to the world outside that game and though that world it would set what was possible in the game. If the universe is truly random then the rule set is 'Anything can happen'. If there is only one reality and the speed of light changes as reality ages then a rule would be 'Speed of light = some function of(age of reality)' ect.

There are some assumptions about how experiments demonstrate things to some probability, but experiments don't try to prove things. None of this is based on the idea that anything is ever 'true'. The assumption is that the more you run an experiment that confirms your theory the more you can trust the accuracy of that theory as it apply's to that experiment. I could go on, but you can see why I would say that none of this is based on Philosophy in the since that none of what you do when you do science is based on what you do when you do Philosophy.

Philosophy might be the study of 'truth' but Science only cares about reasonable levels of accuracy.

Re:For purposes of consistency...

[erlenic]

He's only against stem cell research that comes from the death of an embryo. Harvesting umbilical cord stem cells does not kill the child, therefore it's not a problem to the common pro-life beliefs. However, there are some uncommon pro-lifers who think ALL medical advancements are wrong, because we are playing God or some such idea.

Steam cells

[Zlib pt]

Wasn't this already achieved with Christopher Reeve? Just watch its documentary

Adult stem cells, not embyonic.

[j1m 5n0w]

According to the article, these were umbilical cord cells, which are considered adult stem cells.

Re:And what did it take....

[dwayner79]

While I agree that aportion = killing babies, RTFA... It was adult Stem cells NOT embryonic.

Lumbar laminectomy was also done

[ugmoe]

The posted article does not mention that the patient also had a Lumbar laminectomy performed.

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/ We have to be cautious. One patient does not a treatment make. Also, the authors note that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit. But still, this is a wonderful story that offers tremendous hope for paralyzed patients. Typically, it has been extensively ignored in the American media (although it has gotten some foreign press attention). (Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?)

http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/ar ticle545.html "The goal of a laminectomy is to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or spinal nerve by widening the spinal canal. This is done by removing or trimming the lamina (roof) of the vertebrae to create more space for the nerves."

Re:Lumbar laminectomy was also done

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be anal, that actually was mentioned in the article. In fact, its pretty much the same text as you quote in your first link:

"We have to be cautious," said Smith, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. "One patient does not a treatment make."

The authors of the study note, writes Smith, that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit.

Re:Lumbar laminectomy was also done

[kevincw01]

The laminectomy was done 19 years and 6 months earlier. While I agree that it could have helped in combination with this procedure.. I DONT agree that this was a huge conincidence that they did this ground-breaking procedure and the laminectomy from 19 years ealier happened to produce results at the same time.

How to fix the real stem cell problem

[dada21]

Oh boy, an AnCap's favorite topic!

This news, if true and long lasting, is great.

In the short and long run, this topic is so political that even my brain runs in circles.

The first problem is the stem cell source. Umbilical cords get around the fetal tissue issue, but that problem will surface until the abortion issue is settled. Aabortion is an "is it murder?" issue. The definition of murder, Constitutionally, is a State right. Federally, the only Constitutional crimes are treason, piracy and counterfeiting. So stem cells are not in the federal domain of control.

Second is funding. Our Congress has no power Constitutionally to fund science. Medical research thrives on competition; in fact there are almost no medical discoveries that can be associated with federal studies. Let different companies compete and more people will be helped or saved.

Thirdly, regulations set up by the FDA on drugs pending approval are holding back many drugs that can help in stem cell use. The FDA is unconstitutional and costs tens of thousands of lives annually in delays. I'd rather leave drug testing and acceptance to UL-like private companies. When drugs go bad, lawsuits control the companies. The FDA has helped no one and prevented no one's death.

We have the free market to thank for so many medical discoveries. Why should we burden new ones with bureaucracy?

Re:How to fix the real stem cell problem

[tfoss]

in fact there are almost no medical discoveries that can be associated with federal studies.

I'm not sure what you are smoking, but it's clearly some strong stuff. Or I suppose, you could just be terribly ignorant.

I think maybe you are confusing "medical discoveries" with "drug formulations." Please, point me to a "medical discovery" that was a completely commercial endeavor. I would submit that the vast majority of medical discoveries are by-products of state, non-profit and federally funded research. Biomedical companies do not do basic research.

Medical research thrives on competition;

Actually, research of all types thrives on cooperation. Ask a research scientist if competition or cooperation is more important. The free market does not work in every situation.

-Ted

Re:How to fix the real stem cell problem

[dada21]

I am against any government support of corporations. The debate of full liability versus limited liability is contained in this two Op-Eds:

Pro-limited liability

Pro-full liability

I'm pro-full liability, but the case for limited liability has its positive ideas.

Even if you're not AnCap, they're great articles :)

Re:How to fix the real stem cell problem

[PaulBunion]

Excuse me, sir, have you ever heard of thalidomide?

Re:How to fix the real stem cell problem

[Mac Degger]

You are confusing drugs with research. Watson and Crick (discoverers of the structure of DNA) made their discovery at a university (which is ...funded by the country in which that uni is located!).
Most basic research is done by universities. They are largely state funded. These guys discover the basics which drug companies then use to target their drugs (this is a gross simplification).

"in fact there are almost no medical discoveries that can be associated with federal studies"

Fine statement, but flawed (read: laughably wrong). Any professor at a university is largely funded by the state (seeing as the university is state funded). Mecial discoveries are not drugs. You are very wrong and show a lack of understanding in how these things work, and that in what you say is your 'favorite subject'. Damn, just read one editorial of j.random medical journal.

Re:How to fix the real stem cell problem

[omeomi]

Federally, the only Constitutional crimes are treason, piracy and counterfeiting. So stem cells are not in the federal domain of control.
 
those may be the only constitutional crimes (I don't know, maybe they are, maybe they aren't), but the federal government also has, you know, laws. Like anti-drug laws, for one. So stem cells could easily be under the federal government's control.

Re:What type of stem cells?

[Atzanteol]

Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"

Yeah, if only somebody could make it clear what type of stem cells they were! I mean, that's something you think could even get into the story summary!

I gotta get me some of these

[Simonetta]

Jeez, I gotta get me some of these for my dick...

Re:For purposes of consistency...

[Aadain2001]

You know he would use the treatment, but he would find some way to twist his reluctance of allowing stem cell research into being a champion of the field and how it would have died without him blah blah blah.

(Unfortunately, this is how all politicians act, doesn't matter the party affiliation)

Extremely sceptical

[InternationalCow]

is what I am. A long standing spinal injury is characterized by severe gliosis, ie the formation of neural scar tissue. This effectively blocks the path for new nerves to grow. This alone makes it hard to believe for me. Furthermore, the rapidity of the recovery is implausible. Nerve cells will grow at a speed of about 1 mm per year. Hence a recovery of lost feeling (thin fibers) within the time span indicated is unlikely. Then there is the issue of homing and differentiation - umbilical cord stem cells will typicall find their way to the bone marrow, not the the spinal cord or other neural tissues. Finally, the fact that this alleged breakthrough has been published in a very minor journal is quite telling IMHO. I do not believe this, unless I see more convincing proof. I'm willing to wait, this is only a first press publication after all, but don't hold up your hopes too high on this one.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Da_Biz]

From the "counting our chickens before they hatch department," mod parent up, please.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Otter]

Finally, the fact that this alleged breakthrough has been published in a very minor journal is quite telling IMHO.

Absolutely. I can't see the article ,as the Enormous Pharma Company at which I work doesn't have a subscription (which tells you something about the journal), but I would imagine there's a good reason why this isn't in Lancet or JAMA.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[jupiter909]

I'm confused. You say nerver cells grow at 1mm per year. What about when a kid grows up but a few inches in that year. How does that work then, magic?

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Lew Payne]

"I'm confused. You say nerver cells grow at 1mm per year. What about when a kid grows up but a few inches in that year. How does that work then, magic?"

Yea... and what about that guy whom they shrunk, put in a syringe,
and accidentally injected into the bloodstream of this confused
check-out clerk?

Now THAT must have been painful... to have all the gaps in your
nerves squeeze together at the same time.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[dokebi]

Your skepticism is well warranted. I have RTFA (univ access) and it reports one case study of a woman showing improvement after being treated with umbilical cord blood derived stem cells. It was not a true scientific study, with positive and negative controls, and a large sample size. I imagin the authors wanted to get themselves on record that they are working on this, and plan to do a better follow-up later. As such, they've excluded themselves from more prestigeous journals for a quick publication. Stem cell research is a highly competitive field at the moment, and sometimes getting there first and staking a claim is more important than doing it right.

Having said all that, it is definately intriguing nontheless. I sincerely hope the therapy pans out, both for the researchers and for the patients.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[fbjon]

It works in the same way as how distant galaxies move away from us. The distant galaxies are moving away at faster than light speed, but it's because the space in between is stretching, not because of actual FTL movement of the galaxy.

In the same way, a kid can grow fast, and the nerves will seem to grow faster suddenly, but actually they are merely stretching out. This is what causes hypertension by the time they reach their early teens.

As the kid gets older, and eventually middle-aged, the nerves grow and catch up with development. In later years, the nerves will have grown so long that singnals will take longer time to reach their destination, causing longer reaction times. On the other hand, there is the benefit from increased wisdom, coming from the ability to hold longer thoughts in the nerves.

As the peron is reaching the endpoint of his life, at around 80 years of age on average, the nerves will have grown immensely, making him a treasure trove of deep thought and information. This can be hard to ascertain though, as the sheer nerve-length means they now have to grow in circles in the limited space of the human body. This means that you will often hear the wisdom of the past, as thoughts that started in one end, reach the other. The cramped conditions also predispose for spontaneous reconnections between nerves, causing apparently random changes of subject. Moreover, the spiralling structure of the nerve system entail a circular nature of the information coming out, meaning you'll have to listen to the same story multiple times.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[jcr]

Nerve cells will grow at a speed of about 1 mm per year.

Umm.. I'm about 1.82 meters tall, so my longest neurons are probably close to a meter long. I'm no spring chicken anymore, but I'm not 1,000 years old, either.

FWIW, the last time I had a nasty cut that made me lose sensation in the end of my thumb, my doctor told me that nerves regenerate about a mm per day. Sure enough, sensation returned in about a week.

-jcr

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You could have thrown in the concept of impedance. An alternating or pulsating current through a coil meets a lot of resistance, which is why older people have slower reflexes. Still, your story was very good. I enjoyed it.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[dokebi]

Still, one exceptional case does not a scientific evidence make.

Imagine a guy was hit by lightining and survived. Does that make lightning harmless?

In this case, a thorough scientific investigation is definately warranted. Imagine people getting stem cell injections in some third world country because of this one report? What if it really didn't work?

Re:Extremely sceptical

[ars]

The GP is a little mixed up. It's 1mm per DAY, not per year.

See http://www.teleemg.com/new/back_and_leg2.htm for one reference. (Second question on the page.)

Re:Extremely sceptical

[cbnewman]

a lot of misinformation here.

1. peripheral nerves regenerate at the rate of about 1mm per day after an acute injury (assuming no other medical comorbidities that impair healing, inflammation, etc). that's about an inch a month. this article deals with central nervous system repair/regeneration so that information is not applicable.

