Scientists Grow Blood Vessels Using Skin Cells

rubberbando writes "The new york times is running a story about how scientists have discovered a way to grow new blood vessels using skin cells. Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection. This looks to be quite a boon for people who have several damaged blood vessels from diseases such as diabetes. Perhaps one day they will be able to apply this technology/technique to creating other parts of the body and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy. Only time will tell."

Comments

Article text for your convenience

[Karma Troll]

Blood Vessels Grown From Skin
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 16, 2005

DALLAS, Nov. 15 (AP) - Two kidney dialysis patients from Argentina have received the world's first blood vessels grown in a laboratory dish from snippets of their own skin, a technique that doctors hope will someday offer a new source of arteries and veins for diabetics and other patients.

Scientists from Cytograft Tissue Engineering Inc., a small biotechnology company in Novato, Calif., reported the tissue-engineering advance on Tuesday at the annual conference of the American Heart Association here.

Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which has spent $2.5 million to finance the company's work, called the new method "extraordinarily promising."

Because it uses the patient's own tissue, the technique steers clears of the political and ethical debate surrounding embryonic stem cells.

Think about your breathing. Inhale. Exhale.

Like many patients in dialysis, the two Argentines, a 56-year-old woman and a 61-year-old man, were faced with the prospect of running out of healthy blood vessels. To grow new ones, doctors took a small piece of skin and a vein from the back of the hand, and nurtured them in a laboratory dish with growth enhancers to help produce substances like collagen and elastin, which give tissues their shape and texture.

The process produced two types of tissue: one that forms the tough structure or backbone of the vessel and one that lines it and helps it to function.

The feel of the new tissue "was very similar to the other vessels" that were present from birth, said Dr. Sergio Garrido, the surgeon who implanted it in the two patients.

The woman's new vessel has withstood needle punctures three times a week for six months and the man's for almost three months.

In the future, doctors hope the homegrown vessels will prevent amputations in diabetics who suffer from poor circulation, and give heart-bypass patients new veins or arteries to detour around blocked vessels. The method may also hold promise for children born with defective blood vessels

No controversy? Hah!

[TwentyLeaguesUnderLa]

I doubt that it'll rid us of the controversy... because by the time that becomes possible, cloning or genetic modification of some other sort will also have also become possible, and that'll just pick up where the stem cell controversy left off, probably with many of the same arguments on both sides.

Re:No controversy? Hah!

[blank89]

"Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection." Unless the patient has an objection to the use of his own skin cells it's not a problem.

Re:No controversy? Hah!

[Trigun]

No, there's no problem for rational people. There can still be a problem. People don't get blood transfusions because it's their religion. Even if it is their own blood. If God didn't put it there, then it shouldn't be there, and all that.
Just because it's your own doesn't mean it's automatically accepted. What about plastic surgery? Even fat injections are all your own, but people have a problem with them.

Re:No controversy? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

There can still be a problem. People don't get blood transfusions because it's their religion.

That's not a problem. People have a right to refuse medical treatment. If they choose not to have a blood transfusion, that's their prerogative.

Now, when parents prevent their children from getting blood transfusions for religious reasons... that can pose a problem.

Re:No controversy? Hah!

[CharonIDRONES]

And who said competition in an industry wasn't good?
I'm all for it, haha, organs growing somewhere or being printed out somewhere else :)

-Brandon

Re:No controversy? Hah!

[Firethorn]

Then they don't get them, and die off earlier on average. The biggest problem comes in when you have sick kids in these people's custody. And that's being/been addressed in courts for a while anyways.

As for plastic surgery, well, I consider those forms of surgery rather extreme for just appearance.

As for genetic mods, that's happening now, for years. Certain sufferers from genetic lung ailments have gotten viral genetic therapy. More or less permanent cure, though they've had a couple cases of cancer, so far mostly successfully treated. It seems that the viral therapy as was done (they've since adjusted) increased the risk of lung cancer.

On the other hand, most of these people weren't expected to reach their 20's because of the genetic disorder, so most consider even a serious risk of cancer in their 30's a good risk in exchange for getting rid of the disease.

Re:Science!

[RootsLINUX]

I'm actually considering abandoning computer architecture (what I currently study in grad school) and heading into neuroscience, because I find that research so much more enlightening, practical, and useful. Well I have many more reasons, some of which are deeper than others, but if I could spend my life studying ways to ameliorate neurodegenrative diseases like Parkinsons, I'd find a whole lot more meaning in that then spending years and years to make a processor thats just 2% faster on only certain types of workloads.

Absolutely no offense intended towards you EEs/CmpEs out there (hell, at this moment I'm still one myself), but I just want my time to be more directly involved in helping people rather than helping companies make a bigger profit. Ya know what I mean?

Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[ScentCone]

We can't get rid of something that's projected onto the situation by people who are nervous/scared about what the bio-sciences say about their world view. The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics. That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).

Growing new body parts out of other body parts will still freak out a certain number of people, no matter what. If it's not the stem cell faux-controversy, it will be the "only rich people can afford this treatment, so it's evil" crowd or their various other counterparts.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Trogre]

The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics.

I disagree.

The worry many people have about using stem cells is that if this method skyrockets, there will be a higher demand for stem cells, which at the moment at least would necessitate a large commercial market for dead babies.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[segment]

This hasn't been projected to those who are nervous nor scared. Those types of people have been spoon fed crapaganda about stem cell by what you labeled "rich people". Its those same rich people often in positions of power that have the right to shoot it down. I'm sure if they took a different stance, they could get those nervous and scared people on board with the program but, you will rarely see that happen as most of the powers that be tend to sway the way of what's popular at the moment. "Oh you will vote for me if I believe in INSERT_DEITY_HERE? Well I'll tell you what that deity just happens to be one of my favorites, and he/she/it just happened to tell me them stem cells are evil. I'm opposed to stem cells. Vote John G. Bloke!"

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Red Flayer]

"The worry many people have about using stem cells is that if this method skyrockets, there will be a higher demand for stem cells, which at the moment at least would necessitate a large commercial market for dead babies."

Any VC's out there who would like to get in on the opportunity of a lifetime? I'd love to show you my business plans, just sign this NDA and we can begin discussing your investment in my plan to leverage my biotech knowledge to realize substantial gains by cornering the market on dead babies.. oh yeah, and it's NANOTECH.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[ScentCone]

The parent post is a thinly-veiled anti-religion troll, not insightful.

No, my post was a specific response to samzenpus's posting of rubberbando's summary, which offered some conjecture about the breakthrough in question perhaps getting rid of the stem cell controversy. Absent a discussion of the religious posture (of attributing humanity to a couple of dozen cells), there would be no controversy.

If a method for procuring stem cells could be found that didn't require the deaths of fetuses, I'd be fine with that

I'm guessing that you don't consider abortion to be something that, absent research into or the use of stem cells, would never again happen. Research in that area doesn't require abortion, it salvages some potential meaning from that which would happen anyway. It will probably become a moot issue sooner than later anyway, except for those that seek/manufacture controversy in any subtle bio-manipulation (and hence my original comment).

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Grym]

The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics.

Oh please... The debate over Stem cells has nothing to do with scientific understanding of cellular mechanics. If that were the case, Watson and Crick would have been burned at the stake decades ago. No other research involving cellular mechanics has reached this level of public scrutiny. I've never heard anyone debate the ethics of cell-surface recognition proteins or origins of the mitochondria in cells. Let's be honest. The whole stem-cell debate is merely a veiled front for the larger fight over abortion. (I use the word fight because "debate" hardly fits.)

Here's how it happened:

1. The most interesting and scientifically-valuable stem cells are found in developing embryos.
2. Studying these cells requires the destruction of the embryo.
3. This raises the ugly question: if destroying an embryo for research is okay, what makes an abortion any different?
4. Fight ensues. Everybody all the sudden becomes an expert on cellular biology.

That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).

Bullshit. "Social instiutions that rely on mystical explanations"? Do you mean "religions"? Why don't you just say it? ...Religions... See how easy that was?

Regardless, science doesn't debunk the larger, more important claims of religion. It can't. Learning about cellular theory doesn't debunk the existence of God. Learning physics doesn't mean that God couldn't temporarily violate the laws of physics at a whim--you know, being omnipotent and all.

Religion and God are meta-physical concepts, while science is the study of the physical world. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas. A scientist can just as easily believe in a religion as an atheist in science.

-Grym

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Burning1]

"it will be the 'only rich people can afford this treatment, so it's evil' crowd or their various other counterparts." I would argue that only rich people can afford current medicine.

Seriously though, it's all about the first step. Perhaps at first this will only be available to rich people. Like all good technology it will eventually become more common and less expensive.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[ScentCone]

Let's be honest. The whole stem-cell debate is merely a veiled front for the larger fight over abortion.

I would contend that the more we know (and can demonstrate) about what's cooking, and when, in the development of a zygote, blastocyst, etc., the more we deflate some of the fuss about the abortion issue in the first place. It's important, I think, to make sure that those who assign humanity to, say, 16 cells (or to a dividing line of them derived therefrom) really have to come out and admit that it's a mystical, rather than medical position to take. It just sheds some purer light on the discussion (or, fight, as you rightly describe it).

