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.""
Some more information on using stem cells from bone marrow to grow neurons can be found here.
As you can see from the date of the above referenced article, the idea of using stem cells derived from bone marrow to treat brain injury has been around for a while, but now that we've finally progressed to human trials, this field is going to get very exciting very fast. This has the potential to completely rewrite the textbooks on brain & nerve trauma...it's a real pity that Christopher Reeve had to leave us before we made these advances.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
We reached the Frankenstein world over 50 years ago with the first Kidney transplant. Why is this so much worse?
Man shouldn't have that power!
So... should we Ban All Doctors?
Bring it on and let Darwinism Rule.
Actually, Dr. Frankenstein didn't use any stem cells. His monster was made of 100% transplants, so I'd say we're far beyond Frankenstein at this point.
or not.. as long as we do it for the kids. kids get what they want, motorbikes, stem cells. what next..
Seems to me you could use a liberal dose of this treatment. That or ESP :P
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
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.
Then maybe we can grow a new web page and read the article.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I think the GP was alluding to the fact that most Intelligent Design advocates have brain damage, or at least appear to.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Embryonic stem cell research ends humaan life? I don't know if that's exactly true or not...If you're talking about aborted fetuses...wouldn't they already be aborted? That's kind of like saying when somebody dies, burying them ends their life.
Because it's recent!
New things are scary, dontcha know?
Seriously, though, each new step forward brings with it ethical questions that, for obvious reasons, we have never been forced to confront before. Give it a little time, and make your own opinion (if you have thought clearly about this topic) clear to your acquaintances, and the ethical ideas around this will eventually settle down.
(Like the debate about abortion has?? Well, . . . . I got no response for that)
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
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.
It's only a Phase I trial. Phase I trials are very early trials predominantly concerned with establishing safe levels of the parameters. It won't show effectiveness.
I find it a little curious to see that the bone marrow stem cells would be injected intravenously since the blood-brain barrier could limit the stem cells from reaching their destination. I presume that they figure that with trauma, blood would easily get to the damaged area. I think it is extremely hopeful to expect that enough stem cells would latch onto the damaged areas to make any difference. Also it is unclear if they are doing this for the acutely injured brain or for children who were damaged at some point in the past.
If I was a betting man, I would not bet on the side of any positive result.
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)
A couple of days ago people were freaking because experimental drugs were being used on India's poor. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 9/1838223&tid=191&tid=219
So how come nobody's up in arms about this experimental procedure being used on children in Texas? Presumably the Indian subjects were in need of treatment too.
As a Pagan, even I take offense to that. I wish those so "enlightened" ones on /. would stop wholesale bashing of people's beliefs systems.
Dammy
I was so happy to see this marked as flamebait. Why is it so difficult for some people (on both sides) to debate an issue without resorting to namecalling? I'm not advocating either stance, I'm simply stating that this is a discussion board.
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.
One of the advantages children have may also be the weakness in this study is that they show extreme plasticity. That is, their neurons are already growing and filling in gaps. Cases such as the "Boy with half a brain" demonstrate such extreme plasticity.
So, I'm somewhat hesitant that this procedure may be of great value to the population they picked. Instead, it may be issues like scarring that cause the most problems. Perhaps doing things like adding nerve growth factor (NGF), reducing inflammation, and keeping trauma victims cold would help more.
I wish those so "enlightened" ones on /. would stop wholesale bashing of people's beliefs systems.
My belief system is that Intelligent Design is a sly and decietful attempt to have creationism taught as a science. I don't believe it takes much enlightenment to reach that conclusion or to conclude that anyone who supports ID is a poor christian.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The difference is that embryonic stem cell research creates a demand (market) for aborted embryos. Normally when there's a demand, someone is happy to come up with a supply.
at the pearly gates. St. Peter is at gates, interviewing each person as they get to the front of the queue. Suddenly, a man appears in surgical scrubs walks up to the front of the line, nods to St. Peter, and enters the kingdom of heaven. Outraged, the man at the back of the line chrages up to St. Peter and demands to know why the doctor does not have to stand in line with the rest of the people. St. Peter replies, "Oh, that was God...he just thinks he's a doctor."