2. are you arguing that all umbilical stem cells will ultimately return to the bone marrow regardless of which nerve growth factors they are given and irrespective of their site of implantation? you're assuming a lot about the technique used here and i don't think you can be so dismissive of the paper without reading it (my institution doesn't have access to that particular journal).

this is promising research, but i too am troubled by the fact that it was published in a relatively minor journal. animal models suggest that stem cells can be used to facilitate central nervous system (CNS_ regrowth. i'd like to know more about the woman's initial injury and resulting defecits. was it a cord transection or just a bad contusion? i'll also point out that the lower thoracic cord and cauda equina tolerate injury better than any other part of the CNS.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, it would seem from this that a great way to get modded up to +5 (interesting/informative) on slashdot is to title your post "Extremely skeptical" and then proceed to write something so incredibly and obviously wrong that if anyone actually thought about it for more than two seconds they would realise it must be wrong. I can understand one bad mod, but three? Seems like cynicism and skepticism are easily mistaken for intelligence on slashdot, no wonder there are so many clamouring to post their knee-jerk "THIS WON'T WORK" comments in every story :/

Re:Extremely sceptical

[mattr]

I think you are as wrong as the above Funny post marked Informative.

Matter cannot move faster than light as far as we know it however galaxies are the one exception in that space can expand faster than light, which will have a similar effect. And am not even a physicist..

Re:Extremely sceptical

[ars]

Um, your story was nice I guess, but it also wasn't true.

You were wrong with your explanation of FTL galaxies, nerves don't strech. And longer nerves don't increase wisdom. And why exactly do you think peripheral nerves think? That would be the brain. Nerves mixed up in circles? Hu?!? They sure don't.

Reaction time does slow down I suppose, but not by much.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[TexVex]

Your skepticism is well warranted.

No, it's not. According to this report from four years ago, stem cells have already been used to restore movement to paralyzed mice.

The thing that bugs me is, why hasn't this been tried in humans sooner?

Re:Extremely sceptical

[matthewr84]

Half of the moderation for this is informative. This frightens me.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[darkmayo]

--------joke-------
0
\/ /\ ---you

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Ihlosi]

Nerve cells will grow at a speed of about 1 mm per year.

So most humans would be able to move their toes when they're, um, 70 years old or so ?

At some point in life, nerve cells have to grow faster than that.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[Alioth]

Nerve cells will grow at a speed of about 1 mm per year

It's not that slow. When I was 15, I had an accident with a glass door that sliced into my wrist to the bone, completely severing the median nerve (and arteries, and tendons). If nerve cells grew that slowly, I still wouldn't have any sensation in the thumb and fingers 2 and 3 of my right hand. (In fact, if nerves grew that slowly, I would never recover feeling in my fingers in my lifetime).

Sensation in my finger tips was recovered in 6 months. That means the growth rate had to be >200mm per year.

Interestingly, when things had healed, the sensations came out in the wrong place - if I stroked one finger, the sensation would actually come somewhere else (the other finger). However, the brain rewired and now the sensations actually appear to come from where they should.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[barawn]

By the way, galaxies don't move away from us faster than the speed of light.

Actually, they do. Or will. Or are. Something like that.

Really. Not kidding. What's going on is exactly what the grandparent said. As the universe expands, galaxies far away from us are moving faster and faster, because space is expanding, and if it expands at a constant rate, then as the volume increases, the speed has to increase as well.

One would expect that it doesn't expand at a constant rate, but that the rate slows down over time, because you only had an initial impulse (the Big Bang) and a constant gravitational slowing of the expansion. But that doesn't appear to be what's happening. In fact, the rate seems to be accelerating.

What this means is that eventually, galaxies will move outside of our cosmic horizon - the distance to them will be increasing so rapidly that light simply cannot reach us. Effectively, they'll be travelling faster than the speed of light with reference to us.

That would mean that in our frame of reference, galaxies move faster than light

Well, kindof. They're effectively moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Or will. See above. This means that we don't see them at all, because the distance from that galaxy to us is increasing faster than the speed of light, which means the light can never reach us.

You can read here more about it. Note what it says there though - there's no real easy way to define "relative speed" in curved spacetime, although you could just calculate the rate of change in proper distance between two objects. If you would do that, for objects outside of our cosmic horizon, they're moving faster than the speed of light. They can't send messages to us, we can't send messages to them.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[RedBear]

I think you're confused. Nerve cells grow back at 1mm per DAY, not per YEAR. I had some sort of nerve damage in my lower back several years ago that caused my left foot to be completely numb from the middle of the lower leg on down. Within 60 days the damaged nerves had grown back and I was able to feel and move the foot normally again. It is perfectly plausible for this woman to regain slight movement and feeling in 25 days at 1mm of nerve growth per day.

Besides which, who is to say that the growth couldn't be even faster once stem cells are introduced into the mix? It's good to be skeptical, but at least get your facts straight.

Re:Extremely sceptical

[fbjon]

Thank you :). This is in fact one of the 10 most misunderstood things about relativity, including the fact that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion from a point. I read an extremely good article explaining all this in SciAm, perhaps last year or so.

It won't

[nonlnear]

This research has nothing to do with the stem cell ban in the USA. Only fetal stem cells are restricted. This research used umbilical cord stem cells. The use of cord blood stem cells is completely unrestricted.

Re:From TFA

[dwayner79]

HAHA... beat you to it

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163706 &cid=13670872

Re:What type of stem cells?

[erlenic]

The summary states that it's umbilical cord cells, which is perfectly ethical by pro-life standards.

Re:For purposes of consistency...

[DrStrange66]

He's not against stem cell research. He's against destroying embryos. Huge difference.

Your statement reminds me of a movie "Head of State" where there was a campaign ad from the opponent stating "Mays Gilliam for Cancer!"

They're umbilical cord blood stem cells

[Spy der Mann]

From a blog i found on google:

<SNIP>
I have known about this for some time, but because I didn't want to be guilty of the same hyping that is so often engaged in by some therapeutic cloning proponents, I waited until it was published in a peer reviewed journal. Now it has been and the news is HUGE: Korean scientists have used umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal cord injury patient. I have no link, but I do have the report published in Cytotherapy, (2005) Vol 7. No. 4, 368-373.

The patient is a woman who has been paraplegic from an accident for more than 19 years. (Complete paraplegia of the 10th thoracic vertebra.) She had surgery and also an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells. Note the stunning benefits: "The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation. On post operative day (POD) 7, motor activity was noticed and improved gradually in her lumbar paravertebral and hip muscles. She could maintain an upright position by herself on POD 13. From POD 15 she began to elevate both lower legs about 1 cm, and hip flexor muscle activity gradually improved until POD 41." It goes on from there in very technical language.

The bottom line is this, from the Abtract: Not only did the patient regain feeling, but "41 days after [stem cell] transplantation" testing "also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured cite" and below it. "Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients." (My emphasis.)

We have to be cautious. One patient does not a treatment make. Also, the authors note that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit. But still, this is a wonderful story that offers tremendous hope for paralyzed patients. Typically, it has been extensively ignored in the American media (although it has gotten some foreign press attention). (Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?)

One last point. This is a patient with a very old injury--making the results even more dramatic.

Onward!
</SNIP>

For those who missed the reference, it's
Cytotherapy, (2005) Vol 7. No. 4, 368-373.

Re:With apologies to Trey Parker & Matt Stone.

[Atzanteol]

Completely off-topic, mod as such.

"I hope there's a hell, and when these reporters get there, that Satan's waiting with cameras & microphones"

I have to know where this quote is from! I've delt with the press and can completely relate to the sentiment.

Question for bio-geeks

[Reality Master 101]

I'm guessing we're talking about a severed spinal column here. How do the stem cells "know" how to get the correct nerves to growth back together? Does each nerve have a unique chemical signature so it knows how to reconnect to its partner?

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[FluffyWithTeeth]

they just connect random ones, and the brain works it out afterwards.

They've cut mice in half and done this, and while their back half screws around for a bit, it's really not very long until their motion is completely back to normal.

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[Seoulstriker]

Glial cells are able to help the axonal projections navigate to the desired location. While the axons have been severed in the accident, the glial cells are happy and still working. It is tricky to understand how the process fits into a developmental picture, and how injection of adult stem cells might allow neuroregeneration. Lots of questions, few answers.

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[nih]

i dont think it matters if the nerve cells join up in their original configuration, the brain just relearns using the new paths, well thats what some research i read a few years back claimed...

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[EvanED]

Holy cow. Just when you thought you were already amazed at what the brain does, it goes and pulls another trick out of its bag.

(It amazes me how amazing the brain is at some things but how sucky it is at others, like keeping things in short term memory.)

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[umbrellasd]

Connections between nerve cells are initially random but they are reinforced by stimulus. In the brain, cells connect to nearby cells and some of those connections are reinforced whereas others are not...this is part of the way we learn and our brains mature. We connect and reinforce useful pathways and let go of others. How it happens is a chemistry question I do not know the answer to, but I imagine the presence of acetolcolyne A and some of those other synaptic chemicals as well as the biolectric current that results from a "reinforcing" stimulus causes certain nerve cells to be physically drawn together on a microscopic scale and then bind.

Totally non-scientific explanation, but consider this: how does your finger know to grow into a finger? How does your skin know to reseal itself after it is cut. It does happen and there is an algorithm for it encoded in your DNA, but it is not exactly obvious exactly how it works.

For that matter, one thing I always wonder is how does your face know to take the form it does and how does it manage to retain its shape and features over an entire lifetime? They say all the cells in your body are replaced every 7 years. It is just amazing to me that the body continues to remember the shape those cells need to be in from the very microscopic all the way up to the macroscopic facial features that you have. I've never really read a good explanation for this.

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

I've skimmed the article. Her spinal cord was not transected. In 1985 she had a compression fracture when falling into a ditch. The 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae were dislocated. According to the article:

"She eventually became paraplegic and was dependent on the use of an electromotive wheel chair for 19 years and 6 months before treatment with MSC.
[...]
Deep tendon reflex of both knees and ankles was decreased. [...] The extent of neural injury according to the standard of the ASIA (AQmerican Spinal Injury Association) was complete paraplegia of the 10th thoracic vertebra."

They injected 1 ml of cord blood stem cells (10^6 cells) into the subarachnoid space of the normal spinal cord. Then 2 ml more (another 10^6 cells) were injected "diffusely" into the intradural and extradural space of the injured spinal cord (inside and outside). All reported recovery appears to have occurred within 41 days of treatment.

In judging the procedure, it's hard to know how much recovery she might have had simply from a 20-year-post-trauma laminectomy (removing the pressure on the dislocated part of her spine). I'm no doctor, but I'd guess the typical response is substantially less than what was observed.

Finally, here are some reasons why the article might have appeared in Cytotherapy and not a big name journal like Lancet/NEJM/etc:

1) It's a new periodical (Jan 2005) and a major scoop would put it on the map.

2) It might have a much faster time to press than most periodicals.

3) It might require little or no peer review...

        Randy

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[KylePflug]

Wait a second. What happens to the part where they're dead after being cut in half? That seems to me to be a severe impingement on the "working it out afterwards" phase.

0.o

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[Idarubicin]

Wait a second. What happens to the part where they're dead after being cut in half? That seems to me to be a severe impingement on the "working it out afterwards" phase.

Er, they cut the spinal cord in half. They don't sever the rest of the mouse....

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[KylePflug]

That makes some more sense.

Re:Question for bio-geeks

[Alioth]

They don't. In fact, a normal sliced nerve that's stiched together doesn't. When I was 15, I had an accident with a glass door (which sliced through my median nerve in my wrist amongst other things). This meant I had no sensation in my thumb or two adjacent fingers.