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[hunterx11]

Anesthesia for women during childbirth was controversial. Organ transplantation was controversial. IVF was far more controversial when it was first developed than it is today. Today's affront against God is tomorrow's bygone advance in science. Reason wins in the long run because it works.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Proney]

Religion and God are meta-physical concepts, while science is the study of the physical world.
... as long as you aren't in Kansas.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[wulfhound]

... and the whole fight over abortion is in any case just a front for the fight over sexual morality (at least on the "anti" side).

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Jesus_666]

Note that even without the fight over abortion there still is a stem cell controversy - in Germany we can't do any stem cell research, even though abortions are perfectly acceptable. Over here the debate indeed is about "oh noes, we can't tell if it's human".

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

It's not totally artificial like that. John G. Bloke has to play off a latent fear that is already present in the masses. No matter how much Bloke distorts the truth, [deviant]phobia, xenophobic us and them, the rules don't apply to us because we're on a mission, and 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' are the 4 horses of the groupthink.

They are general enough that you can tailor the specifics to any sizable population group.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[bigbird]

The whole stem-cell debate is merely a veiled front for the larger fight over abortion.

Of course it is. If you oppose abortion just prior to birth, it is logically consistent to oppose it at any point in the embryo's development.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Atzanteol]

Translation:
As soon as everybody realizes I'm right the world will be better off

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the subject as well as you do.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Atzanteol]

Torturing humans for scientific research was controversial. Testing products on people was controversial. Using jews to test crash helmets was controversial. Yesterdays scientific advancement is todays human rights violatoin. Morality wins in the long run because it's right.

Learn to see both sides you must...

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Guuge]

Religion and God are meta-physical concepts, while science is the study of the physical world. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas. A scientist can just as easily believe in a religion as an atheist in science.

But can a contemporary evangelical Christian respect science as easily as an agnostic? Can someone who places an enormous value on the literal veracity of various myths really accept that some of those myths are false and the rest are untestable? The answer is being played out across the country, and so far it is a resounding NO.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[hunterx11]

There's a pretty obvious difference between objecting to things which actually harm people, and objecting to things which help people for reasons unrelated to the well-being of people. I would be so bold as to say that an misanthropic system of morality is objectively wrong, since the purpose of morality is to guide our decisions in a beneficial way.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[Atzanteol]

That's an aweful lot of handwaving for such a short post. Near as I can tell you're saying "yes but those were wrong, *this* is right though!"

There's a pretty obvious difference between objecting to things which actually harm people, and objecting to things which help people for reasons unrelated to the well-being of people.

Aye, but can you be so sure that "harm people" is the same for all parties involved? You know, not everybody who disagrees with stem-cell research and/or abortion does so out of blind allegiance to religion. And even those that do it *for* religious reasons still aren't wrong simply because they're religious.

But I have noticed that the "tech elite" tend to just disregard any reasons opposing theirs. Especially if they don't understand the oppositions POV...

hmm.. interesting...

[way2trivial]

there are surgeons who specialize (at least partly) in bloodless surgeries, as some folks have religious beliefs that deny them blood donated from others...

wonder how this tech gets interpreted by the religious leaders... permissible or no....

Re:hmm.. interesting...

[zsau]

Jehova's Witnesses view blood as sacred. They will not allow it to be used in medicine. It doesn't matter whose blood it is. It isn't the fact that it's someone else's blood, it's the fact that it's blood. (Just the same, they don't donate blood.)

I don't know if this would be permissible or not. I understand what's been done here is that blood vessels have been created. Blood vessels aren't blood, so it might be permissible. But, I'm not a Jehova's Witness, and I haven't read the article, so this is just hypothesis and conjecture from a random Slashdot reader.

--
A. Random Slashdot-Reader

Re:hmm.. interesting...

[Doctor Beavis]

IANAJW (I am not a Jehovah's Witness), but I suspect that they would be OK with it. My understanding of their belief is that blood contains part of a person's soul and that by accepting blood (or blood products) from another person, it makes your blood a combination of the 2 people. Then on judgement day it would be impossible to sort out who the righteous person is/was. At least that was how someone explained it to me once. My apologies to any Witnesses out there if I've mangled their beliefs and I'd also be grateful for a more learned clarification.

As this study was a matter of isolating endothelial progenitor cells from a person's OWN blood vessel, growing them into a "vessel" and reimplanting them into the same person, I would guess that there would be no objection.

Re:hmm.. interesting...

[QuijiboIsAWord]

Wanted to post a respnse in here, even though its a bit late.

If the blood vessels truely do not involve blood itself, then a Jehovah's Witness would most likely be willing to accept, however it would be a personal decision, and would vary from one Witness to another, depending on their personal conscience.

Witnesses do NOT believe the blood contains a part of a person's soul. They don't believe in the soul as being separate from the person at all. When a person dies, they do not believe there is any "soul" that continues to exist separately.
Witnesses do not accept blood because they were explicitly told to abstain from it, and because God declared blood sacred. It has nothing to do with judgement day (other than that a Witness deliberately accepting a blood transfusion would be intentionally going against God's commandment), and Witnesses certainly don't think God would have any problem sorting people out.

Witnesses do not accept stored blood transfusions of any kind, regardless of whose blood it is, even their own.
Recent advances of medical technology have created some possible medical treatments such as autotransfusion and dialysis (sp?) treatments that are considered personal decisions. More information on Witnesses stand on blood should be available at their website. I just checked, and it's right on the front page.

Meat factories

[backslashdot]

Maybe we can grow steak this way too .. in large vats. Get rid of the animal rights issues that way.

Yumm.

Re:Meat factories

[Loc_Dawg]

I'm a vegetarian, but I would more likely go back to real meat before eating this stuff.

Re:Meat factories

[QuantumG]

Personally I would love it if protein synthesis became plausible in my lifetime. First you'd sell these factories to third world countries where defending a corporate asset is a lot easier than defending farmland. Instantly curing world hunger. Then you'd see 100% synthesised meat alternatives appearing in vegetarian food outlets - there's already some of this, Quorn being the most famous, but their manufacturing methods are too expensive to have an effect on the mainstream. Then we'll see synthesised meat appearing in shopping centre refrigeration cabinets. When you have the choice between $21.99/kg steak vs $1.99/kg synthesised meat you'll at least give it a go. From there, the future is our playground. We can shut down factory farms. We can reclaim land for foresting. We can build self sufficient space habitates without needing to launch millions of tonnes of topsoil for crops.

Re:Meat factories

[ToasterofDOOM]

I swear to God schools around the country* have been doing this for ages!
*especially public schools

Re:Meat factories

[kjots]

>And it probably won't come close to the taste of a plate of fresh, grain-field-fed dove breasts sauteed in garlic butter.

Well, if it has the same genetic structure as the real thing, and is built using the same biological techniques from the same base material as the real thing, there should be no way to distinguish between it and the real thing. After all, it's just chemistry.

Re:Meat factories

[Mad_Rain]

Maybe we can grow steak this way too .. in large vats.

If you're looking for other meat substitutes, I have this product you might be interested in: It's called Soylent Green. Yeah, the marketing department needs to work on a better name, but hey, it contains everything a growing body needs. ;)

Re:Meat factories

[wulfhound]

Certainly should taste as good as the bad end of the real thing -- can't imagine synthe-chicken tasting worse than intensively-reared, factory farmed meat.

I really can't see it competing with organic free range, or better yet, wild-caught meat; but if it means we can keep on fattening the proles on cheap meat while reducing animal cruelty, that's got to be a good thing.

Re:Meat factories

[Hektor_Troy]

You should check out Arthur C. Clarke's "The Food of the Gods". Very interesting story, and quite fun.

And as for people talking about Soylant Green? Well, they should check it out as well *grins*

Re:Meat factories

[vidarh]

Except for the fact that food production has been high enough to "cure world hunger" for decades. It is NOT a production problem, but a distribution problem (aka a problem of poor people not being able to pay for the food).

That problem will increase not decrease with what you are suggesting, as it will remove the livelyhood of millions of farmers in the third world that currently depend on being able to compete with larger scale farming or industrial food manufacture.

Want to solve world hunger in one "easy" step?

Drop agricultural subsidies in all developed countries and spend the money on providing farming tools and infrastructure in the developing countries instead, while gradually removing all trade barriers on exports from third world countries without forcing them to go first.

Yes, you'd have a rebellion of farmers on your hand, pissed off that they're suddenly having to deal with actual competition instead of being sheltered in every way possible. And yes, a lot of them would face going bankrupt. And yes, food prices would rise at least temporarily...

Which is why little ends up actually being done to stop world hunger - whichever way you look at it, it requires the third world to have more control over their own food supply, and the only way that will happen is to make it more profitable to farm there so that local farmers can afford to take precautions against droughts etc. (including building up grain caches etc.) - the volatility of food local food production is the main cause of hunger and famines today.

All of this WILL force farmers in the developed countries to have to make significant adjustments, and at the moment they're simply too powerful for any politicians to dare push that kind of agenda very hard.

Re:Meat factories

[Morgalyn]

I think it would be hard to call Quorn a 'synthesized meat'. It's actually made from fungus. It would be like calling a soy burger 'synthesized meat'.

Re:Meat factories

[zenasprime]

I guess eating artificial meat, grown in a vat of protiens and other guey stuff has more of an "ewww gross!" factor the does say mushrooms?

Re:Meat factories

[QuantumG]

It is NOT a production problem, but a distribution problem.

