Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Pushing for Early Use of Stem Cells
hzs202 writes "BBC News is reporting that Professor Ian Wilmut is pushing for stem cell treatment to be offered to people with terminal illnesses. Professor Wilmut told journalists that the treatment could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
But seriously, it seems to me that the motives of this Professor Wilmut may not be entirely pure. Certainly, it's difficult to argue against offering treatment to victims of neuro-degenerative disorders, and I know for a fact that if I was such a victim, I'd be clamoring for treatment as loud as anyone else, but does that make it right to use humans as guinea pigs to 'speed up the pace of research'?
It's easy to point out the suffering people and make a play for accelerated protocols based upon sentiment. It's not so easy to adhere to the standards of medical ethics and integrity. If Professor Wilmut was an uninvolved commentator on the issue, his opinion might hold a bit more weight, but the fact that he is one of the central players in the field tends to impune his impartiality in the matter.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
This kind of thinking does actually make sense in some specific cases. If you take a look at the history of Lorenzo's Oil, (or if you have seen the movie), it tells about how the father of a boy found a treatment for a disease (ALD in this case), and he started the treatment right away on his boy. ALD is a degenerative disorder that eventually kills its victims within 2-3 years of diagnosis. This father's treatment worked so well in stopping the disease that the medical community decided to start human trials right away, and it has saved literally thousands of lives already. If they had gone the usual method of rat testing, than maybe humans several years later, many ALD victims would have died by that time.
From the article: "If you've developed a treatment that might be beneficial in, say, motor neurone disease, then it's reasonable to allow people who are in the last stage of the disease to offer themselves. It sounds like they're being used as guinea pigs but sometimes people with a terminal illness volunteer to be used as guinea pigs if it will advance medical treatment for others," he said.
Just as with the ALD case, there are people out there with fatal diseases who do not have time to live to wait for some clinical trial ten years away. Assuming the treatment is as effective a Lorenzo's Oil and obvious, I say people should have a choice when it comes to these trials. Obviously there must be some safeguard againt fraud biotech/pharmo companies who make crap treatments. But even with the threat of these charlatans, there are many treatments out there with the advent of Stem cells that are sitting in petri dishes in labs around the world. Many of these treatments have yielded very promising results, and if terminally ill people had a chance to try these promising ones, good treatments that would otherwise have to wait for a decade or two could come to light much more quickly.
Personally, if I was diagnosed with a terminal illness, I'd say, FDA be damned, give it to me now. Risking that my 6 months to live will become 3 months is worth it if it gives me a small chance of being cured.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
If you are able to replace certain cells in the body with new ones, does the aging process still have an effect on its development and effectiveness?
Even if you are able to grow a new liver from stem cells for your resident alcoholic, does this mean you will have to grow a new brain in order not to repeat the process?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I know that stem cells have a potential to do a lot. You know that. Pretty much everyone that's not a complete moron knows that and knows that the ethical issues aren't black and white.
It would be great to start doing human trials to move progress forward. However, no matter how much social conservatives try and hold back the progress of science, it will always move forward. 200 years from now, no matter what happens with stem cell research today, we're going to have cured most disease and be on the way to creating a master race of genetic superbabies.
Welcome to the future.
"If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
We generally don't use humans as guinea pigs. Medical treatments need approval before they can be used. This guy clearly thinks the benefits outweigh the risk, but his opinion shouldn't be the one that decides.
If early testing shows no serious side effects and tremendous benefits, treatments can sometimes be fast-tracked testing phases. But if every time someone believed as this man, a treatment skipped testing, more people would die than be saved.
Testing and clinical trials exist for a reason. Because in many cases, they save lives. It's an imperfect system, to be sure, but it's better than the alternative.
two,
And the jellied brains of those who remain to put
the finger right on you,
As the Madmen play on words and make us all
dance to their song,
The song was about war mongering, but the babies being killed and euphemisms aren't used to build better weapons, but to trivialize the slaughter of millions and the by-product is used to make others live longer.
The science was shown to be forged, but keep on with the abortions to fuel the lust for eternal life.
No thanks, I'll not inject myself with dead babies.
A bit harsh, but the truth hurts.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
There are two arguments for this problem, the first being that people should enjoy life while they are dying and not get tested on and have as long a life as possible. The second argument is that they SHOULD be treated and use whatevers possible that may work to help treat the problem.