About 6 months later, when the nerves had all grown back, they had all gone the wrong way - if I stroked the inside of my middle finger, the sensation came out elsewhere on the adjacent finger. In fact, it was pretty random just where sensations would come out.

These days though the sensations all come out in the right place. The brain simply adapts and fixes the situation. It took very little time for the correction to happen, too.

Prediction of postings

[Quiet_Desperation]

80% Bush sucks! Grrrr! Rowlf! Hisss! Spit! (modded Insightful)
10% General antireligious screeds. Woof! Bark! (modded Flamebait)
9% "Bush only bans funding for embryonic stem cells" Hiss! Grrr! (modded Troll)
0.9999% Thoughtful comments on stem cells. (modded Offtopic)
0.0001% This post. (modded into oblivion)

Re:Prediction of postings

[jupiter909]

It's sad, but you are so right. Seems everyone is a expert these days about things as advanced as rocket science and stem cell research. I'm going to guess that is why the majority of them are all working as sys admins or are students. *cough cough* I think /. should start issuing PhD's in Bullsh!t to the best of the best.

Re:Prediction of postings

[egoriot]

.0001% = 1/10E6. You are predicting at least one million posts on this topic. You're lucky the mods are as bad with numbers as you are.

DNA

[bastardknight]

Do the injected stem cells affect the recipiants dna?cDo any one have a link or info about this?

IT doesn't

[slashkitty]

There is no ban on stem cell research in the US!!! There is only a limitation on government funding of some specific types of stem cells.

I think there should be limits on all sorts of government funding. I have no idea on why everyone is suddenly for unlimited government funding of the drug industry.

Re:IT doesn't

[MightyMartian]

Because, unlike sneaking government funds to churches and cozying up to anti-science religious nuts, funding this sort of research actually holds the promise of helping people.

Re:IT doesn't

[Glyphn]

There is no ban on stem cell research in the US!!! There is only a limitation on government funding of some specific types of stem cells.

I think there should be limits on all sorts of government funding. I have no idea on why everyone is suddenly for unlimited government funding of the drug industry.

Unlimited funding for the drug industry? Heh. And here I was just noticing how our research dept just had to cut travel funds again to stay in budget. You'll have to tell me where this pot of greenback goodness can be found. :)

Re:IT doesn't

[slashkitty]

I'm saying that the goverment does and should limit funding to the drug industry. I don't think the government should pay for all the R&D for the drug industry to profit.

The stem cell debate seems to me to be about not letting the government limiting the funding. I think the figure is around $100 million they are spending on stem cell research already.

If stem cells offer so much potential, private industry can well afford to fund the research.

South Korea

[shadowmatter]

Californians voted on Proposition 71 and pledged 300 million dollars over 10 years for stem cell research. Apparently, right-leaning political officials are now using bureaucracy to deny the 3 billion dollar pledge, and so not a dime has been issued yet. In this month's Wired magazine (which I don't have in front of me right now), they interview the head of the agency that is supposed to distribute the money; he explicitly said that if the US does not fund stem cell research, South Korea will soon emerge as the world leader. Being that I just read this yesterday, he seems to be very prescient...

Re:South Korea

[LupusUF]

you have the wrong kind of stem cells. Umbilical cord blood stem cells (which the article discusses) can still receive federal funding. It is new lines of embryonic cells that cannot receive federal funding in the USA. The restrictions are not relevent for this kind of research.

Re:South Korea

[argStyopa]

You do understand that this success was with multipotent UMBILICAL stem cells, which are not banned from US Gov't federal research funds, right?

Knowing that, what's your point except to say that 'right-leaning' officials are preventing an advancement in research into embryonic stem cells which nevertheless, although I've been hearing about nothing but their limitless potential to give you whiter teeth, fresher breath, and a cheerful outlook, have yet to be used for any significant medical advance?

Re:South Korea

[Hrodvitnir]

have yet to be used for any significant medical advance

Perhaps because they can't get funding?

RTF Summary, Smegbrain.

[saudadelinux]

You may be incurably stupid, but I'll try anyway...

Umbilical stem cells != embryonic stem cells. Note the key word "umbilical". That means from the umbilical cord.

A few seconds' research provides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_Cord

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood

Précis: They're stem cells harvested from cord blood, which comes from the umbilical cord, which comes from newly-born babies ... not aborted fetuses.

Re:And what did it take....

[SuperDuperMan]

So you are saying that it's bad that a method that does not harm anybody but only helps is bad because it's closely related to something that is? Your concern is only an issue if people don't RTFA!

BEEP BEEP BEEP Goes the Bullsh*t Detector

[ScottyB]

Cytotherapy? For something like this? Sounds like they couldn't stand up to the peer review of Nature or Science, even if this is not just a completely inaccurate story. It should tell you something when a giant discovery is announced through a lesser-known journal and the only news source you can find on it is WorldNetDaily, a B-"news" site if there ever was one.

So yet again, what the hell do the Slashdot "editors" actually do other than randomly his "yes" or "no" without any fact checking?

Re:BEEP BEEP BEEP Goes the Bullsh*t Detector

[Seanasy]

This story is only showing up on right-wing pseudo-new sites (like WorldNetDaily) so far. Considering that this is about adult stem cells, it's almost certainly more propaganda than science.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about using ADULT stem cells. The president is for this kind of research. Making a blanket statement that he is against stem cell research is equivalent to saying clasical music lovers hate music because of a dislike for disco. Lets be intelectually honest folks.

To quote the article

Like most breakthroughs using adult stem cells, this one has been completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media, Smith pointed out. "Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?" he asked.

STEM CELLS !! F*CK YEAH !!

[VonKruel]

What an awesome story -- can you even begin to imagine having sensation in your lower half again, after losing it for 19 years?? Stem cells are going to help a lot of people, and it truly is exciting and awe-inspiring. I often wonder what it would be like to be involved in work like this - that has the potential to change so many lives.... I work on software for a living, and my job is alright, but I doubt it would even come close in terms of job satisfaction.

Anyone who wants to hold back this research has got their head firmly planted in their ass.

Re:STEM CELLS !! F*CK YEAH !!

[n0tammused]

I'm married, with a 4 month old, so I recently got to experience having sensation again in a lower extremity after several months without.

MOD THIS THE HELL UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting tired of all these ignorant people out there saying "the USA is bad! they don't care! why do they hate stem cell research?" when the majority of the country is more than willing to spend money on "stem cell research" but they stop at "embryonic stem cell research" due to ethical concerns. You know, ethics, what science has been trying to ignore for the past 20 years.

Re:MOD THIS THE HELL UP

[MightyMartian]

Ethics my ass. It's about forcing a religious view upon a secular country. This is no different than the Administration's pouncing on climate change evidence. You're government is in the hands of a half-wit who will court the Religious Right to get into office.

It's an ethical issue if they are actually aborting fetuses to harvest stem cells, and since that isn't happening, it's pretty clear the ethical card is simply a smokescreen being put up by your local Fundies, who also have their eyes on evolutionary theory and climate change. Welcome to the Unscientific States of America.

Re:MOD THIS THE HELL UP

[erlenic]

So I'm trying to push my religious point of view? That's funny, considering I don't HAVE a religious point of view, since I'm an atheist.
By the way, your confrontational attitude makes you look like a half-wit.

Re:MOD THIS THE HELL UP

[Basehart]

Now now people - lets not get into a war over this.

A little longer and this news would be a year old

[Hogg]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapac ific/view/119428/1/.html

I used it in a paper I wrote last year.

Re:Miracle Treatment

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    40% Flamebait
    30% Troll
    30% Funny

OK, it's "Funny". "Flamebait" is in the eye of the TrollMod. But how is that a "Troll"? Don't you believe the lord smote that woman because she'd later turn to stem cells to thwart god's will?

Re:With apologies to Trey Parker & Matt Stone.

[ScoLgo]

Heh. It's paraphrased, (due to slashdot's signature character limit), from 'Millenium' by John Varley. Here's a non-affiliate linky.

Great book. So-so movie.

Re:whoops

[Seoulstriker]

Sorry, I was reponding to your comment about your disagreement with the whitehouse policies, but also to the OP about federal funding. I think my comment got mixed in a jumble. :-)

Re:For purposes of consistency...

[malchus6]

He's not against stem cell research. He's against destroying embryos. Huge difference

Isn't that like saying i'm not against reproduction, just against sex...

Stereotypical, Generalized Perceptions

[chia_monkey]

And here is what the general population will say when they think of all the "China vs. the US" statements they can.

US has free trade and China won't open up.
US won't allow stem cell research
China is growing by leaps and bounds in technology.
China opresses their people, America is free.

Then there will be a firestorm of "you're wrong" and "China is going to blow past the US while the US sits and fights wars in Iraq". I do find it interesting however that the US has so many regulations in the medical and drug field that it's almost impossible to move forward at any practical pace. If those fields were allowed to grow as technology has been allowed to grow and innovate (I wonder what regulations they have in China) as they were in technology, perhaps the US would have papers touting new cures for these diseases and injuries. The US prides itself in its innovative capabilities but is getting bogged down by legislation. Meanwhile, China has learned the technology and is running wild with it. The combination of all the red tape in the US and the desire to be a dominant force in the global market, it's only a matter of time (approaching rather quickly I may add) that China surpasses the US...in many many fields.

Re:Stereotypical, Generalized Perceptions

[Cyph]

Seems to me that this an article about Korea. Where does China come in?

Re:Stereotypical, Generalized Perceptions

[chia_monkey]

Seems to me that this an article about Korea. Where does China come in?

Very observant. However, that would blow away the "stereotypical, generalized" parts of the statements. You know at some point China will be brought up in this discussion, or how the US is getting lax, and so forth...People tend to generalize everything nowadays anyway so I was simply stating the obvious generalizations and wondering what kinds of discussions would spawn from that. Thoughts? Discussions?

Re:Stereotypical, Generalized Perceptions

[Ogive17]

China steals most of their breakthroughs. Eventually they will catch up with the west and there will be no more secrets to take, then we'll see if they can survive on their own.

Re:Stereotypical, Generalized Perceptions

[mOdQuArK!]

Unfortunately at that point, I think the West will be more interested in determining whether _it_ will survive...

Re:What type of stem cells?

[HappyProle]

I'm pretty sure they were those abominable asexual stem-cells. They sicken me, what with all their reproducing outside the sacred bonds of marriage.

Not Safe For Work

[umbrellasd]

That first link displayed something very...interesting on my workplace monitor. No idea why it happened or if others experience the same thing but...seeing a man from that particular angle and with that particular aperture... *shiver*

Re:Not Safe For Work

[Rei]

Second! I was browsing while waiting for some sql files to be generated, saw "oh, article on stem cells!", clicked it...

Was the site hacked? If not, how did they get the (goatse guy?) there?

Re:Not Safe For Work

[brocktoon]

It's been a while since I ran across the goatse! It is my guess that the site was compromised in order to provide us with endless hilarity.

Re:Not Safe For Work

[ArsenneLupin]

Maybe slashdot should make it a policy not to link to wikis and to asp sites. It's predictable what will happen.

Re:Not Safe For Work

[brouski]

I've been on the Internet too long to be worried about a little goatse.

His warm glistening anus is like an old friend...

ADULTS HAVE UMBILICAL CORDS?!?

[voss]

The reason why they dont have enough stem cells is because there is not enough umbilical cord stem cells for this purpose right now.

from NIH
"Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent--that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent--restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be"

That site has been hijacked.

[Mustang Matt]

I'm not entirely sure what these pictures are of but I know enough to know they aren't what they're supposed to be of.