Any distribution problem can be solved by producing a product closer to the consumer. That is, if you don't have the issue of labour costs, which you don't, in a fully automated factory. The point is, curing world hunger is not something you can set out to do. It has to be a side effect of competing in local markets. If you can't make synthetic food for cheaper than traditional farming then it's nothing more than a boondoggle.

Takes out the mystery?

[Nerdposeur]

The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics. That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a problem with using fetuses for stem cell research, and none whatsoever with this. Medical science can do wonderful things for people (I look forward to when they sythesize blood and eliminate shortages); I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process.

As for taking the mystery out of things, I think it's just the opposite. The more you understand the universe, the more wonderful it seems. I don't see how knowing the mechanics of cells creates an argument for atheism, as you seem to imply.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

The more you understand the universe, the more wonderful it seems.

We can definitely agree on that.

I don't see how knowing the mechanics of cells creates an argument for atheism, as you seem to imply.

Woops! On that we can definitely disagree.

I have a problem with using fetuses for stem cell research, and none whatsoever with this.

I'm glad you make the general distinction between the discussed procedure and other methods. But I hope you can also make the distinction between a collection of dividing cells in a dish and a human being. I'll stop here, because we might as well just play a recording.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

I challenge you to give a definition of when something starts to be 'human' that isn't completely arbitrary

It can be very hard to look at a complex organism and say, "that's human, or is about to be," but it's not hard at all to say what is not. A collection of cells that has no functioning higher nervous system is not human. A collection of cells that has no interconnected, differentiated neural tissue at all is absolutely not human (yet). Zygotes, blastocysts, etc., while eventually capable of developing into an embryo and a fetus, are not humans, and have no platform upon which - at that point - to hang "human-ness."

I realize that's more a description of what is not yet human, rather than an answer to your "when is it human" question. I don't need to sweat pinning down that moment, because I know that a dozen dividing cells are way, way on the non-human side of that transition, regardless of when I would identify it in a given fetus.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[Anonymous Coward]

As for taking the mystery out of things, I think it's just the opposite. The more you understand the universe, the more wonderful it seems. I don't see how knowing the mechanics of cells creates an argument for atheism, as [OP seems] to imply.

Nor does knowing, or not knowing, the mechanics of cells require the invocation of an alleged $sys$deity.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[Trigun]

This may seem cold and crass, but think of life as a table. When does the table become a table? When the last coat of lacquer goes on the wood? When the carpenter decides to cut a tree down to carve the table out of? When he actually cuts the tree down? Somewhere inbetween?

We collectively have decided that it's when it's flat enough to put stuff on and not have it fall off. But the artist, might say that it became a table with the inspiration, and the rest was inevitable process. The purchaser might say that it's not a table until it is set up in his dining room. The carpenter might say that it was always a table, and he just removed it from its protective coating.

I think that a table is a table when it has a flat top, and can fufill its designed function. But I respect the carpenter's idea that it was always a table, and the purchaser's idea that it's not really a table until it is actually functioning as a table. I don't really listen to the artist, they're all pseudo batshit-crazy, but I nod and smile so as to get out of there without having to hear how the light reflects of the natural grains of the oak or some shit like that.

Changing any one of the actors ideas of what a table is, is a monumental task, and may never be done.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

Oh sure, use a good analogy. You do realize that you may actually damage slashdot that way, don't you? Be careful, man!

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[Suppafly]

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a problem with using fetuses for stem cell research

Don't most stem cells used for research come from cord blood that would normally be discarded after birth anyway?

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[LordLucless]

You fail to take into account what is euphemistically known as "therepeutic cloning". This is where scientists clone human embryos specifically to destroy them and harvest their stem cells. This is not generally done, but it has been proposed, and the only thing that keeps it from happening is this type of debate.

I have no problem with using dead embryos for research, any more than I do for using cadavers for research. I don't believe abortion in most cases is ethical, but regardless, I don't believe there is anything wrong with using the aborted embryo for research - nothing stops us from using the bodies of murder victims for research, if they are suitable.

One of the major problems with the abortion debate is that there is no real way to say when an embryo becomes a human. You imply that a 16-cell embryo isn't human. Then what is? When it hits 32 cells? A hundred? A hundred thousand? When appendages become visible? When its heart starts beating? When does a foetus become a human, and what is the logical reason for choosing the cut off? Most people choose a point that is purely arbitrary - one that is easy to recognize, but that doesn't really say anything about the "humanity" of the entity in question.

Until that question is answered satisfactorially, whether abortion is murder or medical procedure can not be adequately answered. People who choose to act without knowing the answer to this question are not considering ethical implications.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[LordLucless]

A lot of it does, but not all. And more would come from fetuses if there were not currently a stigma on that particular source of stem cells.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[wulfhound]

Brilliant - wishing I had some mod points right now.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[wulfhound]

If 'brain death' is the accepted measure for death, surely 'brain life' should be the accepted measure for life? A blastocyst doesn't even have nerve cells, never mind a brain.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[Bonhamme Richard]

A collection of cells that has no functioning higher nervous system is not human.

Even if that collection of cells has human DNA? If you were to take a genetic sample from a zygote and a grown person, could you tell in the lab which was which? What if the genetic info says "I'm human" even if it only looks like a bunch of cells?

It seems a little inconsistent to me, claiming to be a progressive beleiver in the scientific theory and then using the "it doesn't look like me, so its not a person arguement" instead of defining a person as "anything with recognizable human DNA."

I'm not some radical Christian, but it seems to me that we know what that thing is. If it has a human's genetic code, then call it a person.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

Even if that collection of cells has human DNA?

But, my fingernail clippings also have human DNA. A lot of things have to line up right for human DNA to give you an actual human.

the "it doesn't look like me, so its not a person arguement"

A collection of dividing stem cells in a petri dish, salvaged from an IVF procedure rather than simply being discarded, is sitting there under a microscope. You're looking at them. There are 12 cells. Under absolutely no circumstances outside of substantial human intervention with sophisticated science (and a fair amount of cash) and a lot of subsequent nurturing, will those 12 cells ever approach being an embryo, let alone a human. You've no doubt killed mosquitos with vastly more advanced nervous systems (well, since there is no nervous system in those 12 cells, even that's not a fair comparison).

If a collection of DNA is, to you, human, then you're killing millions of people every time you scrub your face in the shower. All of those skin cells! Surely you don't assign humanity to each scrap of your own DNA that could, with the right technology, be used to create an embryo? Because we're pretty close to that, even with something like your skin cells. DNA is not a developed organism. It's a blueprint.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[rapierian]

I agree. Fetuses shouldn't be used for research. Especially when adult stem cells avoid the entire controversy, are more useful, and have actually produced treatments that are in human trials right now, unlike ESC. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research mostly seem to be trying to fight a proxy war for abortion by saying,"Look, Science tells us to kill babies!" For a very well written article that expresses how I've always felt about the stem cell issue, and mentions points about it that most people are unaware of: http://www.techcentralstation.com/102405D.html The article does neglect to mention however that not only do ASC lead to more promising treatments, but that they don't even have to deal with tissue rejection in any of their therapies, unlike ESC.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[Atzanteol]

I'm glad you make the general distinction between the discussed procedure and other methods. But I hope you can also make the distinction between a collection of dividing cells in a dish and a human being. I'll stop here, because we might as well just play a recording.

Out of curiosity... If you're an athiest, and thus do not believe in a soul. What are you but for a collection of dividing cells? Is the only difference between you and a blastocycst the dish?

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[mdwh2]

I think that a table is a table when it has a flat top, and can fufill its designed function. But I respect the carpenter's idea that it was always a table, and the purchaser's idea that it's not really a table until it is actually functioning as a table.

Rather, one should respect their right to hold a belief or have an idea. That doesn't mean I respect their idea. Especially if it's something like "An acorn is a table".

ScentCone's answer had this right - perhaps we can't draw a magic line where we suddenly go from "not a table" to "a table", but more importantly, we ought to be able to look at some earlier stages and say it most definitely wasn't a table then.

This may seem cold and crass, but think of life as a table.

And the biggest problem here (which people often forget) is that isn't about life at all. One side agrees that all cells are living, but simply being alive isn't what's important - rather it's being sentient. The other side also actually agrees that simply being alive isn't enough, since most people consider it ludicrous to suggest it's immoral to kill a blade of grass. Instead they have some other criterion, such as having human DNA (so a piece of human DNA on its own is more important than a living non-human mammal that shows some level of intelligence, for example).

So whilst we can't change someone's idea that an acorn counts as a table, we can argue about what features that are important. Is it important that we have a flat surface to put things on, or is it important that one day, something may grow into something and might be able to be made into something with a flat surface?

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[cagle_.25]

Your fingernail clippings aren't an organism. That's the issue at stake. If you have a collection of human cells that functions as an organism, then the burden of proof is on you to show that this organism somehow has a different status from you.

As it turns out, an embryo *does* qualify as an organism. Check out "lifeform" on the Wiki, for starters.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[Guuge]

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a problem with using fetuses for stem cell research, and none whatsoever with this.

Fetuses, eh? So you don't have any problems with embryonic stem cell research? Or have you not educated yourself on this matter before reaching your hasty conclusion?

I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process.