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
From a press release from the Aplastic Anemia & MDS Foundation:
"The President yesterday signed into law a bill to authorize $79 million to establish a new national registry of 150,000 umbilical cord blood units. The "Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act" was approved by the Senate on December 16 and had already passed the House of Representatives last May."
What I don't understand is why scientists don't take a single umbilical cord, take all the viable cells, and make a bajillion clones of those cells. If they can cloan a whole sheep, why can't they clone stem cells?
The Admin and the Engineer
The solution to that is so un-f***ing-believably simple that it can't be actual concern about it motivating anyone's opposition. You set up a government agency to take in all the aborted kids that you get parental consent for (if you want. I doubt anyone doing the aborting would care, but what the hell) and have them send the cells out with a priority program like transplant lists. No privatization means no profit and everyone wins. Of course, you'll have to pay another 8 million a year in taxes to pay for it, which means you'll have to cut down your number of wars by .002 per year, so I'm sure conservatives would never go for it. Can't possibly afford it.
I wish those so "enlightened" ones on
I don't have any problem with people's 'belief systems'. What I do have a problem with is people attempting to pass off their 'belief systems' as science. And no, science is not itself a 'belief system' (at least not like Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology, Intelligent Design, Islam, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, etc. are), so please don't subject us to that tired argument.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
is cancerous growth of stem cells. Granted, these are not embryonic stem cells (ESCs) but this being the first human trial for somatic stem cells (SSCs) I hope nothing goes wrong. We really don't know every single signal pathway affecting stem cell differentiation, this kind of treatment is really simple, but blind. For example, what will the effect of all those extraction, culturing and IV injection procuders will be on the human SSCs? Some can argue that the current situation of stem cell field is premature for this kind of experiment.
Stem cells might be a neat buzzword to get funding, but as a parent of a child with serious brain damage, I can tell you that this is more likely a politically motivated stunt to grease the slippery slope of stem cell research, than something that will generate measurable results. After all, nobody wants to hurt brain damaged children.
The reason I'm so cynical is that babies are very resilient, and for the most part they are like stem cell factories on their own. As they grow, they produce new brain and nerve material, which adults cannot do. It is adult disease and injury (and greed) that fuels the stem cell craze, since our adult bodies cannot heal like young children can.
My daughter had a stroke two months before she was born. This stroke wiped out 85% of the left hemisphere of her brain, replacing it with a fluid filled cyst. When she was three months old, she had an operation to add a drainage passage to this cyst, as it was filling with cerebral spinal fluid and had expanded to fill the entire left half of her cranium cavity. This operation cut through parts of her brain, leaving her completely blind.
At nine months of age, the drainage passage had collapsed, and the cyst had enlarged to block all drainage of cerebral spinal fluid from her brain. Her head swelled with a condition know as hydrocephalus, and she almost died. That night, the CAT scans showed that 75% of the volume that should have been occupied by her brain was filled with fluid. She had an emergency operation to install an artificial drainage valve (a shunt). This event was catastrophic, and was like having her "reset" switch activated, she had to re-learn everything.
Now, the good news. She is eighteen months old now, and has recovered remarkably. Her last CAT scan showed that the original cyst had been reduced to only 25% of the left half of her brain, and the right half is completely restored. The original passage that was cut, that caused her blindness, has healed shut. Her vision is steadily improving and she shows signs that she may be functional without the use of a cane someday. Sure, she's a little behind developmentally, but she is showing lots of promise. All of her healing was without the use of any stem cell treatment, because babies are stem cell factories. Her same injuries would have killed an adult, several times over.
-- Len
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.
Almost every real advance that has been made using stem cells has been made with either adult stem cells or cord blood.
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.
This is probably the only sensible comment here.
Oh well, what the hell...
WHY is "using embryonic cells is pretty sick [and] unethical"? Please, I'd like a real explanation, not a knee-jerk one like "using embryos as a means to an end". The embryos were going to die anyways. If, through their death, we can save lives and cure diseases, what sort of monster would say "no, don't do it, let the other people suffer"?