I find myself falling on both sides of the fence, as if it goes horribly wrong, unspeakable things could happen with usage of stem cells. But I also think that if it has the potential to save people's lives, and minimize suffering and help people in general, it should be used.
#!/bin/bash
login root
chmod 775 universe://
When we talk about curing X (cancer, neuro-degenerative disorders, etc.), we talk in terms of the whole world, not a particular individual. And for good reason. This might sound harsh, but it might well be the case that the demise of one individual (for not having access to an experimental treatment, say) is better for the whole world. It's a tricky balance, I recognize.
Against God's will? Not hardly. More likely against harvesting the aborted babies for the material to make your skin look younger.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
better to not develop them at all, lest they fall into the hands of wealthy people?
wtf, man?
Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people. What the hell are you talking about?
What life-saving medical procedures are ONLY available to wealthy people?
+++ATH0
I need these for my stem cell phone project - they're grown right in your ear!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I learned something interesting last week from friends of my wife and I. When their daughters were born (now 4 and 6yrs old, respectively), they had stem cells taken from their umbilical cords and sent off to a facility in (I think) Texas, where they're safely stored and frozen. Apparently the thinking is that (hopefully never, but...) maybe one day one of the girls will have some kind of ailment that requires the re-growth of an organ (for example), or similar. So they will pull the stem cells out of storage and use the 'current' medical advances to hopefully cure them.
I was amazed to find out that it is possible to do this and that people are doing it already! I think that is so cool! I meant to ask them if it cost anything, but I forgot. Anyone know?
Just thought I'd share, since we're on the subject...
Here's a stronger argument, the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant.
It argues that it is immoral and lethal for us to delay our work into longevity reasearch.
If south park is any authority on the subject (and I think we all agree it is), these patients will be given dead featuses and drink the cells.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Being ugly is not generally regarded as being terminally ill...
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
So ALL people who think abortions are murder bomb clinics? You are pathetic.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
In what way is the argument for untested deployment of stem cell therapies different from the argument for untested deployment of any other new drug or treatment?
There is always a balance to be struck between safety and delay. The procedures exist for exactly this reason: to guide us in balancing risk and potential reward.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Stem cells present their own bit of politics, and really, I don't want to get into that discussion here. Lots of smart, well meaning people believe they should be used regardless of the source. Other smart, well meaning people believe that some restrictions should be in placed on the sources. It's not worth a flame war.
As to the real issue: Marketing. Anyone else recall that soda was first just another cure-all drug, available at the pharmacy? Certainly lots of people have heard of snake-oil. Heck, asperin was also a cure-all.
I'm not saying that stem-cell research doesn't have some nifty possibilities. In fact, I think it'll bring several new advancements to medicine. But, it's also being touted as THE way to solve every current problem that's mystified smart, well meaning scientists for a while. It's like you've got a job to do around your house, but you don't have the right tool for it (and don't even know what tool to use); so when a new tool is invented you immediately wonder how you could use the new tool for your job.
Anyway, as to your post specifically: If you really do have a serious illness, I would want you to get the best medical help that you could get. That means carefully weighing all the options, current medicine and research. Where I have problems is that in many of these cases, a doctor would recommend a certain risky new treatment over one that has marginal success but has been utilized numerous times. And, since you're the one suffering, you may not be able to properly weigh your options. I honestly don't care if people want to volunteer for research--but I don't think that the doctors doing the treatment are always giving the honest, hard facts; and I know it's very difficult to make huge life-and-death decisions when you're suffering. To me, that just makes the whole situation prone to abuse. That's why the FDA exists, and has such high standards. It's to prevent well-meaning doctors and scientists from getting tunnel vision and falling into the trap that "the ends justify the means".
Personally, I don't want a risky treatment if there are other, less dangerous options. That's even if these less-risky treatments have a lower probability of success.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
My mom died and dad died of illnesses that could have been prevented, assuming this stem cell hype is true. Would I sign the waver allowing it to be done for them without knowing if they wanted it? Absofreakinglootly.
Why wouldn't I? Whos stalling here? People are dying, at least try it ONCE for crying out loud. Some patients can't get worse.
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
Holy Flamebait, Batman!