This is the problem. ALL medical technology infringes on religion in some way. Some believe that stem cells have magical powers that shouldn't be messed with. Some believe that using medicine is against God's will. Some believe that sickness is caused by evil spirits, and so doctors should be replaced with exorcists. Do you propose we make exceptions for every religious objection, just to make sure that these people aren't "trampled on" in some real or imaginary way?

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[cagle_.25]

That's the problem ... I don't think of life as a table.

There's a good reason for that. Any object can undergo a process of creation, as you clearly elucidate. However, some processes take longer than others, and have clearer boundaries than others.

In the case of an embryo, there is a definite moment, spanning a few minutes, in which sperm and egg unite and become an organism. A genetically human, genetically distinct organism. At that point, from the legal standpoint that existed until Roe, all human organisms get the same basic rights: the right to not be killed by others, for example.

If you wish to argue that the embryo does not have that right, the burden of proof should reasonably be on you to show it, not simply to appeal to skepticism of the form "when does it become human, anyway?"

My $0.02

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

You'll forgive me if I don't find that whoever last posted a their opinion on Wikipedia (and hasn't yet been overwritten by someone else) doesn't have what I'd call any real authority on anything. I could go there right now and change the definition of "lifeform" to be "Anything that's not made of Playdough."

Never the less, a blastocyst (feel free to look that one up on Wikipedia - hopefully it doesn't currently read, "a type of peanut butter sandwich," though it might) sitting in a petri dish isn't going anywhere, organism-wise, except into the trash unless someone does something constructive with it (like, scientically intercedes and implants it in the hope of creating a viable embryo... or, rather than wasting it, using it for the dozen stem cells that it actually is).

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[DukeToma]

"a blastocyst . . . sitting in a petri dish isn't going anywhere"

Only so long as that human in the blastocyst stage of development is frozen! Otherwise she would continue to grow and would attempt to get the nutrient's she needs to live just like the rest of us. It just so happens that the only way she is able to get the nutrient's she needs is by attaching to the lining of a womb. At some point she will have developed enough to be able to survive without that attachment. This is all a part of the cycle of the development of a human being.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

Only so long as that human in the blastocyst stage of development is frozen!

Or not, through the technical work of highly skilled bio-science folks, with expensive equipment and facilities, handled in a very particular way. Frozen, not-frozen - really doesn't matter, because at that moment, only the positive action of the scientists/doctors involved (and of course, a ready and waiting woman with a health uterous and lots of other conditions being just so) will make that anything beyond the group of cells that it is. Period.

It just so happens that the only way she is able to get the nutrient's she needs is by attaching to the lining of a womb.

Let's see... "she" is not a she (yet). There's no tissue differentiation yet. The cells are identical. There's a repository of DNA which will express itself, down the road, as a "she," but none of that is even close to happening yet.

You also use the phrase "by attaching," which (not very subtly) implies volition on the part of the blastocyst. There is not mechanism present for any act on the part of those dozen cells, certainly not with the sense of purpose that you imply. There is simply low-level cellular activity, and no complexity at that stage for anything other than the surrounding cirumstances to dictate what comes (or does not) next.

This is all a part of the cycle of the development of a human being.

So is solar fusion. But I assign no personality traits or volition to the rest of the stuff that's central to that process, and at stage where we're not even yet talking about an embryo, we're in the same boat. I'm always amazed at how willing people are to try to bolster their position about the value of human life by labeling a blastocyst a person. If I can use the DNA from any cell in your body to produce an organism - a clone of you - then are destroying millions of humans with each scratched itch? If not now, will you be when it's just as easy to produce an embryo from a skin cell as it is from an IVF blastocyst? You cheapen what it is to be an aware, living, breathing human when you see humanity in every cell.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[cagle_.25]

Oh, alright, I'll forgive you. But only if you provide a link to a "real authority" that gives a reasonable definition of lifeform. Skepticism is not a way of constructing a philosophy, after all.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[DukeToma]

"Let's see... "she" is not a she (yet). There's no tissue differentiation yet."

After a brief search I came up with this site
UNSW Embryology

Formation of the Zygote

• male and female pronuclei
• first mitotic division
• sex determination

Further down
Sex Determination

• based upon whether an X or Y carrying sperm has fertilized the egg

Zygote stage of development is when an individual human's life begins and is before the blastocyst stage of development. Sex has been determined already.

"You also use the phrase "by attaching," which (not very subtly) implies volition on the part of the blastocyst."

Well the uterus certainly doesn't attach to the blastocyst yet they become attached somehow. Are you implying that the attaching is done by some third party?

"So is solar fusion."

Yes, yes, yes. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Yet we are not talking about ultimate origins of the matter we are talking about the origins of the individual human being.

"If I can use the DNA from any cell in your body to produce an organism - a clone of you - then are destroying millions of humans with each scratched itch?"

Don't be ridiculous. Cells from my body will not develop on their own into another individual human being. On the other hand a blastocyst will. So long as she is able to attach to a uterus (artificial or natural once the technology allows) so that she may obtain the nutrients she needs to continue growing.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

based upon whether an X or Y carrying sperm has fertilized the egg

I'm using "she" as it is properly used - as a pronoun (as opposed to "it" or "they" since we're referring to a dozen cells in a dish). Of course the assembled DNA is the blueprint for a male or a female. But there's no "she" there, in that there's no anyone there yet.

Are you implying that the attaching is done by some third party?

No, I'm making the distinction between the nature of the interaction between the blastocyst and the uterine wall, and the implication that "she" is "doing" something - an implication designed to bolster the notion that there's this tiny little person cooperating in the reproductive process. There's no structure in the blastocyst capable forming the notion of an action, and no mechanism capable of carrying one out. Using language like "she does this" is highly misleading, and I'm calling you on it, that's all.

Yet we are not talking about ultimate origins of the matter we are talking about the origins of the individual human being.

Sorry, you can't separate the two. The same laws of physics govern ashes and cellular mechanics. If you're comfortable with the source of the underlying matter being non-supernatural, and then you should be comfortable with the normal behavior of that matter simply being what it is, and not assigning it a personality or meaning before it has the physical properties that support such sophistication.

Cells from my body will not develop on their own into another individual human being. On the other hand a blastocyst will.

One more time: you're looking through a microscope at a doezen cells sitting in a dish. Walk away, go to lunch, maybe dinner, too. That cluster of cells is not going to do anything on its own. It wouldn't even exist but for highly sophisticated processes and technology. It won't exist beyond that state without more of the same. Left alone, no nerves will grow, no movement will occur, noone can possibly be there to talk about.

So long as she is able to attach to a uterus (artificial or natural once the technology allows) so that she may obtain the nutrients she needs to continue growing.

Thank you for re-making my point. Once the technology allows, those millions of skin cells will have every bit the prospects of becoming an embryo as the refridgerated IVF leftovers. Since neither can possibly become an embryo without science doing its work, they will have exactly the same potential and moral value. If you really are willing to change your moral judgement on one versus the other based on just how far along the technology is, then you've got some pretty slippery underlying values. Not too many years ago, IVF wasn't around to produce any children. Some are probably now reading slashdot. Will children derived from other cells have less value to you? You might as well sort it out now, because it's coming. And once it's here, you won't have the luxury of telling me I'm ridiculous for comparing one potential source of an embryo to another in order to reinforce your notion that 11 more cells than one skin cell in a dish makes a human being.

Neither makes one. Not without technology. In the presence of technology, both will be indistinguishable, and you'll have to face the music: either 12 cells isn't a person, or one cell is. And then every time you shave it will be a moral dilemma. That dilemma is, of course, eliminated by thinking more rationally about where, in those twelve cells, there is or is not yet an actual human.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[samyung]

I prefer Bill Hick's definition: "You're not a human until you're in my phonebook."

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[cudman]

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) don't ever come from abortion clinics. They come from fertility clinics where a whole batch of eggs are fertilized in a dish. Then the workers pick out the best candidates of the batch (4 or 5) and implant them in a momma to be. The rest of the fertilized embryos (blastocysts) are frozen or tossed out. Some of them are not "good candidates" meaning that they haven't formed right, like they don't have a well defined inner cell mass. These will never develop into a person. Those are the ones that scientists want. Look at it this way. The only way to study development of tissues and developmental disorders and diseases is to use ESCs. No other cells can make every tissue. Adult stem cells (which I work on; principally Mesenchymal Stem Cells or MSCs from bone marrow... donating bone marrow HURTS! I've only done it twice) are great but they don't have the library of ESCs in that they cannot replicate development. I'm not talking about organs or arms or anything like that, but more like tissues such as muscle and skin and neurons etc... The only way to study development without using ESCs is to use .... real babies! Just line up a few hundred pregnant women and section their babies to find out what signaling proteins may be malfunctioning in a thalidimide baby. And why do we care? So we don't have another "thalidimide baby" with the next consumer drug that gets shoved out. Man I'm rambling. Cheers

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[orgelspieler]

That's got to be the best analogy ever. Did you come up with it yourself? Virtual mod points for you! I like it because you're not trying to convince anybody of a particular viewpoint. You're just using analogies to do what they're best at: bringing things into the abstract. The typical /. method is to try to use an anolgy to win an argument. That of course is futile. But in your maserful post you just want to open peoples minds to other ways of thinking. I would argue that it's so successful because you picked something utterly non-emotional. Of course some people may call you chicken-shit for not picking a side, but I wouldn't. Seeing things from another point of view is a sign of wisdom, not cowardice.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[DukeToma]

"That cluster of cells is not going to do anything on its own."