As for the cloning remark: Cloning a "whole" sheep really involved working on two cells: A sheep ova and another sheep cell. It could be that stem cells are harder to clone, I don't know. But if there was a simple way out of this "ethical dilemma" like duplicating a kerjillion copies of a stem cell, don't you think scientists would jump on the opportunity? Contrary to what certain hard-line religious conservatives would like to believe, scientists are not sadistic little Dr. Mengeles itching for the chance to slaughter human fetuses.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
This all seems to be leading undoubtedly towards some kind of faith-run world where Dr.Popensteins make overarching arbitrary decisions about what powers man should and should not have. Man shouldn't have that power!
Hate to argue against Segan, but those "wasteful wars" are part of what got us to where we are today. Without the V2 would we have space exploration? Without the typhus and cholera of world war I would there have been as much pressure for antibiotics and insecticides? Without constant warfare would we have had any reason to move from copper to bronze to iron to steel? Without britain stripping her forests for the navy would she have needed to move to coal power? Ok, so wars destroy, and for that I condemn them, but you can't say "if we held hands and sang ku-bah-yah for 20 centuries we would have flying cars now". War is part of the history which brought us here, and part of what drove our progress.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
My better response is to go back to work. You're certainly not going to change anyone's mind by calling what is usually the focus of your opposition's life a "cancer."
Rants are fun, but my team gets lumped in with your team, so if you're going to solidify the opinions of the opposition that we're just the other side that hates them, at least say something funny in the process.
'Don't play God!'
Why not? He/she's doing such a crapy job anyway."
Exactly. I play to win, and given God's omniscience, I wouldn't play God at any game unless s/he wasn't playing up to potential.
My frag rate is sick, but God's must be... well... God-like.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well there are a couple of rabbit trails I could go down with this one.
To my understanding, embryonic stems cells come from leftover fertilized eggs from invitro etc not from aborted pregnancies but it could include both, I am not sure. One of the future treatments, for curing nongenetic problems(ie spinal cord, organ damage) is to create and an embyro(then stem cells) with your own DNA(clone). I don't think that would work with probems such as alzheimer's unless the embyro's DNA is changed to remove that problem. I think that is going to be an even bigger argument than the current one, but is technically no different that the current one.
To make a statement about the flushing of embryos down the drain. Most leftover embryos are kept in cryo for future pregnancies but I am not sure how long. My mom is the state director of an adoption agency(make of that what you want). She said that they have started to do embryo adoptions for couples who can't get pregnant because of fertility, not incubation problems. So know that some embryos are not getting flush down the drain and to ME that is a good thing.
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
By letting an ignorant fool of a president (and supporters) and superstitons determine our medical future is crazy. Do we really need these equivalent witch-doctor religions telling us what to do in the sciences,
The real witch doctors are those biologists who manipulate cells without really understanding them. Should society give them carte blanche to conduct their abominations? I think not.
and look how skillfully Bush & Co. moved their cherished beliefs that a single crummy cell has any rights (done over the last 6 years).
Cummy cell? Have you ever tried to make one? I am proud President Bush has resisted the Dr's Frankenstein and secular liberals who would create a race of subhumans from whom they can harvest stems cells at will just so they can see Christopher Reeve ride a polo pony again.
an ill wind that blows no good
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but science is a belief system (with, at its core, axioms every bit as unprovable as any other philosophy). It is perhaps more accurate to say "there exist a number of scientific philosophies: empiricism, realism versus instrumentalism, falsifiability, and so forth". Wikipedia is by no means the only available reference. A good introductory book on constructing scientific experiments would enlighten you as to the basics, and from there, you can chase down the relevant original works listed in its bibliography. Since I am by no means an expert, nor am I a philosopher, you might also want to consult someone schooled in the study of belief systems for more information.
(The whole "science isn't a belief system" schtick annoys me every bit as much as fundamentalist Atheists who think their assertion that there is no god or gods is somehow less axiomatic than, thus superior to, other people's assertions that there is definitely, may be, or may not be a god or gods. These kinds of people disingenuously play at being rigorous intellectuals without thinking through how their own arguments apply to themselves. I think such behavior is far more hypocritical than plainly admitting to believing in certain things without a rationale, whether that's a piece of 50's clip art or God or a system of logic.)