Did you read anything in that article pointing to embryonic stem cells? I sure as hell didn't. No one's talking about aborting babies to collect stem cells - there are plently of other sources and plenty of medical benefits to stem cell research.
New president?
Good thing the US has Jurisdiction in the UK.
it is possible to obtain stem cells without killing children? I don't claim any expertise in this area but I was under the impression that stem cells were harvested from stillborn/aborted fetuses. Hence, there was a serious moral/ethical debate.
So, if stem cells can be obtained without such a grisly requirement, what's the moral/ethical hold up now? I seem to once recall reading something about stem cells being discarded by hospitals as bio-medical waste. Is this true? Are we wasting time on a political turf war?
As far as fast-tracking medical research for the terminally ill, why not just appraise the patient of the risk/benefit and let them make the call? Some of us would rather go down on a million to one shot instead of wait for death, others may have things they must live long enough to accomplish (preprations for thier surviving family/children) so the risk is too great. Still others may see a benefit to society of giving the remainder of their lives as a "human guinea pig" as it were. If the patient is of sound mind to write a will, I would think they are of sound mind to decide their course of treatment.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
I recall reading that in testing a number of these treatments initially had wonderful results, however the subjects (I suppose they were rats) then grew horrible tumors. I don't have any references... does anyone recall seeing something like this?
thuis underlines an interesting issue:
Should people, even dying ones, be allowed to chose an experemental treatment?
Intially, the answer seems to be yes;However there are other considerations, like do we want people to becomes beta testers. Can we implemented in a way where people with less and less life threatening disease can't demand to be experimental as well? Will this impact the results from double blind tests?
Of course, there is a difference between a procedure with a high degree of saving someones life NOW, vs new cold medicine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While I understand the good faith efforts of people to implement working cures faster, I think this is incredibly thin ice to tread on.
Let's all keep in mind Barnum's Maxim when we hasten to implement all those "great" cures out there, that the (pokey, old fashioned, heartless gov/corps) don't immediately start distributing. There are LOTS of examples where the "perfect cure" ended up having heartbreakingly bad collateral consequences. Thalidomide, anyone?
If you, as a terminally ill patient, are willing to make yourself into a medical experiment that's cool - you will good or bad end up advancing medical knowledge to the benefit of all of us. (In fact, my father is still alive and thriving today due to a then-experimental bone marrow replacement technique.) But when you sign up for this stuff, you MUST then accept the consequences of being a lab rat, ie. you may die.
But make these decisions for YOURSELF, not for others. For the bulk of the population, the nice, long duration exhaustive testing works just fine. I personally think it's irresponsible for a scientist or a doctor to advocate this for anyone else.
-Styopa
Finally the medical/research industry learns from the software industry!
Stem cells can be taken from an umbillical cord, but if memory serves, they are at a stage where they would only be usefull for the doner. Assuming the servive being frozen for long periods of time.
However, stem cells used that stir the religous community are stem cell embryonic stem cell(which occure weeks before fetal stem cells developed). But that is a misnomer.
Stem cells used in research are the leftover created from In Vitro Fertilization. otherwords, they were going to be tossed out anyways!
Also, they are never fetuses becasue they never were attached in the uterus, hence no pregnancy.
As a note, they come from the Blastocyst which is basically a ball of 128 or so cells.
Now, here is the cool catch:
Scientist want to create stem cells completely in the lab. Which would end embryonic stem cells, but they must use embryonic stem cells to get to that point. To my knowledge, not one of these orginization has sponsered the very research that mey get them what they want.
Also, the feel the throwing out stem cells is more acceptable then using them to save the lives of people*.
Beings that have grown beyound the fetus stage.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
patients may not understand the risks, they may be pressured into an experiment, and they results are hard to determine outside the lab.
I am not saying yes or no,, just pointing out that there will be some pretty awful abuses.
We live in a country where you can't sell body parts for the same reasons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You must be about as nervous as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis!
Come again?
Stem Cell research is thriving in the United States. In fact, most of the applications have come from U.S. labs.
Even Embryonic stem cell research is going on right now in the United States, including labs funded with Federal Research Grants.
The *only* thing not allowed in the U.S. is the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines (through the destruction of a fertilized embryo) using Federal funds.