Re:That site has been hijacked.

[crypto55]

Ya... That's sick. I was waiting for someone else to say something; it's not just me...

No.

[Seoulstriker]

No.

Goatse?!

[therage96]

Um, am I the only one seeing the Goatse images linked from Archive.org on the actual scientific article page?

Re:Goatse?!

[Mustang Matt]

I saw it too. Luckily before I sent the link off to a friend. Yikes. I am traumatized.

First Link Not Safe for Work

[Matt Perry]

First link goes to the goatse.cx pictures. How did this troll article make it past the editors? Slashdot has definitely hit its nadir.

Re:First Link Not Safe for Work

[j1mc]

Yes, it appears as though this site has been h4x0r3d.

Uhhhh...

[Seoulstriker]

This story is not showing up on left-wing pseudo-new sites so far. Considering this is about adult stem cells, it's almost certainly more science than propaganda.

For more information, please consult the peer-reviewed clinical medical research journal "Cytotherapy".

Re:Uhhhh...

[Seoulstriker]

The promise of adult stem cells has already been demonstrated in this case and in several other treatements including treatment for Parkinson's disease. While embryonic stem cells are purported to have totipotency, this ability is not close to being understood in a therapeutic context. Adult stem cells on the other hand are partially differentiated, are available in every individual, are able to be dedifferentiated, and have already been used effectively in a clinical context. The real propaganda comes from people who are vehemently against ethics and practicality in stem cell debates.

Re:Uhhhh...

[Seanasy]

Uhhhh.... let's see... WorldNetDaily reports on this supposedly important scientific research that "like most breakthroughs using adult stem cells, this one has been completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media." Who do they interview about the research? The authors of the paper? No, someone from the (intelligent design proponents) Discovery Institute!

They don't even give the title, author or volume for the journal article. So how do we assess the veracity of this claim that adult stem cells can save paraplegics. I'll join the original poster in calling BULLSHIT until real scientists test and backup the claims.

WorldNetDaily, by the way, makes FOX News and CNN look like paragons of journalism. For them to report on anything scientific is laughable. For Slashdot to advertise it, doubly so.

Re:Uhhhh...

[Vicissidude]

Lol. I didn't even notice WorldNetDaily was a bunch of crackpots until just now that you pointed it out and I took a second look. I actually found their link through another site that I do regularly read, iFeminists.net. (Yes, I was the one who posted the original Slashdot report.)

They did accurately report the results of the peer-reviewed study, even though the got the name of the journal incorrect in their article (which I did correct in my post). Considering that, I thought it was a great piece of important research that I hadn't read anywhere else. I don't particularly care that the right-wing is using this as propaganda, but I still think that the research is important to highlight.

The fact that they don't include the title, author, or volume for the journal article isn't particularly damning. None of the regular news articles from general news sites ever has this level of detail. The fact that they reported the actual journal name is a step up from most news sites. You could have found the correct article from that alone had you tried, like several of the other posters.

The damning part, as you pointed out, is the fact that they only talk to the Discovery Institute. Most news sites wouldn't even think of talking to these people since they had nothing to do with the actual discovery. Places like Fox News might call them up, but only to obtain a false sense of "balance" in order to be "fair", as if it actually matters what a bunch of non-scientists think regarding science reporting.

Hacked?

[bfioca]

Why is the Goatse guy all over the page? Is this a real article or was it hacked?

YUCKY!

[Wingfat]

man the pics on the link page to the article are nasty! my boss saw what it when i brought it up.. and now i got a meeting with her boss to explain why i was looking at it.

Slashdot Hits Rock Bottom RE Goatse

[KrackHouse]

This has got to be one of the worst oversights in Slashdot history. If this can slip through then why not a site that expliots some browser flaw and starts an internet meltdown.

What ever you do, don't click that first link...

Re:Slashdot Hits Rock Bottom RE Goatse

[Dread_ed]

The thirt time I ever experienced goatse.cx was on a frontpage slashdot story. It looked like a credible link to a major news outlet.

Unfortunately I was trying to help a friend's family to understand how a news site like slashdot worked at the time. I had a conservative 40ish couple and a 19 year old girl looking on as I clicked this link.

It was very difficult to explain just exactly what happened as the site came up. I haven't been able to sort it all out even to this day.

Re:World Net Daily not Credible

[jcoxatonce]

I second this motion. WorldNetDaily is generally *not* a news source, and instead is an outlet for the most extremist fringe right-wing voices in existance in America. Think of them as FOX News taken to its ultimate right-wing extreme. Their reportage is typically inaccurate, smug, sarcastic, and filled with unmasked right-wing bias.

And while I agree that use of adult stem cells for such a purpose would be extraordinary, I find it odd that the MSM has not picked up this story. I mean, we're talking about a potential cure for long term paralysis, here.

Under no circumstances could a wingnut fringe propaganda machine like WND break a story this hot unless it wasn't really legitimate.

Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[LithiumX]

As expected, everyone's sounding off about stem cell research. So... he's my inflation-depreciated .02.

Stem cell research is a boon to medical science. Umbilical stem cells, which in no way hurts anyone (and which only a few outsider whacko groups are against), have proved invaluable to health care research. Embryonic stem cells (the ethical problem) are even more invaluable.

Here is the problem. As an individual, I support the legality of abortion. I don't like the fact that it's necessary at times, and I'd be glad to see it discouraged in any positive way possible. I can respect those who come to the painful realiziation that they simply cannot support a child due to serious personal issues (be it drug abuse, abject poverty, mental illness, etc). And conversely I have absolutely zero respect for those who terminate simply because it wouldn't suit their lifestyle. One is little different from an animal reabsorbing their fetus under stress, and the other is not far from infanticide out of convenience. And while I do not consider an embryo or even a fetus to be a "baby", I don't consider them mere biological byproducts of sex either.

In a limited, controlled, publicly accountable fashion, I can easily accept open stem cell research. Let's not beat around the bush - whatever the origin, you're destroying a human embryo for medical and research gain. When that embryo is the castoff from fertility work (ie spare embryos that had a chance but will never be complete), it's not so bad. But there's just something questionable about creating a human life simply to dismantle it.

I don't consider abortion infanticide unless it's late term (ie the fetus could actually survive with a little medical assistance). It's not an independant being yet, and it's by no means an infant until it can at least breathe without a machine (not counting injury/deformity). But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is. To say it's anything less is no different from saying that a baby or a retarded person is less human than you are. I'm not even talking about souls or religion - I have grave doubts about both subjects. To me, it's just the most logical conclusion.

So... while I applaud the wonders we can perform with placental and umbilical stem cells, and would like to see that research continue at full speed, I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to embryonic stem cell research. I personally don't care for the idea of creating human organisms, concious or not, simply for the gain of others.


... unless they're willing to ship 10% of them to me, refrigerated and boxed, so I can crack em and suck the fresh stem cells down and become a REAL Superman. If it's my own well-being involved, I have no ethics.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[Rorschach1]

". unless they're willing to ship 10% of them to me, refrigerated and boxed, so I can crack em and suck the fresh stem cells down and become a REAL Superman."

I'd settle for my own Shakey's Pizza.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[DavidTC]

Someone mod parent: -1: Thinks embryonic stem cells come from abortions.

A somewhat specialized moderation, and everyone laughed when they added it, but look how useful it is!

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[Cryptnotic]

... unless they're willing to ship 10% of them to me, refrigerated and boxed, so I can crack em and suck the fresh stem cells down and become a REAL Superman. If it's my own well-being involved, I have no ethics.


Wow. You had me going until the last part. Bravo.

Slashdot: where the editors don't read the site, the posters don't read the articles, and the moderators don't read the posts.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[Mr2001]

When that embryo is the castoff from fertility work (ie spare embryos that had a chance but will never be complete), it's not so bad. But there's just something questionable about creating a human life simply to dismantle it.

Of course, the latter never happens, and the former is where all our embryonic stem cells come from, so I guess it's "not so bad" at all in your eyes, right?

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[beforewisdom]

I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to embryonic stem cell research. I personally don't care for the idea of creating human organisms, concious or not, simply for the gain of others.

I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to kill people in Iraq. I personally don't care for a war of convenience for the idea of distracting the public from a bad economy or to gain oil resources, simply for the gain of others. ( no offense, I am not saying that you think either way, I am just trying to make an off topic point )

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[LithiumX]

Applying cloning techniques to (embryonic) stem cell research is an obvious logical step, and one that many researchers have made it clear they covet cloning for. At the moment, it is honestly the only useful purpose for cloning, beyond the novelty of it. Creating a viable dividing zygote is difficult as it is, but it's so much easier when you have no intent for the product to survive to birth, or worry about later developmental problems. When that happens, you've just created a new human (note that I don't say "person" - I'm talking about the human animal, not "souls" or personalities).

Also, when they seperate a cluster of stem cells, no matter how you rationalize it, they've just created a number of individual clones of the original. When they say stem cell "lines", they don't mean individual cells, but the multitude of cells divided from it. When you take a single differentiated cell, it doesn't count as an individual because only technology can make it one. But when you allow stem cells to divide and subdivide, each cluster or even individual cell is in itself a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go, would gestate into a human.

I'm not howling "Stem cells are murder!". That's semantics, and it's a judgement call for individuals. But I am saying that the processes of working with embryonic (not umbilical) stem cells does indeed involve creating biologically-individual, even if cloned, humans. The fact that they never get beyond a few cells (due to environment and human interference) does not change that.

That is what seems to make most people nervous, and why most people don't howl for it's illegality, yet you also don't see the masses demanding full federal support. Everyone looks at it askance because we *know* what it is, but we still want the benefits that we *know* it will give us.


But... if we do end up leaping into all-out cloning whatever we want...
Can we PLEASE start with Marylin Monroe? A whole bunch of her, vat-grown to age 25 or so, conditioned to obey, and given out by lottery? Please?

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[LithiumX]

I never said they came from abortions - by the time someone even knows they need one, if I'm right, it's a little late to harvest anything useful that you can't harvest from a live birth.

I only mentioned abortion to establish that I'm not a right-wing anti-abortionist, to say that I consider the source human, without denouncing it as outright murder, which it isn't. It smells a little like it, but it's not the same thing.

For instance, you have people going nuts over abortions, equating it to infanticide. They'll work themselves up to a frenzy in marches and if you shove a camera in their face. But compare their reaction to what would happen if (somehow, legally) you had a place that "aborted" babies post-partum. You'd have masses streaming in with torches to burn the place down. Not the same reaction, and not the same thing.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[Mr2001]

When that happens, you've just created a new human (note that I don't say "person" - I'm talking about the human animal, not "souls" or personalities).

Way to gloss over a huge distinction. A person deserves our protection; a "human animal" doesn't necessarily. A baby born without a brain is a human animal, and so is a braindead accident victim who will never recover. Neither one is a person, and we shouldn't have any ethical concerns about euthanizing either (as long as we're sure they'll never recover).

But when you allow stem cells to divide and subdivide, each cluster or even individual cell is in itself a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go, would gestate into a human.

As long as that "suitable place to go" is a womb, or an environment carefully set up to mimic a womb, with all the right nutrients. Hell, you could say a single sperm is a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go (an egg), can gestate into a human. That doesn't mean every sperm is sacred.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[jdbo]

But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it has implanted yet. The ovum may still fail to implant in the uterine lining and will be expelled naturally. Is that the moment that the child becomes like a human being?