Now that is an out and out lie. That "cluster of cells" will divide, divide again, divide again, etc. One such "cluster of cells" is dividing right now and leaving dead skin cells on his keyboard as he types this.

"It wouldn't even exist but for highly sophisticated processes and technology."

What, like aquiring the nutrients necessary for continued life? Like breathing? Eating? Don't you realize that you are kept alive through similar such "sophisticated processes"?

"Once the technology allows, those millions of skin cells will have every bit the prospects of becoming an embryo as the refridgerated IVF leftovers.

The difference of course being that those skin cells would not be capable of becoming an adult human being without technological intervention. A human being in the blastocyst (or zygote or embryo or fetus) stage of development will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal and so long as she is allowed to obtain the nutrients necessary for continued life (food, water, oxygen).

"Since neither can possibly become an embryo without science doing its work, they will have exactly the same potential and moral value.

Science doesn't have to do Jack S$#t for an embryo to become a human adult. The embryo will use standard biological processes to aquire the nutrients necessary for continued life. No technology required whatsoever. Once a somatic cell of an adult donor has had its nucleus transferred into an ovum that has had its nucleus removed and the cloning process has begun, then yes, the two would have the same potential and moral value. That same potential and moral value that all human beings have. The skin cells, however, have no value in and of themselves.

"Will children derived from other cells have less value to you?

Beat that straw man!! Beat that straw man!! Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between a stage of development (which implies moving from stage to stage) and a sample of a clump of cells then you have major problems. A blastocyst is not an entity. It is a stage that an entity passes through. A clump of skin cells on the other hand is a small portion of an entity in a particular stage of development. This is like the difference of using an individual stem cell from an embryo vs. using the entire embryo. If you take a small sample of cells from an entity without harming the entity then you are well within the bounds of ethical science.

If you destroy the entire entity (whether in the blastocyst, embryo, fetus, or adult stage of development) for the sake of science then you have crossed the line into unethical science. Can you do wonderful things and advance science rapidly? Absolutely. Should you? No. Just because we could learn rapidly if we experiment directly upon adult human beings (say death row prisoners or someone who is contemplating suicide), doesn't mean we should.

"And then every time you shave it will be a moral dilemma.

Back to that old straw man eh?

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

I'm really not sure why you're going to such lengths to pretend that we're not talking about cells in a dish. IVF leftovers cannot proceed past whatever state they're in without technical intervention. They can't leap out of the dish and find a womb, they can't flip the switch on an incubator, etc. In most cases, they're simply going to be discarded, regardless. You can impact their fate by throwing them away, by putting them in a freezer indefinitely, or by putting them to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc).

Cells that are about to be destroyed anyway are, well, done for. Regardless. There is no future for those 12 cells. Unless you use them for something constructive. Either way, they're not going to be put into a situation that would ever form an embryo, period.

At that stage, and under those circumstances, you've got the same potential for an eventual human as you would with a skin cell culture. Call that comparison a straw man if you're not equipped to spot (or in your case, willing to admit) the parallels, but those twelve cells have every bit the future (or not) as a human as any twelve skin cells.

Just because we could learn rapidly if we experiment directly upon adult human beings (say death row prisoners or someone who is contemplating suicide), doesn't mean we should.

Do you even smell the irony of lecturing someone else about using a straw man? An adult human is a human being. Twelve cells are not, and in the case we're talking about will never be, ever. The two people who produced a batch of blastocysts have already got the baby that the considerable intervention of science and investment in their time and resources was to produce, and the lab leftovers are just that - no more morally relevent in one dish than the sperm and eggs are when sitting three inches apart in two dishes. Of course, you can invest meaning in those cells by dedicating yourself to actually hatching them further into an embryo, and down the road - it things work out right - an infant. Or, you could take the useful blank-slate qualities of those cells, and use them to perhaps put a broken family back together after a car accident, or allow a grandfather's failing mind to get those precious few more years of lucidity so that he can enjoy and be a positive influence on an actual, billions-of-cells, brought-into-the-world, got-a-nervous-system, beloved new baby.

Or, we can just throw the dish out, as usually happens. You're awfully quiet about that. Why? Is that outcome so much more preferable to you than the prospect of improving lives (such as those of, say, sick newborns)?

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[LordLucless]

Not at the moment it isn't, no, but as far as I'm aware, that is mostly due to political controversy rather than any technical reason why aborted embryos are less suited for research.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[DukeToma]

"IVF leftovers cannot proceed past whatever state they're in without technical intervention

Ahhh. I see the problem here. You believe that a blastocyst in a dish is less human than a blastocyst in a womb. Well last I checked location did not change the nature of a being. Remember that that human being that is in the blastocyst stage of development in that dish is there due to technological intervention in the first place. So, yes, to undo that (i.e. to put that human being back into a place where she can get the nutrients that she needs to survive), technological intervention is necessary.

"In most cases, they're simply going to be discarded, regardless. You can impact their fate by throwing them away, by putting them in a freezer indefinitely, or by putting them to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc).

In all cases we're all going to die, regardless. You can impact our fate by killing us, freezing us indefinitely, or by putting us to good use in some way (say, as part of a theraputic program, etc.)

Do you see how odd you sound to me?

"Either way, they're not going to be put into a situation that would ever form an embryo, period."

Why not? These human beings were created in such a way that they were stripped of the only way in which to obtain the nutrients they need to continue growing. They a) should not have been placed into such a situation in the first place and b) ought to be placed into a situation where they can obtain the nutrients necessary to continue growing as soon as possible. They are not being given those options and instead are frozen by technological intervention to prevent them from attempting to grow to the embryonic stage, fetus stage, infant stage, etc.

"At that stage, and under those circumstances, you've got the same potential for an eventual human as you would with a skin cell culture.

Absolute rubbish. A skin cell culture cannot of it's own volition become an adult human being. A blastocyst as a fully contained human entity and has all of the equipment necessary to become an adult so long as she is allowed access to the necessities of life (i.e. food, water, oxygen).

"An adult human is a human being. Twelve cells are not, and in the case we're talking about will never be, ever."

An adult human is a human being in the adult stage of development. These "twelve cells" that you speak of are a human being in the blastocyst stage of development and will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal, access to nutrients is allowed, and technological interventions preventing progress are removed. It's simple biology.

"Of course, you can invest meaning in those cells by dedicating yourself to actually hatching them further into an embryo, and down the road - it things work out right - an infant.

Embryo, infant, blastocyst. All stages of development of one individual human being. Never at any point is anything added or taken away from these wholly contained unique individual organisms. All that is necessary is to allow proper access to the necessities of life. If I were to look at you with a microscope all I would see is cells. All you are is cells. Yet that is not all that you are. You are a particular species of cells wholly contained into one organism. Just like human beings in the blastocyst stage of development.

If I were to take you when you were in the blastocyst stage of development and place you in some other woman's womb, you would still have become the exact same adult human person that you are today. You add nothing to yourself from any outside source from the moment of conception throughout your entire life except for nutrients.

Or, you could take the useful blank-slate qualities of those cells, and use them to perhaps put a broken family back together after a car accident, or allow a grandfather's failing mind to get those precious few m

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[cudman]

There's no control over aborted embryos. A scientist won't know exactly how long it has been developing, what stage it is at, and whether the cells will be of any use at all. I'd much rather spend my time working with things where I can reproduce my results due to strict guidlines than work with some mystery concotion where no one else may ever get the same results.

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[ScentCone]

You believe that a blastocyst in a dish is less human than a blastocyst in a womb.

Not at all. A blastocyst is a blastocyst regardless of where it is. A blastocyst embedded in the womb has a chance of developing into an embryo which has a chance - with enough differntiation and sophistication - at becoming a human fetus. A blastocyst in a dish so far (since we don't have effective artificial wombs) requires implantation so that it can develop, eventually, just like its more naturally fertalized counterparts. But it doesn't matter, because neither group of a dozen cells has in any way manifested itself as anything other than a dozen undifferentiated cells. That's not a human being - it's just something without which (at the moment) you can't make a human being. Prior to cloning of mammals, you couldn't make them without a sperm and an egg, either - but now you just need part of an egg, and the DNA from a good, workable cell. Those are building blocks, just like the blastocyst is a building block. A dozen cinderblocks in a row may be sitting there in accordance with a larger blueprint, but they're not a house. Yet.

A skin cell culture cannot of it's own volition become an adult human being

By which you mean that a blastocyst can by its own choice and action, do so?

Volition: noun.
1 : an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made
2 : the power of choosing or determining : WILL

By what mechanism - in real, biological terms - are those 12 cells harboring the ability to sort through options and willfully act? Careful, your magical thinking is starting to show here, even in just your choice of words.

So, you take an egg, and artificially (outside the body) fertilize it with sperm, producing - after a few divisions, a blastocyst. That blastocyst cannot exist without the scientific process that just caused it to exist. Now, you take an egg, use DNA from a skin cell (replacing the egg's DNA - the only DNA in play, now, is that from the skin cell), re-set to the stem state, provoke division, and you've got (after the same number of divisions) another blastocyst which is indistinguishable from another of more convetional origins. This is the current/near-term state of things. The use of the convenient egg container (with its signaling mechanisms) can probably be dispensed with over time. Of course, neither the inserted-DNA version, nor the more "traditional" (um, if you can call a decade or two long enough to call anything traditional) IVF version have any prospect of eventually giving rise to an embryo without more medical support. But once they're latched into a receptive womb, you can start the embryonic clock ticking.