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Well, I would only be angry if my worldview allowed for me to be angry. If we are just a series of chemical and physical accidents, why get angry about anything?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
The bigger issue here is that regardless of how they get the embryos, though artificial fertilization or embryo harvesting, the point is that embryonic stem cell research has produced little if any benefical results. I read a few months ago about how they were able to use ADULT stem cells to repair a mans vision. And now this posting on /. I haven't heard the first report about a significant benefit from harvesting immature embryonic stem cells. That's my only point. As far as demand supply goes, if you offer money, people will do whatever it takes to get it. Even if it desimates basic moral principals.
My apologies if you did not mean to imply that embryonic stem cells come from abortions. However, I did see that misconception stated elsewhere, and it seemed pretty clear from the link you were making between embryonic stem cells and abortions that you thought so as well. If you were indeed just trying to make a slippery slope argument (as I mentioned in the second paragraph), you should perhaps be a bit more explicit next time. How exactly will embryonic stem cell research make abortions more palatable?
Now, to address the point I made in my second paragraph - where do you draw the line? If we're not allowed to use embryonic stem cells for research, why are you not protesting the destruction of embryos left over from fertility treatments?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
do embryonic stem cells present any greater clinical bennefit versus non-embryonic ones? my gut feeling is "yes, because they are less developed and therefore more malleable", but that's coming straight out of my ass
anyone who knows, please share; thanks
It only ends human life if all specimen are destroyed.
Because many people believe that human life begins at conception.
Therefore, killing a fetus for its cells is indistinguishible from killing a three-year-old child for its cells.
These same people hold that the ends cannot morally justify the means, no matter how noble the ends may be.
*That* is the ethic at work. No one objects to the use of stem cells for treating diseases. The objection is the source of those cells and the methods for obtaining them.
Incidentally, stem cells can be obtained from umbilical cord blood donations. We have done this twice, and it is a wonderful way to advance the cause of the research in an ethical, moral way.
More information on cord-blood donation can be found here:
http://www.babiesforlife.org/index2.asp
Many hospitals are now equipped with the necessary collection kits; BFL will send you all the paperwork and materials if they are not. I urge everyone to take a look at BFL and pass the information around to folks who can use it.
Regards,
JQ
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?
The truth is closer to:
There is a ban on performing embryonic stem cell research (outside of the few established stem cell lines, most of which are contaminated or otherwise unviable) in a research facility which uses federal funds for any research.
That is where the problem lies. There are plenty of research facilities in the United States, both public and private, willing to do embryonic stem cell research using non-public (ie, non-federal) funding, but because they already do research in other areas (not even related to stem cell research) using federal, public funds, they have been told that if they pursue embryonic stem cell research (outside of those established lines), even with private funding, that the federal funding to their other research projects would be in jeopardy and be cut off.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Cause the Republizard Masters haven't said to?
Ah, but without wars where would the taxes (uncollected or otherwise) have been spent?
Wars certainly do drive innovation in the short term, but does incessant millitary spending in preperation for war create more developments? In a perfect world, a worldwide benevolant dictatorship works... in the real world conflict scavenges money for real basic science and applied science research meant for the exlusive benefit of society.
Cheers,
maset
I think this is the perfect opportunity for them to find out if they can used this to have those kids use more than 10% of their brain - forced evolution of mankind you can call it. I know a lot of people are against testing on fellow humans, but when it comes to increasing mankind's intelligence and level of thinking, I'm all for it! But I'm guessing that they can't just replace the damaged brain cells, and that they will more than likely just add to the existing. I hope I'm wrong on this, but brain surgery is just too iffy. :(
The reason exciting stories like these don't make news -- and don't garner tons of comments on /. -- is because there's no money in them. The child has the necessary cells in his bone marrow, and embryonic lines with the right genetic recipe don't have to be manufactured and sold at astronomical premiums. Baby human embryos are spared the garbage disposal, and the liberal media dare not admit that funding embryonic stem cell research is (1) an empty investment, (2) completely unnecessary, and (3) beneath everyone's dignity.
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
They're all for saving lives, but they want it done without cost to innocent lives. Why do you think so many of these groups are behind research on adult stem cells?