And given the fact that currently adult stem cell research is approaching 40 different applications and embryonic stem cell research has currently found, uhm, zero , I'm okay with that.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
I say we use the stem cells to clone a new Shakey's Pizza!
Most people don't realise it, but you can get non-FDA approved therapies, including drug therapies, in this country unless they have been banned for some reason (like heroin, for example, or Laetril). Non approved drugs can be imported for personal use on order of a physician.
We in the medical fields do, however, have a responsibility to protect the public from fraud. It is hard to make an informed decision even if you are trained, and have the facts at your disposal. And to say "well, I'm dying anyway, what can it hurt" doesn't take into consideration the many harms done by bad therapy - delay in proper treatment (if any), co-morbidities, and even economic ills. I mean, you're dying - do you want to impoverish your soon-to-be widow by spending everything on worthless treatments? How about your kids?
I'm not saying stem cell research is worthless - it's almost undoubtably not. Healthcare decisions are hard, though. TFA(uthor) does not give enough credit to the thought and work which should be done before giving these therapies to anyone, dying or not.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
They're unfortunately forgetting the most obvious risk of testing an unproven medical technology on humans..
The distinct possibility that those treated will spontaneously evolve into a super-race of hyper-regenerating brain eating zombies, and promptly take over the world.
Stem cells do not come from aborted babies. They don't even come from fetuses. They are blastocyst.
Really the choice is "Do we throw away these cells that we already have, or do we do research to cure the sick who are alive?"
Here is some good news for you:
Research is underway to created stem cells in the dish. Now, if you want to put your money where you mouth is, support that research.
Of course, people like you often bask in there ignorance like it is some rightous fire, but it's not.
The same arguements where said for blood transfusions, transplants, and even steril working enviroments.
Please return to your mud hut.
Finally, I hope you relize that you HAVE to be against In vitro fertilization, if you are against the use of embryonic stem cells.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When you are faced with a terminal disease, there are a number of issues that most people don't understand. First off, you want to extend your life as long as possible. There comes a time, however, when regular treatments don't work and the only options available are experiemental treatments. As someone about to reach that point, I feel that if I can donate my body to medical science before I die so that others can be saved, it's the least I can do. Also, from a selfish standpoint, there is the possibility that experimental science can extent my life. Now, I'm not in favor of experimenting myself for studies that are too dangerous but that's my decision, not others. In a free country, the right to control how and what I do with my life and my body are not the decisions of the government or any of you. Obviously, these studies need to be controlled so that they don't get written up in the National Journal of Evil under studies on growing arms out of backs, but they are currently done every day at hospitals and research centers around the world.
I can see that it might speed up the pace of research, but I would imagine any lives 'saved' would be fortuitous. People will just see the first claim. He would be more honest if he just talked about speeding up the pace of research.
It's all well and good for dragons, but what are we to do?
Adding to your this case, I think that some political reality needs to be taken into consideration also.
This is Scotland, not the US we are talking about. To give a few (hopefully relevant) examples:
Abortion: no debate on the issue. Pro choice.
Religion: Church of Scotland and "no religion" make up over 2/3 of the population. Not exactly southern baptist country.
Politics: Has voted left wing for the last 50 years. "right wing" parties currently make up 15% of the Scottish parliament, the rest are left wing and very left wing by US standards.
Basically the point I'm trying to make is there is very little moral debate on the wither the use of any form of stem cells is right or not. I would the argue that the mood is more of a matter of when can we use them than if.
The second point to take into account in this area is this: This is Professor Ian "Dolly the Sheep" Wilmut talking. In general Scotland as a whole is very proud of this achievement and in a nation that prides itself on the discoveries and inventors it has produced over the years. What sane thinking politician is going to say no to these measures when half the political debate is focused around the "Smart Successful Scotland" iniative that the Scottish Executive has been presuing. Who could really get away with saying "Yes we want to have a knowledge based economy, but we have just forced the man who cloned dolly the sheep to carry out his work elsewhere."
So to summarise, expect the go ahead to be given in Scotland in a year or two, for it would be political suicide not too do so.