Cell divison is a "disappearing finish line" in this case - it exists as long as you don't look at it too closely... and then poof! it's gone.

I'm sick of everyone using these discussions as a way to trumpet their idea of
"when life begins". Fuck that shit, that's 99% about forcing other people to accept your philosophy of humanity and doesn't accomplish jack shit besides pissing everyone off.

This whole topic is so charged and subjective (with false claims to objectivity) that it's might as well be a magic incantation.

And the arguments are all bullshit. 99.99% of socierty wants fewer abortions. The real question is whether we, as a society, choose to achieve this through force or through other means.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[LithiumX]

What do you mean by it being a "disappearing finish line"?

In my case, I choose the first cell division because the dna is still in a state of flux until that moment. That's why failed conception (as seen in in vitro fertilization in humans and other animals) usually results in cellular death during initial mitosis, rather than before. The cell usually dies, when it dies, during the division process itself. Once it makes that first successful division, the dna is set in stone, and at that point you have a new distinct genetic sequence. Before that you simply have genetic material from two parents in the process of combining within an ovum.

There is no one absolute point to go by. Some people say "the moment of conception", which sounds great but itself means little to me for reasons stated above. Others give the moment of neural activation (which used to be my opinion at one point - but it doesn't work because there is no specific point, and the organism itself exists before that point). Other people say birth - there's some logic to that, but it doesn't seem most people will accept that. As for seperate sperm and ova, I don't think anyone considers those human (as they're unable to reproduce on their own, have incomplete genetic material and thus very limited lifespans, and by many standards are not even independant organisms except on a superficial level).

As for implantation, that's nothing more than it's support system. Before implantation, the cells themselves are able to draw some nutrients but require a specific source for further development (or else the blastocyst simply chokes on it's own waste products, from the inside out, since the individual cells have enough stored material to keep going slightly past that point). That has no affect on it's identity, it's just it's food supply.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[jc42]

But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it has implanted yet. The ovum may still fail to implant in the uterine lining and will be expelled naturally. Is that the moment that the child becomes like a human being?

And, of course, in a strictly biological sense, an unfertilized ovum or sperm is a living, breathing (respiring, actually), independent living creature, busy doing their part in the life cycle. And they are certainly "human" lives; if not, what species are they? All their DNA is human. The haploid phase of the human reproductive cycle is rather reduced, but it exists and is a part of our life cycle.

Part of the fun of all this hairsplitting about "when life begins" is that it was answered quite well by scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Their answer was simple: All the evidence pointed to the conclusion that life doesn't begin; it only continues from previous life. Whether the life is human, mouse, plant, or bacteria, it doesn't arise spontaneously from non-living material. Life is always continuous from one or more previous living things, and at no time are the organisms not alive.

It does seem likely that at some time in the remote geological past, life did arise from non-living chemicals by some process. But so far, there's little real science on that subject. Lots of interesting conjecture, of course, but not much more.

It is, of course, possible, even likely, that the precursors of life are forming on Earth right now. They'll never become life, though, because bacteria or plants will gobble them up before they get organized enough to qualify as "life".

The whole "when life begins" debate is purely theological. And it's based on the counterfactual presupposition that our lives have starting points. This has been conclusively shown wrong by a lot of researchers.

And moral or legal conclusions based on falsehoods are always wrong, too.

Not that I expect our moral or legal guardians to understand any of this.

Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades

[meringuoid]

Hell, you could say a single sperm is a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go (an egg), can gestate into a human.

Of course you realise that it gets worse than that.

Every single cell in your body (except red blood cells) is a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go (a cloning laboratory), can gestate into a human.

Now don't you feel guilty about all those abortions every time you wash your face, SINNER?

Embrionic Stem Cells vs Umbilical Cord Cells

[technoCon]

Unless I'm badly misinformed, the restriction on Federal funding of EMBRYONIC stem cells does not extend to UMBILICAL stem cells. I understand that stem cells come from distinct sources: adult bone marrow, the placenta & umbilical cords of newborns, and human embryos. I've even read that cancerous tumors contain something like one in a million stem cells.

Embryonic/fetal stem cells have the advantage of not triggering an immune response in the transplant recipient. Apparently, this advantage is shared by umbilical stem cells. However, some people think that consuming fetal stem cells constitutes a taking of human life. (You may disagree, citing a lack of proof. But lack of proof of the Kyoto Accord's efficasy hasn't precluded its political support.) If the aformentioned considerations raise your blood pressure, note that whereas fetal stem cell use triggers ethical arguments, that umbilical stem cell use does not. We can use the energy we'll otherwise spend arguing supporting research.

I favor stem cell research, but I'd prefer to avoid the ethical, indeed metaphysical, argument posed by fetal stem cells. This is neatly avoided via umbilical stem cells. Moreover, I believe we'll find useful applications of adult stem cell lines. I suspect that CANCER stem cells may have a role in metastasis.

site was hacked it seems

[dialsoft]

Looks like that site was compromised.

Full Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, no pictures and lame lameness filter won't allow the tables (too much whitespace?!?)

------------------

A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study

K-S Kanga, SW Kimb, YH Ohc, JW Yud, K-Y Kimd, HK Parke, C-H Songd and H Han MD, PhDb,*

aLaboratory of Stem Cell and Tumor Biology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; bSeoul Cord Blood Bank, Histostem Co., Seoul, Korea; cNew Life Clinic, Seoul, Korea; dChosun University Hospital, Kwang-ju, Korea; eDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.

*Correspondence to: Seoul Life Foundation, Bldg. 518-4 Dunchon-Dong Kang Dong Ku, Seoul 134-060, Korea.

HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.

Keywords: clinical trial, multipotent stem cells, spinal cord injury, UC blood.
Introduction

Spinal cord injury (SPI) is a major medical problem world-wide. Great efforts have been made to improve the condition of SPI patients, not only regarding sensory perception but also functional ability [1]. There are some recent reports related to animal model experiments that indicate some hope for SPI patients [2,3].

The blood remaining in the UC following birth contains hematopoietic precursors, which represent an important alternative source for transplantation for hematopoietic diseases [4-6]. However, controversy exists as to whether such blood also contains multipotent stem cells (MSC) that are capable of differentiating into cells of different connective tissue lineages, such as bone, cartilage and adipose tissues. Stem cells are the best candidates for tissue engineering of musculoskeletal tissues [7-9]. To date, the most common source of MSC has been BM, but aspirating BM from a patient is an invasive procedure. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the number and differentiating potential of BM-derived MSC decrease with age [10]. Therefore, the search for alternative sources of MSC is of significant value. So far, little success has been reported regarding the isolation, characterization and differentiation of MSC from umbilical cord blood (UCB). Erices et al. [11] reported that UCB-derived mononuclear cells gave rise to two adherent cell types, one of which expressed MSC related to surface Ag. Mareschi et al. [12] reported that, in given conditions, it was possible to isolate MSC from BM but not from UCB. However, Goodwin et al. and our laboratory [13,14] have recently reported cells that have multilineage differentiation activity, isolated from UCB, and express bone, fat and neural markers. Kakinuma et al. [15] reported that UCB-derived MSC could differentiate into hepatic progenitor cells. However, none of these reports provided sufficient evidence to fulfill the qualifying criteria for MSC, because relatively heterogeneous cells were reported by the groups. It has been reported that MSC from BM can improve SPI functional models in the laboratory [3]. However, there has been no report of cord blood MSC related to SPI. This study is the first report regarding a clinical trial for a chronic SPI patient using MSC derived from UCB. In this study, we report that MSC from UCB can show functional and morphologic improvement in a chronic SPI patient.
Methods
Human UCB harvest and preparation of MSC

Human U

Re:Full Text

[ArsenneLupin]

Unfortunately, no pictures and lame lameness filter won't allow the tables (too much whitespace?!?)

Yeah, it's a real shame. The pictures were the best part ;-)

Goatse

[adolfojp]

I just hope that the stemm cell breakthrough will help me recover from the trauma and paralisis caused goatse images on the website. :-S

Re:Goatse

[adolfojp]

As can be evidenced by my borked writing in the post. :-P

Re:And what did it take....

[ray-auch]

What it took is clearly explained in TFA (and summary) for those that can read.

[ The words "cord" and "blood" might be useful clues. ]

As to the taking of cord blood "killing who knows how many babies", well, I'm stumped there, never heard of even one death and can't see how it could happen - care to provide a reference ?

Or perhaps you just don't have the faintest clue about obstetrics ? [ not a good starting point if you want your criticism / anger to be taken even slightly seriously ]

Re:Research ban (Clarification and explication)

[Tiger4]

Stem cell research is not banned in the US. Federal funding of embryonic stem cells is severely limited. There is a difference, but as you can see, the explanation does not fit into a nice sound bite. And there are those that like it that way.

Not that it will matter. The people that don't like embryonic stem cell research aren't too hot for the other kinds either. It is a slippery slope argument. Just like people think all research is banned, if people get to believing that some kinds of research are good, then maybe all kinds should be open. If that sort of thought gets too prevalent, the embryonic limits will be doomed. Look forward to FUD towards how this development isn't all it is cracked up to be. The right wing anti-science people can't let any cracks develop in their wall of resistance.

Re:For purposes of consistency...

[DavidTC]

No he's not.

He's against using any of the destroyed embryos. He hasn't once addressed the issue of their destruction.

Why the hell are people having so much problem with grasping this issue?

Adult Stem Cells: 65, Embryonic: 0

[Nerdposeur]

"I have yet to hear of embryonic stem cells ever working in a situation like this."

I'm no authority, but according to this site, treatments for 65 disorders have been created from adult stem cells, while none have yet been made from embryonic stem cells.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h tm

I don't think that means that nothing good can ever come of embryonic stem cell research, but it grieves me to think that embryos will be created with the intent of destroying them, all for the potential of making life nicer for the rest of us.

The tone of the public debate makes it sound like it's "science vs. pro-lifers." But in fact, it's "pro-lifers vs. a particular technique of science which hasn't yet shown to be useful anyway, and which has a proven, non-objectionable alternative."

Re:Adult Stem Cells: 65, Embryonic: 0

[afaik_ianal]

I'm no authority, but according to this site, treatments for 65 disorders have been created from adult stem cells, while none have yet been made from embryonic stem cells.

And if no more research were to be done, the only thing you could guarantee is that it would continue to be the case. As much as I hate analogies, research into nuclear fission is responsible for the 441 nuclear plants in use worldwide today. Nuclear Fusion research has given us none. Should we give up on research into fission power?

AFAIK, adult stem cell research has been happening for about 40 years now; Embryonic stem cell research has only been happening since 1998. That is certainly not enough time to get any real "human" results (as your link points out). There are however a number of examples of embryonic stem cells being used to treat rats, etc. Embryonic research is important, because it allows us to compare different approaches, and may help us understand the mechanics of stem cells better.

... but it grieves me to think that embryos will be created with the intent of destroying them,

There are ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells that don't need you to create the embryos for that purpose. Embryos are currently created artificially with the intention of creating a new life. The embryos that do not get used, are ultimately destroyed.

well...

[slew]

He's not against stem cell research. He's against destroying embryos. Huge Difference

Isn't that like saying i'm not against reproduction, just against sex...

Isn't that like saying I'm not against software, just against proprietary software development? Of course GWB says he's against destroying embryos, but that isn't the same as being against research using existing stem cell lines (not particularly desired by the current academic community), or using umbilical cord stem cells (harvested after babies are born as in this case). Not saying we should or should not judge politicians on consistency (heaven knows they can't even agree on the definition of the word "is" ;^)

Re:Politics as usual

[Eccles]

[The Federal Government] only forbids federal grants to researchers using cells from aborted fetuses. Why be so disingenuous?