This begs the question. How will we know whether they're better if we don't study them? You can't use ignorance as an argument against inquiry.
Actually, unless you're implying he's using circular logic, it doesn't "beg the question." But outside of misapplied grammar, I don't agree with your stance. Similarly, one might argue that lobotomies were a perfectly good treatment since we thought they might be of use in treating the illness. Eugenics might be the best way to reduce mental illness in the population. A sharp stick to the eye might clear up nearsightedness (admittedly in a shortsighted manner...). Ok, that third was clearly sarcastic, but the first two were not uncommon in the US at one time. The point is that medicinal science has not always been on the side of angels. There have been people who've been well-meaning who've perpetuated atrocities. There are those who've done it for prestige. As moral beings, are we not obligated to speak out and to act when we see evil being perpetuated, even if in the name of good?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
But, you forget, it is the poverty that war creates which often drives innovation. If people are content with their lot, there is less incentive to innovate than if they are suffering. Eg. If whale oil had remained plentiful would anyone have bothered to dig for petroleum to manufacture replacements? If wood ahd been plentiful in England, would anyone have dug up coal to burn? No. Not to say there is no innovation in peacetime, as no one is ever completely happy with their lot in life, and peacetime does allow the wealth for better exploiting new innovations, but do not forget that by the 1940's the idea of atomic enegry was decades old, but it was only the fear that the Germans might drop and atomic bomb that spurred the development of practical applications of nuclear energy. (Though it was the subsequent time of peace and prosperity that converted atomic weapons technology to more peaceful and productive uses.)
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Not meaning to butt in here, but as the ever-eloquent "drsmack1" isn't responding to your question, I thought I might. I may not have anything to say that is a benefit to you personally, but hear me out. You should know that there *are* people who are against abortion/embryonic stem-cell research/etc. that are also strongly opposed to fertility treatments that result in excess embryos. I happen to be one. Just wanted to clear up the impression you may have that all anti-abortion advocates suffer from the lapse of logic that you point out. Thanks for the question.
However,
You people keep modding anything I say about fetal stem cells-- no matter how calm or reasoned-- (-1, Flamebait). Is this a forbidden topic or something? It's relevant to the topic at hand, and I'm bringing up very real questions. What, is nobody allowed to discuss fetal stem cells AT ALL on SlashDot?
I can't stop you assholes from modding me down for no real reason, but I do want to know if you think you have a genuine reason for doing so. I'm not flamebaiting. I'm asking questions-- possibly uncomfortable but very genuine questions.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Too many stupid comments about embreyonic stem cells and aborted foetuses. Let me spell it out for you.
You cannot get embreyonic stem cells from a foetus.
Typically an aborted foetus is developed; after about 24 hours IIRC the fertilized cell has passed from being a single cell to a clump of cells to a blastocyst (ball of cells) to an embreyo, at which point the cells start to diversify into multipotent adult stem cells. An abortion usually happens after this point, which means no embreyonic cells exist. The only real way to get embreyonic stem cells is to mix sperm and eggs (or sperm eggs and ham) yourself and grab the result a few hours later.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
oh, wait... dammit now I don't know which kneejerk reaction to have! someone help!
-- WC
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jingo
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Because we want the government further defining what is "good" medical research?
Government run != lack of profits. It just means that the deals go on behind closed doors and are written into law.
You would probably consider me one of those "had-line religious conservatives." I assure you that I am not part of your knuckle-dragging stereotype, and I do not see scientists as Mengeles. I see the opportunists who could possibly derive profit from trafficking in fetal tissue. It seems unlikely as trafficking in used toilet paper at this point. But then, there are people who pay good money to be whipped or peed on-- so I think a good salesman can sell anything.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Let's test this on Congress!
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
This has nothing to do with research. There's absolutely no way we're going to run out of frozen embryos for research. There's trillions of the damn things, and more every day. The fear is for post-research harvesting for treatment.
It just means that the deals go on behind closed doors and are written into law.