There are plenty of scenarios that could be offered up as examples of ends justifying the means in the practical application of stem cell research. This one is obviously proferred because there is an emotional element to it that helps garner support. Nontheless, the fundamental issue remains social acceptance of the use of stem cells in research at all. If I had a strong opinion about the legitimacy of their place in medicine, which I don't, I would focus my energies into producing tangible examples of what can be acheived by their use. To date I've read little more than optimistic predictions as to what this branch of science can yield in practical terms. If one of these groups came forward with a proven method for curing any one of the 'big name' ailments they offer up as the sort of thing stem cell research can address, it would go a long way towards building public support in their favor - even in nations where religious concerns are loudly spoken.
It won't be the religious Right - it'll be the bleeding-heart-save-the-critters-and-hug-the-trees Left that starts the protests.
Everybody knows us Righties love to senselessly kill lab critters.
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
Extreme Measures is a nice movie based on this theme. Check it out.
What you mean is the sale of such drugs "has to" enrich someone.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy to stop cancer and AIDS cures from becoming public knowledge is absurd. Whoever comes up with them will be able to retire 20 times on the proceeds.
Think about it. You could get AIDS, cure yourself, GET IT AGAIN, AND CURE IT AGAIN. The irresponsibility of the average idiot alone would be enough to keep the drug companies flush with cash for DECADES.
+++ATH0
Given the fiasco in Korea regarding the abuse of medical ethics in stem cell research by a prominent researcher, I have to question the timing of this statement. It sounds more like he needs a quick breakthrough, or what appears to be a breakthrough, before funding gets cut because of the taint from the Korean scandal, unfair though that may be. After all, how could a politician cut funding of a program that could be curing terminally ill people "even as we speak!" (or something like that)?
There have been promises for years about the miraculous cures that could be discovered from stem cell research. Is he really, actually, any closer to real cures? Or is this just to keep up interest and, most importantly, funding?
What we need is a population that realizes that we are approaching a time where we can use technologies like nano and biotech to gain complete control over the aging process and eventually pemanentealy reverse it.
sure, the wealthey will be the people who drive this research and benefit from it in the beginning, but, eventually, the technology will get cheaper, and, as usual, the technology will be appear on P2P networks everywhere. You have to remember, that the exponential growth of knowledge will mean that in 20 years, we will have found ways to increase intelligence and develope brain interfaces etc. Using nanotech, people could download and "grow" their own medical devices and boost their own brain power to that of experts, so anybody in say, 30 to 40 years could download and deploy any type of advanced nano/biotech and reverse thier own aging etc, without the help of the old-fashoned drug company paradgm we are stuck with today. Of course, by then the drug comapanies will have allready make a killing on longevity treatments, so I would not cry too much for them (they will be where the music companies find themselves today), however, you may have to watch out for the nano/bio DRM police, if you pirate any future patented nano/bio you have not paid for..
Watch the 60 minuites inverview (sun Jan 1, 2006) with Aubre de Gray (the longevity researcher and developer of the Methuzalah mouse prize), they interviewed him in jan 2005 about longevity (life extention) and the M-prize. Aubre De Gray is the researcher who has identified the 7 or so processes that we could research and fix the aging process in the next 15 or so years given current biotech and nanotech and if we approach this process by considering aging to be an engineering problem and not some magical process we could not understand.
Let's remove the words 'stem cell' and 'terminally ill' for a while. What he is advocating is relaxing the rules on human research for certain classes of people. His suggestion is morally reprehensible- expirimenting on humans without extensive research proving benefit and safety is just sick and isn't really good science. Regardless of the technology being tested or the body of people being tested on.
Common objections:
O: But it could save lives!
A: Breeding babies to full term and harvesting full grown organs for sale is possible now, could save lives, and is morally wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
O: You have no right to tell someone what to do with their body.
A: Actually I have a 'right' to tell people just about anything, and make my case. And they have a 'right' not to listen, or to listen objectively and change their mind.
O: If they consent to be expirimented on, who are you to object?
A: First, 'consent' is difficult to prove. How does one determine their consent wasn't coerced? Second, there is plenty of historical basis for prohibiting someone from doing everything they want- it's called the legal system. Again, a person may consent to have a child for the express purpose of killing it and giving it's heart to another child. Fortunately, this is illegal.
I have trouble believing you're serious. Do YOU feel compelled to have sex all the time? Many people have trained themselves to defy evolution and choose partners carefully.