No, the White House policy effectively prohibits using embryonic stem cells. The fetal stage of development is after the embryonic. Moreover, they don't abort these embryos, they are produced en masse in fertility clinics and most are not implanted (and thus not, by definition, aborted.)

So either you're being disingenuous, or merely wrong. Given your rhetorical language, I suspect the former.

Links are fine.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I have no problems with the links here. There is no "smiling man".

Perhaps you have a rootkit installed.

Re:What type of stem cells?

[tbcpp]

Point taken. Sorry about that guys. To be frank, I ran into this article on company time, and didn't have much time to read the article. Basicly I just read the headline and posted the question more to spark a conversation than anything else.

Re:Politics as usual

[MOBE2001]

No, the White House policy effectively prohibits using embryonic stem cells.

This is very much in doubt since it is legal to conduct embryonic stem cell research in the US. Some states (e.g., California) provide their own funding for embryonic stem cell research, in effect circumventing the federal ban on funding.

Re:Research ban

[DavidTC]

Third, abortions don't have a damn thing to do with any sort of stem cell research.

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to

[StarKruzr]

your newsletter.

Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! ...

Why am I doing this again?

Oh hell, who cares? This is fun!

Hitler!

Re:Politics as usual

[lukesl]

In legal terms, it's not a ban. In PRACTICAL terms, it is a ban. If all the equipment in a lab was bought with federal funds (which is the way most labs in the US are), how can you do any ES cell research? Build a new lab from scratch, not using any federal funds? In practical terms, how is that possible? Fortunately, some of the states (which traditionally have nothing to do with biomedical research funding) are stepping in and rectifying the idiocy of the federal government.

This thread is unbelievably ironic

[TheNarrator]

Here we have what could be the biggest medical discovery of our lifetimes. Run around, dance in the street, be happy, throw a party, etc. Alright, Maybe a little skepticism of the discovery should be warranted. This is a little too good to be true.

But No! The whole thing turns into a thread revolving around the technicalities of federal funding of stem cell research. Mainly, why this should be another reason for you to hate George Bush. Which, if you RTFA, this category of research is not affected by the embryonic stem cell funding ban.

This reminds me of the threads where there's some new energy technology breakthrough and the whole thread is spent trying to find a reason why it has to be bad for the environment. If the thread involves anything remotely related to nuclear energy forget about it.

It seems that for some topics there is such a huge amount of misinformation about the subject, especially political hot potatos, that the whole thread has to be spent educating people.

When the thread comes up again, with the same issue, a whole new wave of the uneducated arrives and it starts all over again. This same thing has happed every time stem cells come up, it seems to happen even more on threads where the discovery did not use actual embryonic stem cells.

Re:Miracle Treatment

[cloudofstrife]

You have to remember that there are so many different types of people that read Slashdot that there will always be someone who disagrees with you. For a statement like this, a large number of people would be seriously offended and inclined to violently disagree with you. Thus, the "Troll" mod.

3 Areas

[abscondment]

neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications

Those statements are equivalent in meaning, so it doesn't make sense to set them as opposites with a "neither-nor" comparison. They both imply that the consequences of an action tell the entire ethical story.

As far as I can see, ethical actions are covered by three areas:

1. Intention
   • What is the motivation behind this action?
   • This accounts for many situational problems; for example, killing someone can be justified if the intention was self defense.
2. Action
   • Is this action intrinsically reprehensible from a moral standpoint?
   • This is probably one of the most controversial tests, because it requires a standard by which to judge actions. Not everyone agrees on such a standard; in defense of this however, I suggest that most people would agree that pedophilia is morally wrong in any scenario, regardless of the intention or the results.
3. Consequences
   • What are the direct results of this action?
   • This must, of course, be taken into consideration hand-in-hand with the Intentions. Negligent death can be derived from such a combination: no ill will towards the victim, but when a death is foreseeable, one has acted negligently.
     • Foreseeability is not a hard and fast rule to which I would adhere. To clarify: actions whose bad consequences were foreseeable are often bad, but this does not imply that actions whose bad consequences were not foreseeable are necessarily good.

Of course, this system could use more flushing out.

</2 cents>

Re:3 Areas

[nine-times]

Those statements are equivalent in meaning, so it doesn't make sense to set them as opposites with a "neither-nor" comparison.

The "neither... nor" construction doesn't imply that they're opposites. Beyond that, the sentiments that "the ends justify the means" and that "all's well that ends well" are not completely equivalent in meaning. The first implies the intention to bring about a positive result, as well as a positive result, forgives negative actions, while the latter implies that intentions and actions are utterly unimportant so long as the result is good. Perhaps you're thinking of "no harm, no foul," which might be considered equivalent to "all's well that ends well." However, I think even "no harm, no foul" is a bit different, in that there might be quite a bit of harm and foul, and things might still end well.

I don't object to most of your break down of ethics, but the portion labeled "consequences" holds a funny position in an ethical quandary. The consequences can often be used when attempting to judge an action. However, they are, in a certain sense, an unknown during any ethical examination. "Ethics" is not the same as justice. You might judge a person's action as "good" or "bad" and still not answer as to whether it was ethical. "Ethics" are involved at the moment you're taking a course of action. Ethics relates to the principles by which we make decisions and act, given that you can't know the results until afterward. Criminal justice-- what a judge and jury do, following up behind after the action, is a fundamentally (though not entirely) different topic.

Re:Well... (old joke)

[DaveCar]

Ethics? Don't talk to me about Ethics, I own half of it! Hwah-hwah-hwah!

It's not surprising t hat World Net Daily

[multiplexo]

is running a story about how umbilical stem cells could be used to treat paraplegia. WorldNet Daily is a "news" website run by right wing freakazoid wingnutjob Joseph Farah. Farah has an axe to grind, he's one of those Republican pro-lifers who believes that life begins at conception, ends at birth and then resumes if you're a white woman in a coma. Farah and his pals at WND are firmly in the anti embryonic stem cell crowd and if tomorrow it was discovered that embryonic stem cells could cure everything they were claimed to cure you wouldn't see word one about it at WorldNet Daily. So basically this story has about as much veracity as something published in the Weekly World News.

I have a question out there for the "life begins at conception" crowd, namely, if a fetus is a human being how come it looks like a steamed prawn?"

Re:It's not surprising t hat World Net Daily

[craznar]

" if a fetus is a human being how come it looks like a steamed prawn?" If looking like a steamed prawn is your way of defining lack of life, then I'm glad you aint in charge. The only people who don't believe life begins at conception, are those religious nuts that believe it begins when your soul gets infused into your body after 42 days, 7 hours, 56 minutes and 13 seconds exactly. Well - then there is the people who believe life begins when the baby pops out in the hospital. Well, I don't think the question is 'when does life begin' cause that's obviously at conception, but rather 'is the life that begins at conception worth anything' ? That is a much more sensible question.

Re:It's not surprising t hat World Net Daily

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a question out there for the "life begins at conception" crowd, namely, if a fetus is a human being how come it looks like a steamed prawn?"

I work at a general store, and the odd time I get this person (with his aid) that doesn't have any hands... he doesn't have any eyes... he can't be more than 3 feet tall... he's hunched over almost to his waist... he can't speak... in essence (as you put it), he's a steamed prawn. Is he still a human, even though the kid is hard to look at sometimes?

What if you had a child that looked like that? Would you banish him to the middle of the desert and let the steamed prawn shrivel up?

Yeah, pull the other one.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"And as for federal funding, they feds have no place in funding medical research. I looked in the constitution, and can't find mention of it anywhere. So, I oppose it on a) federalist principles and b) some moral qualms. But mostly a."

Do you have any idea how much medical research the government funds? Stem-cell research is such a miniscule part of that budget that it's not even worth mentioning on "federalist principles."

"If there was a potential for profit, they'd follow it with money."

So if there's no money to be made in curing these terrible diseases, it's not worthwhile to pursue? Interesting take.

Re:Miracle Treatment

[Doc Ruby]

Ah, but they're not "violently disagreeing" with me, not on Slashdot at least. They're anonymously modding down as "Troll" a post that they violently disagree with in the room with their keyboard. "Troll" doesn't mean "that's wrong", it means "posted to elicit a predictable response that doesn't further the discussion". When I posted that message, I didn't design it to produce "Troll" mods. I posted it expecting someone would disagree with it, and we could all discuss that, or someone would agree, or no one would respond.

Some would say that an "Overrated" mod is appropriate. Which is actually an even more lame mod, because 1: it allows anonymous disagreement without backing it up or furthering the discussion. And 2: it apparently offers no risk if metamod'ed "Unfair".

I know posts positing actions by god will make some people "violently" disagree. I post them because I disagree with some of them, and I want those disagreements out in the open. But I don't respect people who just anonymously suppress posts they don't like, incorrectly calling them "Troll" because they think that means "unliked and kinda scary".

and you are ?

[Brigadier]

if you insist on touting your opinion with such authority at least where your experience is from. perhaps post a link to a ligit source one simular to the post. scepticism is not plausible source

Informative: MOD PARENT UP

[Macka]

I have no points left or I'd do it myself

bravo

[Brigadier]

very well said. you should run for senate

Re:Miracle Treatment

[glemigh]

Actually I think its flame bait, as an individual who has been paralyzed for 29 years, reading your reply and the original post was for me at least irritating. While everyone has a right to their view, should you ever find yourself physically paralyzed, your views may change. Good luck to you. George

MOD PARENT UP

[Spetiam]

...and editors take note.

Total bullshit on A

[7Prime]

Sure, it may not be written in the constitution, but a lot of things weren't written in the constitution that have since become law. The founding fathers weren't perfect, and they lived during the 18th century, therefor, the original constitution wasn't perfect for our time... for god sake, it condoned slavery!

Anyway, that's beside the point.

A government exists, in the minds of the people of a country, for ONE purpose, to help to protect the people of the nation against various threats (natural, manmade, ecconomic, or otherwise) that require much more capital and attention than any one individual can give. We have a law enforcement and judicial system to protect individuals from eachother, we have a military to protect individuals from outside threats, SUPPOSEDLY we have FEMA to repond and protect people who are in natural emergancy situations, we have countless ecconomic legal procedures in place to protect (and balance) the ecconomic interests of both individuals and businesses. The whole point of a democratic system of governing, though, is that it's up to the people to decide how and what is most important to protect themselves from. A government is not simply an institution, it is supposed to act as representives of the people, and carry out the balanced goals of the nation; to prioritize spending to most effectively help the greater good of our society.

So, how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security? If that doesn't qualify as a job for our government, I don't know what does. The question is, do the people care enough to put their money toward this cause? Generally, people realize that there are thousands of different ways their money can be used, and should to be given to. Like a good investment banker, we don't put all our money in one place. Even if the injury was inflicted by carelessness... then why do we have bankruptcy declarations for businesses who have injured their assets? Do we cease to provide medical assistance to those who choose not to flee a natural desaster area? (okay, so maybe we don't, but we're sure as hell supposed to)

So, while you are entitled to B) having moral qualms against federal funding on medical research, there is simply no justification for A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals. It's perfectly acceptable for you to prioritise other things over scientific research, but don't drag everyone else into it by trying to pass the idea off as unconstitutional. Personally, I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending. I believe if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field, while at the same time, increase the productivity of the military from a medical and surgical standpoint, thus making back almost all the military spending cuts we would have made in other ways.