Which one is not human?

are a human being in the blastocyst stage of development and will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal

Then by that standard, the egg and sperm of two people sitting across the table from each other are just as human - those two people are carrying around untold numbers of other humans, they just happen to be that very fragile "unfertilized" stage of development. They need the right circumstances to be present, but the potential is there - all of the ingredients are already ready to go. No science needed, just some candlelight (or too much beer, etc). If you consider 12 cells a person, then of course you consider that single fertalized egg a person. Of course, there's always the odds that the egg won't survive its first division. Just like there's always the odds that the sperm and egg won't fertilize successfully - but there's the material, the circumstances, and (usually) the will for them to be in the same place at the same time.

I don't consider a sperm and egg, a hundredth of a millimeter apart from one another, to be a human - just the building blocks. Hours later - when those building blocks have interacted and begun to divide into a dozen identical, undifferentiated other building blocks, you're

Re:There is no stem cell controversy

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst of all, most religious wackos are black trash or white trash. Yet, both will benefit from science. :shudder:

Re:Science!

[mofomojo]

Answer : Battling diabetes - thus potentially saving lives.

Unless you're some little punk emo kid, then saving lives is what you wanna do.

Re:Science!

[zoloto]

You know what I'd personally enjoy? Structural modifications of the not so visible kind. How cool would it be to have your major arteries "reinforced" with some sort of external metallic mesh? No more going for the jugular!

Even broader implications?

[Potato Battery]

The summary refers to conditions where vessels have been severely compromised, but I wonder if it can go even further. Vascular deterioration, and its role in overall CV ill-health is both part and parcel of modern America, and also contributes to the severity of other conditions. Having some way of replacing damaged vessels that is easier than current methods could find applications across the board.

The article doesn't give much detail, but I would think that generation of blood vessels that won't be rejected, if it could be refined and the costs driven down, could have a huge effect, especially if combined with new, lower-impact, surgical techniques.

Or, we could just stop eating junk.

Re:Even broader implications?

[Red Flayer]

The problem is that the vessels (and various CT) are grown ex utero and not on the capillary scale. They are no easier to transplant than donated or synthetic vessels... the only difference is the risk of rejection being close to zero.

Also, not eating junk won't help you if you're on dialysis... you're still getting poked with a needle at least weekly, which is the cause of the degradation.

Athletes?

[quark101]

With athletes always looking for a competitive edge, what could this kind of technology do to professional sports? It seems to me, if you can increase the blood flow to your vital muscles (sport dependent), then you would gain an enormous advantage over your opponents.

Will this be the next big sports controversy? And what could be done about it, if it doesn't use drugs, and is grown from the patient itself?

Re:Athletes?

[swimin]

Already athletes will sometimes donate their own blood, let it sit for a while, and then have the blood re-injected into them right before an event, to increase the blood flow.

Re:Athletes?

[PresidentEnder]

What parent refers to is most useful when the blood withdrawn to be re-injected is taken at as high an altitude as possible after a minimum of two weeks. This results in a higher red blood cell count, which obviously allows more O2 and other goodies to reach the muscles. There's a medication sometimes given for anemia (or perhaps it was diabetes, I can't remember) which increases red blood cell production almost without bound- the blood thickens until it is almost like honey, which places strain on the heart. Neither of these methods can be detected by standard drug tests. If you just inject more blood from the same elevation, you mostly just get higher blood pressure.

What grandparent refers to would require the ability to grow new cappilaries; the article only mentions arteries and veins. So this can help sick folk, but probably is not of much use to athletes.

Re:Athletes?

[CardiganKiller]

You increase the potential for bloodflow (i.e. growing more veins), you reduce the blood pressure. You reduce the blood pressure, you put more strain on the heart to compensate for the lack of pressure. Of course health risks don't really seem to pose much of an impedance to those who would already be unnaturally modifying their body's ability for performance... so heck, go for it! I guess that'll keep the ER technicians employed and ready to go at the sidelines, warming up their "jump start" kits.

Re:Athletes?

[Doctor Beavis]

I think that's unlikely. Increased blood flow to improve athletic performance would be needed at a capillary (very small arteries) level and these are MUCH larger diameter arteries. The most likely uses are for dialysis fistulas and as conduits for bypassing diseased arteries (e.g., femoral-popliteal arterial bypass, coronary artery bypass graft).

Re:Hope At Last

[Celsius 233]

Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one...

Re:As Usual....

[Scotty2]

That's wonderful for you... I don't read digg.

Stem cells don't come from babies

[MichaelPenne]

They come from blastocysts.

Which there are plenty of slowly expiring in vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics around the world.

"if this thing takes off", those blastocysts will be saving people's lives instead of slowly rotting away.

Re:Stem cells don't come from babies

[Firethorn]

Hate to break it to you, but those people consider your blastocyst to be a living breathing baby. They like popping up pictures of 7-9 month term fetuses/babies on billboards.

Most of them don't mind harvesting 'stem cells' from any source that still results in a born baby (umbilical cords, for example).

Me, I don't care that much, but I can understand their views a bit better than most.

Re:Stem cells don't come from babies

[David Gould]

They come from blastocysts.

Which there are plenty of slowly expiring in vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics around the world.

Hate to break it to you, but those people consider your blastocyst to be a living breathing baby. [...] Most of them don't mind harvesting 'stem cells' from any source that still results in a born baby (umbilical cords, for example).

Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answering one more argument on behalf of "them"? It's something that I've never heard an embryonic-stem-cell opponent answer, and I'm dying to hear what "they" would say. Here it is (worded in second person):

Did you miss the part about the "vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics"? I mean, it's not like scientists are driving around poor neighborhoods, picking up pregnant teenaged girls, and persuading them to have abortions by offering to buy their embryos. No! Nobody would support that! These are the excess embryos created at fertility clinics in the course of in-vitro fertilization. Now, I understand that a right-to-life purist might still consider those excess embryos to be human babies, but in that case, you'd have to oppose IVF treatments every bit as vehemently as abortion.

Funny, I don't recall ever hearing of anti-abortionists picketing (or bombing) those clinics. So, is IVF okay or not? If it's not, then why aren't you opposing it to the same degree as abortion? Or if it is, then WTF is wrong with embryonic stem cells?

Re:Stem cells don't come from babies

[Firethorn]

Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answering one more argument on behalf of "them"? It's something that I've never heard an embryonic-stem-cell opponent answer, and I'm dying to hear what "they" would say. Here it is (worded in second person):

Answer, on behalf of "those people", as best as I can manage, about why they can't use the extra embryoes genereated during In Vitro Fertilization(IVF):

But, if it's not used for research it might be used by the mother to have another child, or by another woman needing a child.

but in that case, you'd have to oppose IVF treatments every bit as vehemently as abortion.

There are clinics that specialize in 'ethical' IVF treatments, where they only fertalize one egg at a time, generate and implant one embroyo at a time, etc. It averages more expensive because of significant individual failure rate of the implantations, thus requiring more time/repeat tries, but generates no extra embryos(Babies) to be thrown away/used for research.

Funny, I don't recall ever hearing of anti-abortionists picketing (or bombing) those clinics. So, is IVF okay or not? If it's not, then why aren't you opposing it to the same degree as abortion? Or if it is, then WTF is wrong with embryonic stem cells?

Ethics must be followed in all research. While we'd prefer that IVF be done in a completely ethical manner, it's providing the valuable service of allowing couples having difficulty bearing children to do so. It's a far lower target than abortion. But we fear that if the extra blasteocytes were allowed for research, that would encourage fertility clinics to overproduce. /whooo.
It can be tough to twist my mind into that kind of thinking.

Re:Hope At Last

[segment]

lynx -dump "http://tinyurl.com/bsu7d" |sed -n '106p' |sed 's/est/ its/g;s/z/s/'|awk '{print $5,$7,$4}'

Re:Science!

[whitehatlurker]

what are you all doing to make the world a better place?

Ummm - I'm sitting here, reading slashdot ... doing that prevents me from being on the streets, which I think we can all agree makes the world a better place.

Re:Hope At Last

[benf_2004]

Psst...I think you mean MENSA

Some cancers do this, too.

[macklin01]

This has been done before--by cancer.

Just the other day in my cancer seminar (biomedical engineering department at UC Irvine), we were discussing angiogenesis, which ordinarily occurs when tumors have an imbalance between angiogenic growth factors and inhibitors. (Usually arises when tumors become too large to receive their nutrients soley from diffusion through the tissues.) The resulting gradient in these chemical signals recruits endotheial cells (the cells that ordinarily form the walls of blood vessels) to move chemotactically towards the tumor, align themselves, and form a new blood vessel to supply nutrients to the previously hypoxic tumor.

But in some tumors, the tumor cells themselves align and form blood vessels, with no need for endotheial cells. Much like forming blood vessels from skin cells.

The human body is truly an amazing machine. The fascinating part about cancer is that you get to see many of the mechanisms at play, and what happens when they're out of balance. -- Paul

Re:Some cancers do this, too.

