Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells to Treat Brain Injury in Children
BigDukeSix writes "The first stem cell trial with widespread public health implications is set to begin in Houston. From the article: "Trauma is far and away the main cause of death and disability among children, and the main reason children die from trauma is brain injury...The clinical trial is the first to apply stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. It does not involve embryonic stem cells.""
Well that wouldn't do any good because you are placing adult stem cell research and ID into the same group. Stem cell research does not hinge on Evolution or vise versa. Typically, ID'ers believe stem cell research is beneficial, ADULT stem cell research. And the evidence shows that adult stem cell research has produced fabulous results. It's the embryonic stem cell research that most ID'ers don't agree with because it destroys a human life. As a side note though, embryonic stem cell research has done nothing more than end human life. It hasn't really shown itself to be useful yet.
Well, that's good news. No ethical dilemma.
It would have been nice if the media stressed the promise of non-embrionic stem cells to the public more (there has been some stories), but it is nice to see it now.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
As someone who has seen a newborn die from braininjuries from up close(my little niece*), i salute the effort in this line of research. Since TFA mentions that this treatment does not use the embryotic (sp?) stemcells, i fail to see why this would become one of those ethical debates. Like with C. Reeves, i just wish they had developed this sooner :(
* = a common spelling mistake
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
"...it's a real pity that Christopher Reeve [chrisreevehomepage.com] had to leave us before we made these advances."
Why? What makes an actor who played a comic book hero worthy of mention (other than the fact that he championed the cause), instead of the thousands of children who were and are never able to realize their potential?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
And who's decision should it be to decide what power man "should" or "should not" have? Please spare me the doctrine of the ignorant masses. I'd like to believe that if there is a God, he/she/it put that lump of grey matter between your ears so that you could use that power to help yourself and others. While that cause seems lost with you, I congratulate the doctors and scientists who are using science and medecine to help their fellow man.
That is exactly the reason. Do you realize how much money would have poured in for this research if they could have made Superman walk again using stem cells? It's not about the person, it's about their publicity and their power to help the cause. Remember Ryan White? I went to school with the kid and, frankly, he was an ass. However, his celebrity status did more for AIDS research and education than the deaths of 50 unknown kids with AIDS.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
On behalf of the Slashdot anti-religion crowd, please stop turning every topic into an unprovoked attack on religion and Bush. It's making us look bad. Especially when the attack is as stupid as this.
I agree. The probelm we, in the USofA, face is with our legaslative body. We need to step forward and convince our representitives that embryonic stem cell research is for everyone's over-all good. Before the flames start flying I'd like to say that I'm not a big fan of abortion and the like. HOWEVER, if a life was going to be ended anyhow why not put it towards further good? How about legeslating towards making dead fetuses fair game for the rest of us, but making it illegal to kill embryo for the purpos of harvesting these "cells". If one dead foetus can save 10-20 (or even 2) lives, isn't it already worth it?
p.s. I'm sure this post is full of gramatical and spelling errors... it's 6:20 in the morning my time, gimme a break.
Jeremy Logan's Website.
But they do want access to embryonic stem cells, which suggests to me that embryonic stem cells have some useful property that adult stems cells don't.
They have a higher potential benefit in that they may be more able to develop into a larger numbers of types of tissue. Basically, it was initially thought that stem cells from marrow could only be used to generate red blood cells whereas it seemed perfectly evident that infant stem cells could turn into all kinds of tissue given they're what the body starts from. Since then, we've found that adult stem cells can transform into a number of different kinds of tissues. *wry grin* Not that most of these experiments try to actually transdifferentiate the stem cells. If you read into the details of these experiments, most come down to "we inject a bunch of stem cells into part of the body and see if anything happens."
Basically, the whole thing is over potential. The proponents of infant stem cells say that those stem cells may work better and the adult stem cell people are finding ways to use stem cell therapy without the requiring the sacrifice of another human life for a potential benefit.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Just another batch of evidence to show the need to research non-embryonic stem cells... embryonic stem cells have yet to yeild anything extra-ordinary.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
Well, still, using embryonic cells is pretty sick, unethical
I guess you're not an organ donor, either, huh? And, if you were dying of, say, liver cancer, you'd turn down a chance to live our your life with a donated organ? Why? Because it's "sick" to use something that's beyond the use of a dead body?
We sure wouldn't want people living longer, healthier, more productive lives if it means burying someone with a pound less of their internal tissue, now would we?
Now, normally I'd stop right there, presumingi that no one could be so obtuse as to not see how this is exactly the same situation as the stem cells from an about-to-be-discarded surplus IVF blastocyst, or the recovered cells from a failed fetus, or the recovered cells from a pregnancy that was aborted, and was going to be aborted anyway. People like you, that would rather use that tissue for fertalizer in a landfill than save some poor brain-injured kid's life are (well, to use your words) "sick" and "unethical" to a nauseating degree.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
But a 6 yr old is not a babie. A 6 yr old going through what your daughter did would not fare as well. To say stem call research is only for greedy adults is simply short sided.
How do you know that a stem cell therapy treatment wouldn't have improved your child's recovery process?
The body isn't perfect.
What if the therapy can give back to your child what has been lost?
You have a very sad story but you shouldn't discount a potential good because it makes you hope again and leaves you vulnerable to serious disappointment if your child can not be helped by that good. Buck up buddy and thank whatever divinity you believe in that the rest of us haven't given up. 20 years ago the very procedures that allowed your child to live weren't available and still wouldn't be today if people didn't try new things. We learn from our failures as much as from our successes.
Best regards to you and your family,
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
> just so they can see Christopher Reeve ride a polo pony again.
i sincerely hope that you realize the magnitude of a spinal cord injury. let's see how fun life is when you can't control your own bodily functions.
I'll keep that in my mind while my taxes are being used for weapons research.
Fetal stem cells are obtained in circumstances when the fetus is going to die anyways. So you have two choices:
1) Fetus dies; its stem cells die with it and help nobody.
2) Fetus dies; its stem cells are harvested and help save a life or cure a disease.
In any situation where one choice has a significant benefit and no significant drawback, that choice is a no-brainer.
And please don't say "you left off the choice of not having an abortion in the first place"; that's out of the scope of this discussion. Stem cells are harvested in situations where there was an abortion, and nobody has an abortion just to harvest stem cells. (And if they did, that would be a wholly separate issue, and I believe would be an ethical issue.)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
(Yes, I have karma to burn)
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"drug companies may not be sensitive to how poverty can undermine the spirit of informed consent. Individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced...more and more drug companies are conducting clinical trials in developing countries where government oversight is more lax."
If any of that applied to Texas we might be just as upset about it as we are about India. Clear enough?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Genes.
It seems to me that genes that place the young above the old (to at least some degree) would be selected by evolution. If we didn't have the trait to very strongly protect our children, then we wouldn't last very long as a species.
Now, logically, saving an experenced doctor over a crack baby may be better for the human race. The doctor is a known quantity, and has a higher probability of contributing something to society. Overcoming animal instincts to make such cold, calculated decisions is difficult.
Of course, all of this ignores 'morals', which are a whole other topic. Personally, I think the answer is simple: genes.
-Seth