So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research. No administration has ever argued against it, some have prioritised it more than others, but not even Bush, the great anti-intellectual, would agree with you there. Hell, NASA still gets billions for non-military related space exploration, and the national benefit to such a program is much less clear than neurological medical research. Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research. If he were here right now, he'd tell you to shut up, kick your ass, and probably steal with your girlfriend/wife! ;)

--Eric

No two ways about it: donors decide

[Tau Zero]

At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?

That's not even a grammatical sentence.

The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs.

It's no more difficult than the question of who gets to donate the organs of a brain-dead child for transplant, or the whole body for research: the parents.

If the donors want the blastocyst to go for research instead of down the drain, the government should not gain-say the decision with funding restrictions. If we allow research money for autopsies, cultures and other research on the bodies of babies, restricting it for embryonic cell research because it's "immoral" holds born children as LESS human than those small balls of cells.

"Morality" bans on fetal stem-cell research amount to saying "it's a human being... until it's born". My contempt for people who hold this POV knows no bounds.

create life for death

[phriedom]

"Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls."

But isn't it already legal to fertilize more eggs than are needed/used (create life) and dispose of the leftovers (kill that life)? The difference I see is that if the cells are harvested the death is for a purpose (or on purpose if you care to spin it that way) while the disposal of leftovers is because they have no purpose. But where does that leave us?

And I am NOT argueing for harvesting embrionic stem cells, I'm just looking for a logically consistant reason not to.

Dupetastic!

[njyoder]

At first I thought "wow, two women in [South] Korea have had stem cells heal their paralysis now." But then I thought it was probably just a dupe.

Indeed it is: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/2 9/1412224&tid=191

To be fair though, they didn't actually publish the result of the case study until September 2005, whereas the announcement was made in November 2004.

stem cell research

[falconwolf]

It should be noted that it is not just patients who have been paralyzed that can potentially benefit from this work. Other potential therapies to come out of stem cell work include treatments for heart disease, retinal vision loss disorders, Parkinson's disease, Cystic Fibrosis and many others.

I'd like to see something come from stem cell research on treatments for Traumatice Brain Injury, TBI, survivors seeing as how I'm one.

Falcon

Restored feelings

[zekemacneil]

I want a paraplegic to feel me!

is this article a plant?

[falconwolf]

I'm starting to wonder if this article is a plant. It shows up on Slashdot, from a source that's not exactly a major news source, claiming miraculous results.... and a short while later it gets riddled with Goatse images (warning: Do Not Click On The Article If You're At Work!!!).

I news googled "stem cell" Paraplegic and got several results. One of them was this article/thread on /. Three of the results are more than 2 weeks old.

Falcon

Re:Yes Dumbass. Everypregnant Mother has an Umbili

[kurzweilfreak]

Would you say the same about the placenta? (assuming that you consider the umbilical cord as something seperate from the placenta, which you may not, in which case I'll just stfu :)

Re:Miracle Treatment

[Doc Ruby]

I'm glad that you responded without flaming me. Especially because I don't believe in god, and do believe that people who oppose stemcells in god's name are working against science and humans, which I do believe in. Just posting a provocative statement, even sarcastically, isn't "flamebait" - the whole term is loaded, disrespecting the replier's ability to reply with flames or, as in your post, a reasonable disagreement. If I had been more than provocative, but rather insulting, ad hominem, or otherwise merely cloaking invective in the guise of an on-topic point, I might expect flames. Rather, I expect reasonable disagreements like yours.

I'm sorry if my post irritated you in its sarcasm about god. I've got some friends who are paraplegic, and I know they're used to coping well with a lot of irritation. I know I can't expect you, someone I don't know, to react the way they do. But I am glad that I got someone actually in a position to reject such selfserving comments to do so with integrity and strength. Which I myself, though I agree with you, cannot muster without living with the injury myself. But I can do more than just sympathize: I can help provoke the discussion.

Re:Politics as usual

[Eccles]

Tell you what, I'll call it merely discouraging embryonic stem cell research if you don't say the cells come from aborted fetuses.

stem cell from umbilical cords

[falconwolf]

I agree with the sentiment against Bush's policies on stem-cell research. But isn't the type of stem-cell used in this article (umbilical cord) actually "okay" to use under the US policy?

According to this Umbilical cord cells are considered "adult stem cells". Don't ask me why, I have no idea. Other pages including the one from WorldNetDaily also say this.

Falcon

Prisoners Frozen in Carbonite

[heidmotron]

So you would be OK with cryogenically freezing all the prisoners to have scientist revive them at their release date and modify some trait (that could have never taken place to begin with) to make them capable of interacting normally in society maybe artificially inseminating normalcy into a prisoner? The ethical problem starts from the beginning, if you create life you have just created death. Would you say that frozen prisoner is alive or is living while frozen? And then if he gets freezer burn, is he dead?

existence of a soul?

[falconwolf]

Assume this other sider believes in a "soul", and it is this "soul" that is the defining mark of a human being. I really can't see any point for the soul to come into existence except at the moment the egg is fertilized. Though perhaps I have misunderstood those on the other side.

Some may look at it this way but not all who believe in souls do. Years ago like a number of friends some of whom attended churchs, others attended Mosques, Synagogues, and still others Temples or like me no concrete place we believed the soul was eternal and didn't just "appear" at birth. After an accident I lost the beliefs I used to have. Most if not all of them including me believed in reincarnation wherein the soul "lives" or occupies a number of different bodies at different tymes. Actually to get down to it, though I no longer believe this, this former belief of mine is one reason I haven't committed hari kari or sepaku since my accident. I was afraid that if true I'd have to come back and go through it all over again.

Falcon

rhetorical argument

[falconwolf]

The problems with your analogy are so obvious, I find it remarkable that you even attempted to make it.

I might have it wrong but then you might also, however I got the impression the GP was playing devil's advocate while using a rhetorical argument.

Falcon

Re:And what did it take....

[Danimoth]

OMFG they ahve to use the blood of babies, the blood of VIRGINS to cure something as trite as paralysis! Its my poor attempt at a joke, laugh, please.

government support of stem cell research

[falconwolf]

I wish people would stop whining about not being able to FORCE me to pay for genocide and then show me pictures of Superman in a wheelchair and tell me I'm not being compassionate because I don't support the embryonic Holocaust.

I'd like government to stop robbing me to pay for research it has no business doing. Not that I don't believe in it, as a matter of fact I strongly believe in stem cell research, but any money I get I want to be able to control how I spend or donate it. Actually as I'm a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, survivor I not only strongly support stem cell research into treatments for TBIs but am also willing to be a guinea pig in clinical trials.

Falcon

adoptions

[falconwolf]

On a related note, given the huge number of people who want to adopt babies and can't find them as well as the people with fertility challenges, it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people.

If someone wants to adopt a baby they aren't looking. Here's one website with children waiting to be adopted, Meet the Waiting Children. Here's another website with some waiting, National Adoption Center, or here, Adoption.com. Sure there may not be many babies but it can't be said there's a shortage of adoptees. And I'd bet that internationally there are babies available.

Falcon

Why wouldnt this actually work?

[dpeltzm1]

OK the usual disclaimers apply here.
lets assume that the new nerve endings grow 1mm a day, thats ~ 1/4 inch in a week i.e. your typical pencil eraser nubby. should be enough new matter to make a good solid connection?

So now we have connection where we didn't before. one would assume this woman walked in the past? If so you have the worlds most powerful computer in communication with a network it used to know! (the brain and the lower body, its pathways sensors actuators etc.)

So we have comm at some ridiculous baud rate going on? the computer/brain remembers what it used to do tries it and gets an error keeps trying till it gets feed back that makes sense. stores that as the new map for that sensor/nerve ending, actuator/muscle.

the woman decides in typical human fashion to try her 'sea legs' and discovers its not as familiar as it used to be but she can cope with it, we are talking 19 years after all.

Is this that far a stretch? We definitely need more proof but on a strictly conceptual basis, and a cant believe how quickly i've healed after chest surgery. i'm inclined to go forward with an open mind.

As for politics, if it does work and a few 'celebrity' cases appear things will change so relax everybody and go back to flaming microsoft or SCO or something.

Playing 'god' with repair as opposed to creation is basically a natural evolution of society's unwillingness to let the sick die as they would by natural selection. if you are going to go against the order of things (letting the old woman die because she cant fend for herself)then go down every avenue neccesary (stem cells , witchcraft, or whatever else seems sensible)and if you succeed be proud of what you've done!

Just my 2 cents worth. ( dons asbestos suit and ducks )

Why don't we grind up our dead as a food source?

[falconwolf]

Yummy, green chips day, Soylent Green.

Eventually, it's all fertilizer, it goes back into the food chain, so why not put the bodies to immediate use?

Not with all the embalming fluids used, they're supposed to preserve the body.

Falcon

"A Modest Proposal"

[falconwolf]

That's a good book Jonathon Swift wrote. It proposes a good use for all those children the underclass has.

On another note, why shouldn't we put dead bodies to good use, or at least make it an option which people can write into their will.

I once heard that even if your driver's license has an organ donor stamp unless you let your family know they can block your organs from being donated, I seem to recall this is true even if you have a living will.

There was an article about a guy who made biodeisel from dead cats. I'm pretty sure we could use just about any organic matter to produce bio deisel.

Rudolph Diesel designed his diesl engine to run on most any oil including vegetable oil.

once we reach about 10 billion people

Actually the population is leveling off and is expected to start declining. Because of this Europe is starting to have problems, "How do we tackle Europe's population problem?" A few years back the major of a town in Italy proposed that they start taxing singles to encourage them to get married and have babies. China and India, together with around 1/3 the world's population are already seeing the population leveling off. Studies have shown that as people move to cities, receive more education, and make more money (have more opportunities and equality) people get married later in life and have fewer children when they do get married.

Falcon

Re:"A Modest Proposal"

[anthony_dipierro]

I once heard that even if your driver's license has an organ donor stamp unless you let your family know they can block your organs from being donated, I seem to recall this is true even if you have a living will.

I think this is only true for practical purposes, though. The decision about whether or not to make the donation has to be made quickly, and the hospitals don't want to wind up getting sued for making the wrong decision. If you could somehow litigate the issue extensively before making the final decision this would probably be resolved. The issue is that the living will only gives you rights while you're living, and a regular will is only going to give rights if the recipient asserts them (or the trustee decides to enforce them). There are also a lot of situations where living wills and wills aren't enforcible at all, and it would be a huge risk on the part of a hospital to assume it's going to be.

saving lives

[falconwolf]

The Bush administration and the pro-life community have one goal in their view of stem cells: Preserve LIFE

If the purpose is saving and preserving life then allowing research into treatments should be allowed.

And it is, there's no ban on stem cell research in the US. There are restrictions on federal money for stem cell research, researchers have to use one of the preapproved stem cell lines. Personally I don't think the feds should be paying for any of it.

Falcon

federal funding for stem cell research

[falconwolf]

And as for federal funding, they feds have no place in funding medical research. I looked in the constitution, and can't find mention of it anywhere.

I'm glad to hear that. After repeatly reading the constitution I was wondering if I was going blind because I couldn't see anything in it about the feds funding this research.

Falcon

federal funding of research

[falconwolf]

If the policy just restricted the use of federal funds for stem cell research, it woudl be acceptable to many people. But the current policy is much more damaging, and effectively ends all stem cell research except by institutions established specifically for that purpose.