[macklin01]

For the AC, here are some definitions:

angiogenesis: angio = blood vessels, genesis = creation, so angiogenesis is the creation of new blood vessels. adjective form: angiogenic

angiogenic growth factor: a chemical substance / signal that promotes angiogenesis

angiogenic inhibitor: a chemical substance / signal that inhibits angiogensis

gradient: in this context, a variation with a pronounced direction of increase

chemotaxis: chemo = chemicals, taxis = motion or moving, so chemotaxis is the (active) motion of something in response to chemoicals. usually involves a cell or organism moving from areas of a high chemical concentration to an area of low chemical concentration, or vice versa. adverb form: chemotactically

hypoxic: hypo = too little, oxic = oxygen, so hypoxic means being in a condition of having too little oxygen

Given the generally science-educated readership, I didn't give it earlier, although I perhaps should have. I used the terms because they have specific meanings, and the interesting aspect (one of balance) wouldn't have been as well conveyed without them. I'll grant that I could have done a better job writing my post, but it's only slashdot. ;-)

The thing that's interesting about all these chemical signals is that it's the precise balance of them that leads to the proper formation or blood vessels when called for. When the chemicals are out of balance, strange things happen, like blood vessels growing towards tumors. Another interesting aspect is that the balance of promoters and inhibitors for tumors is different than in the usual formation of blood vessels. This inbalance actually causes the blood vessels to be "leaky" and less rigid. The implications of this are too numerous to go into here, but chemotherapy is one thing that is (adversely) affected.

These balance issues are present in almost all aspects of how the body regulates itself. Cells are replete with redundant signaling pathways (different chains of events that can trigger a cell activity). Sometimes, multiple, contradictory pathways will be active at the same time, and the balance or imbalance will determine the net result. In another example, the balance and distribution of chemicals, hormones, nutrients determines whether a growing tooth becomes a molar or an incisor. (There was a Scientific American article on this a few months ago, in the context of growing tissues and organs from stem cells.) Again, the issue of balance. Fascinating stuff! :) -- Paul

Video Games for the Betterment of Mankind!

[eonlabs]

I'm working on it, I'm working on it...

Hey, who knows, it could happen.

Re:I won't cower from controversy

[xTantrum]

well with the new bio printer you can create an extra tit or two for your boo - au naturel!

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing. I've been advocating slashdot as a source of actual information for at least 8 years; I've come close to first post a few times. This time I thought I'd done it, and with what a post, the death notice of my sister, a brilliant young researcher in brain chemistry, one who treated Montel Williams. What a let down to read stupid jokes. Can't we all over this planet raise the level of discourse? My last words to her were that I wouuld not give the benefit of my brain to them. I am a physicist.

Re:Funding intelligent design?

[grolschie]

So that rules out our beloved Bill from being the anti-christ then? ;-)

Very cool

[Army of 1 in 10]

How much longer until we're able to grow human organs in the lab? The implications of that are enormous... no more long waiting lists for transplants because doctors will be able to grow the needed organs for those who can survive long enough for the organs to mature. The waiting lists can then be limited to those who need new organs now.

And finally....

[Celsius 233]

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!! They're PEOPLE!!! PEEEEEEOOOOOPLE!!!!!

Re:And finally....

[Jesus_666]

Thusly solving our overpopulation problems as well.

Too much work

[DanTheLewis]

Let's just encourage a taste for blood vessels. "Who ordered the aorta on rye?"

Re:Too much work

[wulfhound]

mmm, sausages.

your sig

[DanTheLewis]

"C - The programming language programmers' programming language."

Not to flame, but Lisp is the programmable programming language. It can be written in itself. http://paulgraham.com/chameleon.html

Re:your sig

[ToasterofDOOM]

I know that, but it refers to the fact that most languages are today written in C, e.g. Python, Perl, et al.

Re:your sig

[DanTheLewis]

True. I guess I was thinking of the language ready-made to write languages, the ideal instead of the real. Funny sig by the way. :o)

Re:Science!

[Liam Slider]

Well let's see....I've personally helped poor people get food and clothing, been an ongoing advocate for Linux and Open Source and their spread (which is helpful, even if you might not think so), been an advocate for a more free society and even been somewhat active in politics to that goal, and I've voted (hey, that alone is more than most people do...).

Re:Science!

[ozmanjusri]

what are you all doing to make the world a better place?

Well, last night I experimented with applied pharmacology and was able to make my part of the world into a much better place.

It was looking fairly seedy again this morning though, so I might have to repeat the dose. It's for the good of humanity, after all.

This is a start...

[tm2b]

So, how long until we're growing whole organs?

I have a somewhat deficient heart... the doctors tell me that we'll keep an eye on it for now, but I'll probably need some surgery in a couple of decades.

I can't get too upset about this - at the pace that medical technology is progressing. They'll probably be able to grow me a new heart by the time I need one. As long as I can afford it, that is.

Re:Science!

[sumdumass]

Why stop at reinforcing major arteries. We could try to reinforce the entire body then have the perfect killing machine. One were bullets bounce off or disperse the energy from the shot and thereby making gun violence almost a thing of the past. Cops or soldiers could wear light armor and thugs mugging you at gunpoint might be as usless as them asking for handouts.

This could go further. How about adapting this reinforcing major arteries into somethign specific for hazardous jobs. You could grow more and stronger arteries closer to the outer skin to help cool firefighter and increas the blood flow so they have more strenght to carry unconcious people out of burning buildings.

Maybe withing 50 years, you can goto a clinic and get a biologic upgrade. More realisticly might be the ability to use this same technoligy in less invasive surgeries. If we could grow the blood vessels inside a human, it become possible to perform a tripple bypass by just inserting a need and running a tracing object along a predetermined path, then once the blood vessel is mature enough, use a lasor to sever and seal the old pathway off. Somethign even more interesting might be the ability to use those cells to line the heart or heart valves to make (repair) failing parts more reliable. Possible this could be done eventualy by injection too. Open heart surgery in 2 hours or less and a week of monitoring. You can return to work the next day.

Re:Science!

[woolio]

Is it just me, or did a large portion of Computer Science & Computer Architecutre die many many years ago but nobody seems to have noticed (or is willing to admit)? I'm starting to think that the vast majority of the problems were solved in the 70s and early 80s... and that the number of open issues is heavily outweighted by the number of 'researchers'. But I hope I'm wrong...

Whereas, look at wireless communications. There is big research in how to use multiple transmit/receive antennas for huge multi-user environments (cell phone, wireless lan, etc)... People are still developing new algorithms and comparing the performance and requirements of each. A huge effort is devoted in how to implement (or approximate) highly complex operations on embedded processors with limited resources...

Well as neuroscience researcher, you probably will be helping bio-med companies make lots of money... But yes, this will trickle down to an important benefit (cures/treatments for diseases) to the public at large...

Regardless of what field you feel you "should be doing", if you don't have a true passion for it, then you will never get very far... No matter how good your intentions.

from diseases such as diabetes....

[dr.Flake]

I'm sorry to disappoint a lot of diabetics. But the major problem in diabetes is the micro vascular damage. One cannot grow and transplant 10.000 micro vessels in a foot that is about to fall of.

The major gain is in the larger vessels, where no venous graft is available/possible. Now one needs a Gore-Tex graft, but they fail (close) too often too soon.

It will be a long time before i trust this technique to replace my future abdominal aneurysm. The forces there are the true challenge.

rejection always possible

[0xC2]

rubberbando speculated: "Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection."

Wasn't in TFA, because it isn't true. Rejection is a possiblity even with patient's own cells. And these aren't even the patient's own, they are GROWN from the patient's cells.

Re:rejection always possible

[Doctor Beavis]

What they did was isolate endothelial progenitor cells from a patient and then let those grow to create a new vessel. Thus all the cells in the vessel were grown from a population of cells in the donor and are as much the patient's own cells as any other. I don't think the distinction that you make about being GROWN from the patient's cells as opposed to being the patient's own [cells] is important.

Also, could you elaborate about what you mean that rejection is a possibility with someone's own cells (often referred to as an autograft as opposed to an allograft, which is receiving tissue from someone else)? The cells certainly may die on implant (for various reasons, although it didn't happen in the patients in this study), but there is no reason to expect that they will be rejected, as they are immunologically indistinuishable from the person's own cells.

Re:Funding intelligent design?

[Gentlewhisper]

>So that rules out our beloved Bill from being the anti-christ then? ;-)

The anti christ is said to be a great deceiver, so it is fully plausible that he will pretend to be all fine and dandy, and when your pants are all down and gonads are hanging out in the open will he deliver His Great Punch.

The controversy

[Hedgehog]

The controversy 'stems' from the fact that human embryos are used to acquire (embryonic) stem cells. However, Catherine Verfaillie, a researcher at our university (www.kuleuven.be), has recently discovered that bone marrow contains stem cells with similar traits as embryonic stem cells. There's an article on that in the WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A553 69-2005Feb1.html.

Re:Science!

[VagaStorm]

Doc: I'm just gona give you a shot of this, and it will save your life. Patient: Ummmm........ Doc: WTF The needle just keeps breaking! Sorry, ther's realy nothing we can do for you. You'll be gone in a week....

Embryo? Fetus?

[SeanDuggan]

Embryos, not fetuses.
*rolls eyes* They're the same thing, a unborn child. I think there's a technical description where embryo is used from conception to 8 months and fetus is used for 8 weeks in to birth, but for all practical purposes, it's all the same. It's all a child who hasn't been born yet.