Give me a scenario where someone besides an embryo shipping company makes money off this: Government makes it illegal to sell embryos for anything. Embryos collected in the usual ways are sent to local storage centers if given consent from the "parent." The rest are destroyed the usual way. Create a stem cell recipient list identical to the organ recipient lists. Continously ship, free of charge, to the top guy on the list.
Who could possibly make money by encouraging embryo creation that way? If you're really worried about corruption within, do frequent audits. If you're paranoid that the government will do something horrible and start selling them to the highest bidder despite the will of the people, then there's really no point in having a discussion about legal matters at all. They'll just do what they want.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any way for someone to make cash from death, here.
And thank you for the honest and clear answer. I think the issue is that people of your opinion are not very vocal about it. Often you'll find people against embryonic stem cell research, who fully support fertility treatments, because it allows mommies to have babies that they otherwise couldn't have, with no consideration to the extra cells leftover.
At least you have a consistent belief, and I can respect that, even if it does differ from mine.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
I'd also agree that a lot of pro-life people and organizations aren't too happy with flushing embryos down the drain, for the exact reason you pointed out. Most pro-life organizations have a consistent view here, although many individuals may not yet have thought too much about fertility clinics whien they think about abortion. I believe that most of those who have thought about it apply their logic consistently, though, just as you did.
I don't know if "slipper slope" is what I was going for there. Any time a issue comes up that involves anything that devalues human life, it will be latched onto by the abortion rights people. If a embryo can be harvested for something valuable, then it provides a "benefit" to doing things with embryos in the first place.
How long do you think it will be before they *do* start harvesting aborted babies for whatever they can?
As for the fertility clinic thing, I was not aware that they disposed of embryos like so much garbage. I find that disturbing.
I would be curious where abortion rights ranks on your personal list of political issues. Ever notice that the DNC will pull out whatever stops it has to for any abortion question? Nothing brings more action from their leadership than abortion. Not civil rights, not pacificism, not even fighting school choice (although that is a close second). Why is that? You might want to follow the money on that to see why they are so left of even their own base.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Being sick and being well are both just states of health, but the only reason to ignore the massive differences between the two is so that you can pretend that there is no difference at all.
The whole "science isn't a belief system" schtick annoys me every bit as much as fundamentalist Atheists who think their assertion that there is no god or gods is somehow less axiomatic than, thus superior to, other people's assertions that there is definitely, may be, or may not be a god or gods.
Know-it-alls bug me too, but if you seem to be talking about burden of proof, and in that case, you are completely wrong.
Yes, the immune system cell are able to cross the barrier.
The barrier is most efficient against chemical compounds (like drugs and other life-less stuffs) by being a thick electro neutral layer, where most of the things transported in the blood stream are hydrophil (that's why heroin works so strong on the brain : by putting 2 methyl on the morphine molecule, the result is neutral and liposoluble and can cross the barrier more easily).
Sugar and other stuff that are needed in the brain are brought inside via special transporter (by help from dedicated glial cells).
On the other hand, white blood cells (and also stem cells as another reader pointed) are able to find a specific place where they needed, stick to the blood vessel wall and then fing a path between the cells to reach their target. The processus is called Diapedesis and is actively studied to better understand how, for exemple, the white blood cells are called "Where needed" or how the bone marrow stem cells are able of homing to their place in the bone after a bone marrow transplant (which is just injecting the cells in veins).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And, no, the previous AC poster who accused you of karma whoring was someone else. That should help to show how much your fu*king karma whoring is starting to piss people off.
Sure you are, sport. You're a completely different person every time. My faceless AC detractors are legion, apparently.
You're a parody of yourself at this point. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Excellent example of such elitist mentality so many /.ers show when it comes to belief system of others. If I had your mentality, I would be giving people some really sharp tongue when they wish me a merry Christmas since I'm Pagan. Guess I'm just more tolerent of others since my beliefs are shared with a very small minority.
Dammy
Science is hardly a be-all know-all as it is, so don't give me that tired overused excuse to bash religion on. I'll gladly point to this man made global warming farce as a prime example of junk science. Oh wait, that also flies in the face of most /.ers elitist mentality as well. I'm not sure which amuses me more, the Creationist or those who think Science has all the answers. Pot ... kettle ... black.
Dammy