The feds shouldn't be funding any medical research, on stem cells or anything else.

Falcon

Re:federal funding of research

[b17bmbr]

why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? They want federal money but not federal regulations. What planet do they live on? I am leary only because of the potential for abuse, like cloning, fetus farming, etc.

To put it in perspective:

[ImaLamer]

If John Kerry was elected president then Christopher Reeve would be up and walking now.

Re:To put it in perspective:

[Muad'Dave]

From the dead???

Re:To put it in perspective:

[GreyyGuy]

You don't remember his Neconomicon platform?

calling ray bradbury

[ChrisShmit]

are you there?

USA Constitution and what the government can do

[falconwolf]

how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security?

Can you show me where in the USA Constitution where it says health is the responsibility of the government?

A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals

Seeing as how federalist principals stand for small government not large government it seems you're the one with problems of uderstanding federalism.

I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending.

I'd prefer to see less of MY tax dollars going to both the military and to medical research.

if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field

And if taxes weren't high to pay for all this by the feds then the private and commercial sectors would have more money to spend on research. And job creation.

So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research.

And how can you get off on saying the constitution allows tax spending for scientific research? Though I've looked, read, and reread other than where the constitution allows congress to grant copyrights and patents I see nowhere where it deligates this power. Maybe I missed it so can you point out where it says otherwise? Maybe it's in Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress but I don't see it.

Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research.

And I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, James Jay, and James Madison who all loved small government would say to you? Though a bit later I know what Col. David Crockett would of said, "Not Yours To Give". Heck, I'd like to see NASA privatized as well. What many don't realize is that the USA Constitution is a limit on what government can do, the 10th Admendment even spells it out:

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Falcon

that's not the issue...

[falconwolf]

BTW; the internet's not in the constitution either. Nor are cars, or many other things. Gues you opose them too. Both can be used for nefarious means.

If it's not the issue then why did you say the above? You said neither the internet nor cars are in the constitution so I pointed out that they weren't designed by government either. I even encluded the part, above, of your post I was replying to. A bit of a double standard, you saying something but then when someone replies to what you say you say it's not the issue?

it was stemcells and strains which are sanctioned by the US government being useless due to contamination, forcing researchers to go to other countries (like the UK).

If the stem cells are contaminated them researchers can get stem cells elsewhere, they don't need to line up begging for money from taxpayers. If I didn't have the government robbing me of my earned money then I could then donate some of it for research. Not only would I do that but I'd also willingly volunteer as a lab rat for clinical trials.

Falcon

Re: that's not the issue...

[Mac Degger]

The military IS the government! It is fully funded by it and the government has full authority over it; whcih is why politicians create the rules of engagement soldiers fight under. The internet sprung from DARPA (fully a government project and funded as such), and the www was develloped by someone working for another fully governmental project. The government paid for those projects. You're right about cars, but you're ignoring your own statement that you don't trust stuff which isn't mentioned in the constitution, wheras my point here was that that is a silly attitude.

"If the stem cells are contaminated them researchers can get stem cells elsewhere"

NO! Thats the whole point! You either use those cells specific embrionic lines, or you don't get federal funding (and that means you don't do the research, because that amount of money you just don't get privately or from teh state level).

This is not an ethical problem

[karzan]

They think the mere fact that an embryo has the potential to become a human being gives it moral value, makes it "worthy of being saved." This is because they know human beings have moral value, and so conflate "a thing with potential to be something of moral value" with "a thing that has moral value."

If this premise were correct (i.e. that they think this) then your argument would be fine. But it is not correct. Regardless of any rhetoric they use, their basic belief is not an ethical one, but a religious one: i.e. that what is 'worth saving' is any living soul, and that the soul enters the physical body at conception and leaves it on death.

Ethically, their side and your side are in agreement, that is you both agree that a human life has moral value, but they define a human life as being a living soul, and you define it as being a conscious human entity. There is no ethical disagreement here.

The disagreement is at best metaphysical, but more likely it is theological. In other words, if you want to change their views, you have to change their view of what a human life is, and to do that would require changing their religious belief, not their ethical arguments, or even their definition of what it is to be conscious (because consciousness does not enter into it for them).

As someone who has studied plenty of philosophy, I would say this is a perfect example of why ethical philosophy is quite useless. Rational argument can persuade people that there are inconsistencies in their ethical, religious, or other beliefs, and it can persuade them that if they want a certain thing, then they should do such and such a thing to get it, or then they must logically want another thing, but it cannot persuade people that they should want this or that to begin with.

In this case, the real question at issue is whether there is a soul, etc--and while philosophy can make plenty of arguments about nonduality and so forth, religion has the power to persuade people to abandon all rationality, even the law of noncontradiction if need be. Especially Americans.

You're kidding, right?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Because no one can be *that* anal.

Besides, I was measuring by weight.

Senator?

[SeanDuggan]

very well said. you should run for senate
Naw... he sounds too honest and straightforward.

It was The Force

[Niello]

"One patient does not a treatment make."

If your doctor is small, green and talks like this then there may be other forces at work.

I wonder how if it works for demyelination?

[crovira]

In MS the nerve is not severed (the wire cut) but instead the myelin sheath that surrounds the nerve is 'attacked' by the imune system (the wire shredded).

This leaves the transmission of impulses along the nerves subject to analog wire' efects: increased 'noise' causing spasticity (loss of control outgoing) and/or phantom sensation ([sometimes painful] loss of specificity incoming.)

I have some stake in the outcome of this.

Re:I wonder how if it works for demyelination?

[Idarubicin]

That's a good question. I see a few problems that would have to be addressed for such an MS treatment to work.

The injected stem cells would have to be persuaded to differentiate into Schwann cells: these are the cells which wrap around nerve cells (like little jelly rolls) and 'insulate' the nerves. It's possible that the appropriate chemical signals are secreted by nerves already, and they're just waiting for stem cells to be applied. Otherwise, we would have to deliver those signals.

The stem cells would have to be delivered to the sites of nerve demyelination. I'm not sure how easily this could be accomplished. In the case of spinal cord trauma there's usually one or a few discrete sites of damage; it's not particularly difficult to find the break(s) and inject stem cells. With MS, the damage tends to be spread out over the length of the involved nerves.

MS is an autoimmune disorder. Unless the immune response that caused the initial demyelination can be dealt with, the replacement cells will get chewed up too.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No, it's NOT "lack of funding"

[John Jorsett]

Perhaps because they can't get funding?

But they can, as the California initiative makes clear. What they can't get is U.S. Government FEDERAL funding for NEW LINES of EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Unless you subscribe to the notion that funding from the American government is the sine qua non of all medical research, this isn't more than a minor obstacle. There are any number of state, private, and international sources for funding research for EMBRYONIC stem cells. The only reason this has become an issue is because one side of the political spectrum sees it as a weapon it can use to club the other.

Can't pass up the straight line ...

[jc42]

Hell, you could say a single sperm is a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go (an egg), can gestate into a human. That doesn't mean every sperm is sacred.

Ah, but it does, to us Monty Python fans.

Everyone sing along:

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate. ...

But umbilical stem cells aren't patentable

[tz]

There seem to be two reasons everyone wants embryonic stem cells although they've produced little except cancerous tumors:

1. If anyone ever does make them work, they can be patented so make big bucks for that person.

2. There seems to be a primitive and barbaric part of us that associates strong ju-ju with human sacrifice.

Larry Niven's "Jigsaw Man" was not wrong - it has occured. But we will only take organs from humans we can define down into inhumanity.

The South would still have African Americans an non-humans today if organ transplant or other therapies which required body parts were discovered in 1850 instead of later.

research

[falconwolf]

NO! Thats the whole point! You either use those cells specific embrionic lines, or you don't get federal funding (and that means you don't do the research, because that amount of money you just don't get privately or from teh state level).

Taxpayer money isn't needed for stem cell or any other type of research. Nothing stops researchers from pursuing other methods of funding. The March of Dimes funds a lot of research as does other NGOs. Individuals as well as businesses fund research as well as do hospitals and universities. Googling "medical research" angels funding returned 11 results for me, and I'm pretty sure using other words or combinations will result in more. And with lower taxes people would be able to fund more as well. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars the Gates foundation spends, the African Medical And Research Foundation was recently awarded $1,000,000 by the foundation. Who India receives funding from the foundation as well. Googling "medical research" Gates foundation returned 34 results. Simply there's more funding available than just from the federal government.

Falcon

Re:research

[Mac Degger]

Well, fuck it, I tried. You have no conception of what mayor research costs, and you can't be bothered to see the difference between what a government can spend on something (and on what) versus what individuals/companies/states can (which is why governments are attractive...they can fund what the aforementioned can't).
You don't have any idea what research entails nowadays, and what teams/costs are involved. Go speak to any scientist you know to get an answer you will beleive. Shit, just do a back of the envelope calculation! That is, if you have any idea what computing power and genetic sequencers cost.

You know, as I started my post with: screw it: you're convinced you know it all, yet you have no fucking clue about the fundamentals, You think that the national highway system could have been payed for by private investors, or that national defense could be payed for by angels. and you likely have no relations who could help you out. Thanks for wasting my time.

Re:research

[falconwolf]

You know, as I started my post with: screw it: you're convinced you know it all, yet you have no fucking clue about the fundamentals,

No I don't, I know I know next to nothing. I however have given examples about private sources of funding but I yet to see you give anything in the way of data. At least I do a little research and present what I found. If you were to present data to me then you might be able to change my mind, I've been known to change it.

You think that the national highway system could have been payed for by private investors, or that national defense could be payed for by angels. and you likely have no relations who could help you out.

Now I dont think I said highways should be built and paid for by private investors? I don't recall where so can you point it out? Or where I said they should do the military? In fact I believe government should be doing both, as well as law enforcement and a few other things.

Thanks for wasting my time.

More like I think it's you who have been wasting my tyme.

Falcon

Clinical Trials

[WhatsAProGingrass]

Anyone know of any information about clinical trials for this? Let me tell you, your point of view will change, I don't care who you are, if you or someone close to you has become a paraplegic. A lot of misconception about paraplegia is that you just can't use your legs. Well, my brother for example can't use his legs, his stomach muscles, can't urinate on his own, can't get an errection on his own, can't feel anything from the chest down and can't crap without a supository. His life expectancy is decreased by about 25 years. Even with all that, he has been very positive and optimistic about his life. It's only been 3 months and we are all hoping for a cure or treatment. We would be happy if he could just get his bowl control back. I believe that only time will tell, but it would be nice to see my bro walk again.

Hmm...

[esobofh]

I wonder if this would finally allow my girlfriend to respond to my touch...

Re:Ethics is tricky

[vertinox]

Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.

If you had to murder 1 person to save the lives of a million, would it be worth it?

If you had to murder 1,000,000 people to save the lives of everyone on the planet, would it be worth it?

If you had to blow up the earth to save the rest of the sentient life in the universe would it be worth it?

If your inaction would result in the death of those persons who you had to kill anyways then it is possibly justified. However, most of us won't be given such grandiose moral problems to deal with in our lives, but it is something to ponder of how far you would go. Sometimes horrible actions are needed... Sometimes they go too far... Either way stem cell research needs to continue in order to end the suffering of millions of those already alive on earth.

Stem Cell Therapy

[Apparelyzed]

There was a suggestion that she may of had a partial compression of the spinal cord as well which was worked on at the time of stem cell therapy. From what I read, the same team who carried out this procedure, have applied to carry out more trials to compare the results.