I don't believe that you can "stop them from doing it." I believe that, once they know the facts, it is possible for a human being to stop themselves from doing it.
As for why anyone should stop, that is a question with many answers. One of those answers is: "So you don't get AIDS."
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
"Imagine you've got motor neurone disease and you've got no movement below your neck. You hear reports of benefits from stem cells in news reports, on the internet. That person would be very enthusiastic."
Imagine that the treatment fails to restore movement, but also gives you horrible shakes that make your life unbearable or simply just kills you when other treatments may have worked.
Like any medical treatment, stem cells have the potential to do more harm than good. Dying people should be allowed to try whatever treatments they want, as long as they understand the risks of the treatment rather than just the hype. Those which are not dying should stick with standard medical procedures and wait until stem cells have been proven to do more good than harm on animals and those with terminal illnesses.
> Testing and clinical trials exist for a reason. Because in many cases, they save lives. It's an
t herapy ) show, thorough clinical studies *are* necessary before making the general population guinea pigs.
> imperfect system, to be sure, but it's better than the alternative.
As the Thalidomide Tragedy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide ) and Hormone replacement therapy revelation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_
Without such rigorous tests, you can make things *a lot* worse or steer people away from more proven but less of a "quick fix" treatment. Desperate people are willing to resort to desperate means in order to satisfy a need and drug companies are all too willing to encourage people into thinking that "they have the miracle tonic without side effects that will cure you of all ills. However, those dumb bearocrats won't let through. For god's sake, think of the children".
It's hard to look at someone who is in pain and looking for answers to say "there are no easy answers", but it's something responsible clinical physicians need to do every day. If you're desperate enough, you can often get yourself into a clinical trial and have the risks explained to you and be constantly monitored to be sure that it's helping and not hurting..
Declaring that one line of research is promising while another line is unproductive, even though no one completely understands either type of stem cell and its biological pathways just yet, is typical non-scientific pontificating by people with an axe to grind.
The fact is that scientists suspect that great things will come of ESC research. Who knows, a better understanding of ESCs may help scientists to learn how to coax pluripotent adult stem cells into becoming totipotent (like embryonic cells).
There's a lot of excitement right now in the scientific community about the potentialities of stem cell research and while some of it may turn out to be dead ends, it's dangerous and ignorant to predict and declare in advance which avenues those will be.
I want there to be a cure for paralysis and other debilitating conditions. I work with MS patients and have witnessed firsthand a terrible disease which may benefit from stem cell research. There is already some laboratory evidence that stem cells repair myelin sheaths in rats with an MS-like condition.
How can we deny people a cure for these conditions based on some religious sect's reservations? It's lunacy, and hypocracy, and will ultimately fail because even if we (the U.S.) choose not to support such research, others around the world with a clearer vision and more common sense certainly will, and we'll all be going abroad to get our paralysis and Alzheimer's and MS and Parkinson's cures.
As for volunteering for stem cell treatments--I'm planning to put into my living will that if I succumb to Alzheimer's or quadraplegia or similar debilitation, sign me up for whatever experiments might hold a prayer of helping me or at least yielding data that will help others.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Yes, and why do you suppose that is? Perhaps similar reasons that medical marijuana research has been hampered for the past few decades?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
My wife and I had considered this--if it wasn't for the $2000 down payment and the $100/year fee beyond that, we probably would have signed up yesterday. It actually involves harvesting stem cells from the umbilical cord blood.
http://www.cordpartners.com/
http://www.cordblood.com/
http://www.corcell.com/
The parent post is a poetic critique of the Iraq War making satirical use of pro-life rhetoric. I especially like the part about euphemisms, and the part about the "abortion" of war victims through violence. The forged science bit is a little too obvious as a reference to pre-war intelligence, and "fuel the lust for eternal life" is plainly an overdramatic reference to oil. Overall, it needs some revision but I appreciate the effort put into this rare treat of slashdot poetry.
US ESC research* is limited to old lines contaminated with mouse cells and developed in the first years of the research.
If you look at the ASC 'applications' closely, you'll see that they are not very groundbreaking, especially when you look at how US research $$ have been artificially (e.g. by politicians rather than biologists & MDs) to ASC.