Stop dehumanizing to make a point

[linzeal]

A "collection of cells" that all of humanity that exists now or has ever existed was once? What praytell is it, if it is not human, a magical womb spirit? Oh wait, it is considered human by any embryologist in the world you are just trying to dehumanize it. We need a nice latin phrase for when people dehumanize something to win an argument. Any Jesuits around?

Re:Stop dehumanizing to make a point

[ScentCone]

A "collection of cells" that all of humanity that exists now or has ever existed was once? What praytell is it, if it is not human, a magical womb spirit? Oh wait, it is considered human by any embryologist in the world you are just trying to dehumanize it.

Not only is it just a collection of cells, it's really just a collection of various elements doing a tiny electical dance. You know, heavier elements that were formed deep in stars through fusion. Really, just a rattling collection of subatomic particles, buzzing along with each other, strong and weak nuclear forces producing some really cool results. There - that dehumanized enough for you? You're completely missing the point. There's nothing less amazing and thrilling and delightful about a functioning human (or cockroach) just because, early in the game, it takes a blastocystic collection of stem cells to keep the ball rolling.

Personally, I think that it cheapens humanity to pretend that something without a nervous system is just as human as one that's posting such nonsense to slashdot. The potential for a human, as seen in those 12 cells, is a beautiful thing. The fact that we can produce families through IVF for those that are having trouble getting pregnant - that's great. The fact that we produce quite a few tiny collections of stem cells in the process, and just throw them out once a pregnancy has taken - that's just a waste. Those stem cells are incredibly helpful in research, and towards the practices that can (as an example) make life for a developed, breathing, thinking - but perhaps congenitally damaged - full term baby more fulfilling. Or, that might give that baby back it's mom, if mom slipped and broke her neck the first day home from the maternity ward.

Or, we could just throw those unused IVF cells away. Or, are you really arguing against IVF, here? Because if you are, say so (and be sure to say it to the families that wouldn't exist without that procedure - you do consider the living, breathing children conceived that way to be human, don't you?).

Re:Stop dehumanizing to make a point

[linzeal]

You have no idea what you are talking about and you are throwing up red herrings like it is a fish sale in Norway. I mean a "tiny electrical dance" that sounds like pure psuedo-science to me. Come back when you understand more about human development and logical argument in terminology that isn't nonsensical, good bye.

Re:Stop dehumanizing to make a point

[ScentCone]

You suggest that my referring to a blastocyst as the collection of cells that it is, is somehow "dehumanizing." I find that complaint to be a hollow one, and your inability to recognize a casually lyrical reference to the nature of chemistry to be in indication of your less-than-well-roundedness.

The entire point of this thread is to refute the notion that moving away from the use of embryonic stem cells (say, those that are salvaged from about-to-be-destroyed IVF leftovers) will somehow make the stem cell "issues" go away. My point is that those people that are willing to project an irrationally rich personhood onto a blastocyst made up of a dozen cells are going to find other things to gripe about, too. Talk about psuedo-science! Looking at a dozen IVF-created cells through a microscope, and investing in the contents of that nerve-less cluster the features of a baby... well, that's just mystical claptrap.

Oh, and since you're bringing up the issue of who does, and does not know what they're talking about... a word about "red herrings" and the concept of misdirection.

The term goes way back to the training of fox hounds in Britain. In order to test a young pup's nose (specifically, his tracking ability), hound handlers would tie a fish (usually, a herring) to a string and drag it along the ground in a course. The scent of the fish would be completely new to the puppy's surroundings, and an inquisitive, nasally-superior hound puppy would quickly set to following the trail. His vigor, and length of attention span, were solid early indicators of the dog's eventual utility in tracking game in the field.

Once the pup had gotten older, fox scent was used for the same purpose - and the pup was expected to follow that trail without fail. As a serious test, the fox scent trail would be crossed with the dragged scent of a herring (red, because it was dried/cured) to see if the familiar scent of that distraction would divert the hound from his real objective. The hounds that fall for the red herring's trail are the inferior hunters.

If I had wanted to distract my own thread from what I was talking about, I'd have done so more purposefully, believe me. Pointing out that the electro-chemical processes that are the foundation of all biological activity are not in any way magically "human" is no red herring. It's the whole point.

God=Man?

[xtheunknown]

So how long is it before we can grow entire humans? I mean a blood vessel is a relatively simple thing (compared to, say, a brain), but if you can grow a blood vessel, why not an entire human eventually?

The advance of science never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Science!

[LifesABeach]

Hell, I'd be VERY satisfied with having the body I had at 26. I'll take care of the rest; Thank you.

stem cells

[dmiracle]

Perhaps one day they will be able to apply this technology/technique to creating other parts of the body and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy.

Are you kidding? Those skin cells could be cloned into god fearing fetuses!

Stem Tide

[Doc Ruby]

If you think a medical alternative to stemcells that still produces "miracle cures" will not be controversial, you don't understand the "controversy", or the contras who oppose stemcell research. Those contras are the core of the Republican marriage made in hell: fundamentalists and corporations. The corporations are the pharmacos, which anticipate profits from drugs which assist the stemcell research and therapies. But stemcell patients already show a faster, more complete recovery than from traditional surgery or even recent pharma therapies. And the critical ingredient is made by people themselves: most people can "autologously" donate stemcells to themselves in the months and weeks prior to the treatment, accumulating them on ice. Stemcell therapies therefore promise to be much less profitable in the long run than synthetic drugs and surgery, so they're not as attractive to pharmacos as leaving people more unwell and more broke. Meanwhile, stemcell "miracles" further undermine the primitive appeal of religion to its now politically powerful high priests. We've got a religious/corporate cabal working every day to nail America to its 20th Century status quo, rapidly diminishing us into a new "Middle Ages" as the rest of the world flies by us, largely on innovation produced by America. That's exactly what happened Muslims a thousand years ago, where Muslim society largely is stuck today. Let's see through the hysterical theatrics of the fundamentalist smokescreen to their corporate masters. Let's stand up for American progress, before it's not just illegal, but damnation.

Re:Stem Tide

[Doc Ruby]

Denial much? Or just don't read the news?

Re:Science!

[sumdumass]

It might be time for carbide tiped rotating hyperdermic needle. Should i go ahead and patten that idea?

(Sigh)

[Nerdposeur]

Or have you not educated yourself on this matter before reaching your hasty conclusion?

Yes, I used the wrong term. My mistake.

Some believe that sickness is caused by evil spirits, and so doctors should be replaced with exorcists. Do you propose we make exceptions for every religious objection, just to make sure that these people aren't "trampled on" in some real or imaginary way?

I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here - those are usually flamewars, and we're pretty far offtopic now. But I think it's unjust to compare misgivings about terminating what *may* be a human life with a total ignorance of the existence of germs.

We all agree (I think) that, for example, a one-year-old can't be arbitrarily killed. And I think we all agree that a sperm or an egg needs no moral consideration. We do not all agree where the line is crossed. I think reasonable people can disagree about this without comparing each other to savages who prefer exorcism to immunization.

I also think that any intelligent debate on abortion, stem cell research, etc etc should start with this question: When do we qualify as human, and why?

Let me try again

[Guuge]

These are your words: "I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process."

I interpreted "other people" as people who oppose stem cell research, and I supposed that you were taking the position that we shouldn't do any research without the permission of everyone. Hence my reference to the admittedly extreme instances of opposition to medical science.

What I was trying to get at with my post was related to the topic of the thread. New techniques will not end the controversies of medical science precisely because the sheer diversity of beliefs guarantees that there will always be opposition to medical science in general, and if not to these techniques in particular then to others.

Based on your reply, I now suspect that "other people" most likely refers to the embryos in which stem cells originate. I apologize for responding to the wrong argument, but invite you to consider that many people who oppose embryonic stem cell research have greater qualms than the destruction of embryos.

Re:Let me try again

[Nerdposeur]

I doubt that anyone else is reading this anymore, but I know you'll see that I replied to you.

Based on your reply, I now suspect that "other people" most likely refers to the embryos in which stem cells originate. I apologize for responding to the wrong argument, but invite you to consider that many people who oppose embryonic stem cell research have greater qualms than the destruction of embryos.

Yes, that's who I was referring to; sorry if that was unclear. I'm glad we have come to a better understanding. :)

If there are other objections to stem cell research, I just haven't heard them. It's hard for me to see how anyone could be opposed to using, say, your own skin cells to treat your disease, unless they are opposed to all medicine. And if you take out the pro-life objection (which I personally can't), how are stem cells any different?

Of course, I won't expect you to answer that question for our hypothetical obstructionists.

New techniques will not end the controversies of medical science precisely because the sheer diversity of beliefs guarantees that there will always be opposition to medical science in general, and if not to these techniques in particular then to others.

You may be right, but I wonder this: how much opposition is there to adult stem cell research? It's basically the same thing without the embryo-destruction question, right? Again, people who are opposed to blood transfusions and aspirin are going to object, but it won't be a double-digit percentage of the population.

You asked how a small minority could be allowed to hold back progress; I think it's also worthwhile to ask whether a sizable group of people's objections should be ignored. Does our society have a collective conscience? Isn't it at least worth looking for more palatable alternatives? Or will the people with money and laboratories just say "the end justifies the means" and go ahead?

I applaud all efforts of medical compassion; I just think they should extend to the unborn.

Again, sorry to drag this out - feel free to have the last word if you like. :)