So most of 'data' on whether ESC could be effective has been hopeless skewed by political meddling, US biologists have been directed away from the kind of work that would give us the information required to have a clue whether ESC could provide revolutionary cures.**
*Bush's ESC 'funding' was a great move in political gamesmanship***, but a terrible one from a scientific point of view, the cell lines he allowed research on are unsuitable for developing any treatments for human trials as they can't be used on humans due to their being mixed with animal cells. This animal cell contanmination also makes them difficult to use in basic research as you have variables (the animal cells) you can't control for.
**Since most initial US research is federally funded, cutting off funds for a particular line of research dramatically limits what gets accomplished in that field.
***And given the fact that currently adult stem cell research is approaching 40 different applications and embryonic stem cell research has currently found, uhm, zero
To use a sports analogy, it is equivalent to making the Red Sox play the Mets naked and without gloves or bats, and then saying that since the Sox hit 0 home runs (without bats) the Mets must be better batters.
In any event, it is a false dichotomy, both lines of research are important, but they are not at all equivalent, one is pluripotent, the other totipotent.
And ironically, in order for ASC research to have a revolutionary effect, they'll need to find a way to create totipotent ASCs. In which case you have the same religious/political argument against ASCR as you have against ESCR.
Woo hoo.
The *only* thing not allowed in the U.S. is the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines (through the destruction of a fertilized embryo) using Federal funds.
IIRC, it is also illegal to use federal funds to create new lines from unfertilized eggs, e.g. via nuclear transfer.
If there was only one organ we needed to keep alive rather than the whole body, science might have an easier time solving the problems of the aging brain than the entire body.
IIRC, the 150 year number comes from the gradual buildup of proteins which clog synapses and cause Alzheimers. These build up at different rates in different people, however even at the best rate you get alzheimers by ~150 years. However, if we can prevent alzheimers and prevent brain tumors, then brains might be able to live much longer.
Unless caused by accident or violence, death is caused by disease. We used to 'wear out' around age 37 200 years ago, on average, now, we average much longer greatly due to our fighting & sometimes defeating various diseases.
The ideal of regenerative medicine is that we could cure diseases caused by environmental stress, as well as ones caused by predators, parasites, and accidents.
http://www.newpath4.com/skyisfallingendoftheworldp rocessexplainedindetail06062006.htm#note4billionex trameansaddedsince19451950populationnoteincreasedt ectonicshiftingearthquakestsunamisevidenceplanetis shrinkingnoteoceansurfacewarmingevidenceofincrease dsuboceanicheatbuildupnotesallcongealingintoasingl egenerationtimeperiodmultifacetingintoasynergistic powerthekindofaccumulatingthatcomesrightbeforenote thisisjustspeculationhoweveritwouldexplainwhytheea rthhasnorecordofmultiplepre100000000000yearhumanci vilizationorsocietyintervalstheywouldhavepushedear thtoitslimittobeswallowedcoveredbyitsnewmantlethet wouldnotleavemuchinthewayofrecordserasedtogenerate newoilreservesforthenextgrouptouseupanexistingoilc yclenotethisishoweverinagreementwithmy2004assessme ntofblackholesregeneratingintonewstarsystemslikeas elfcleaningovenwehaveaselfcleaningPlanetearthreser vesskyisfallingendoftheworldprocessexplainedindeta il06062006htm
And in a moment,
a mere twinkling of an eye,
Man- & Womankind will be gone.
Only the fishes will remain to start us all over agane.
Well, it was nice knowing you guys! See ya!
Oh, btw. Have a nice PANIC.
Development of parient or person-specific stem cells is the Holy Grail of the modern biology. For some it means life, money - to others... The problem of ES cells from patients that is not disclosed by Dr. Wilmut is that these will be cells from sick people and if a disease is caused by a mutation inherited from one or both parents of the patient, then it is guaranteed to be present in the genome of the patient. Therefore, even if we succeed at making ES cells lines (thanks much Dr. SUK! you MoFo!), we still are working under a big assumption that we can cure, in cell culture, a disease. BUT - disease is not only a defect in a gene or a defect in a differentiated cell - disease is a systemic or organismal response to imbalance in homeostasis. Furthermore, initially Korean liars and then Wilmut and others are pushing for the generation of ES cells from patients that are sick with diseases for which we don't even know the genetic cause! Not that Wilmut, Melton and a drama queen Schatten do not understand that - all of them are playing money game - money from rich people and moner from excited goverments - Suk got ~68 M $ for his lies, Ian got 50 f===ing M quids for his efforts... so it goes and this is at the time when we still don't know jack shit about basic biology of mammalian embryos...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've read some fairly reliable reports that show, at least in certain areas of africa, unsanitary vaccination methods may be a large factor in AIDS transmission.
Still, there's a whole raft of STD's to be avoided. And in a fair number of them, condoms aren't protection.
Agreed. If only we could isolate everyone for ~6 months, then tatoo everyone's status on their forhead or something. Or send people with permanent infectious diseases to a sort of leper colony.
We'd get rid of alot of diseases that way.
I don't read AC A human right
Done right, they could even write the difference between the US price and the African price off as charity.
I thought it was India trying to copycat drugs more than Africa.
I don't read AC A human right
Yes it was Uganda.
The government said that you have to stop your risky behavior or you'll die. So they did.
It was the change of behavior that did it... not more condoms.
The obvious candidate for early treatment is severe diabetes, the kind that requires insulin to support. There are millions of sufferers worldwide, including extremely ill people whose bodies cannot take the numerous complications anymore such as destruction of kidneys, or eyes and who have already lost their feet due to the circulation problems that occur with long-term diabetes. (My mother died this way, after years of discomfort and very, very expensive care as her kidneys failed and no donor could be found for such an old and ill woman.)
The idea that stem cells could be used to provide insulin producing cells for thost "Type 1" diabetics is appealing: transplants have been tried but have never worked well, and a very modest supply of stem cells could be easily cultured and cure millions, young and old alike, and save many billions of dollars worldwide treating these most severe cases. The big problem has been reluctance to use stem cells due to their source and the issues of where to harvest them without violating birth control and abortion opponents, not the technical ones of doing the testing.
Farnsworth: One pound of stem cells please!
Farnsworth: Wait a minute- doesn't Ali have advanced Parkinson's? Right now he coundn't beat a baby. On second thought give them to him!
Hey. I'm sorry that you're ill. I hope things improve for you. Good luck.
These are the same people who are convinced that having sex with a virgin cures you of AIDS. The same ones who practice female "circumcision."
Many of these people are willfully, stubbornly ignorant. It's going to take a lot of cultural engineering to get past that.
+++ATH0
Seems a like a bit of a double-standard, no?
The double standard is yours because you extract a goal from nature's mechanism to create well-adapted living beings and then claim that this goal belongs to the humans who resulted from this mechanism. Just because evolution is nature's favoured way doesn't mean it has to be our favoured way. Thus, interestingly, non-evolutionary biological processes result from evolutionary processes.
You might want to actually read up on Darwin's groundbreaking work and more recent literature from biologists. Survival of the "fittest" means those who are best adjusted to their habitat, not the physically strongest.
Similarly, one could argue that it makes no sense for a believer in an afterlife to cherish life. After all: the best part of their existence is after death, right? Thus, your argument dictates that any/most life-extending science is futile.
see a Text Widget
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The very thing that brought us to be, is something we should not favor?
... Hitler ...
No, for three reasons:
1. Evolution is slow and clumsy, even if you control the matching. Example: you can enhance desirable attributes in pets and plants by selective breeding, but it takes a long time. If you employ genetic manipulation, it's a much faster process. The fastest way to build custom-designed super-beings is through this route. Whether this is ethically or morally desirable is another question.
2. Caring for other beings in the group and loyalty are important for survival in groups of individuals where each individual is too weak to survive on its own. It's our binding strength, not our weakness. Even belief (or the desire to believe in) in higher beings appears to be hard-wired in our brains.
3. I don't want "higher" being to replace me, because I want to keep living! Thus, knowingly blocking the future existence of such beings makes a lot of sense to our own survival.
Darwin himself admitted he didn't even buy some of his own claims,
Well, lots of rumours have been spread about Darwin, even that he converted to Christianity on his death bed. Medical science and biology have since then shown the scientific merit of his theory. As for Hitler, it has also been claimed that he was very Catholic and that the Catholic Church supported eradication of Jews, etc. He was also supposedly a vegetarian and wasn't a womanizer. It's rather fallacious for three reasons:
1. Just because we don't like what we consider a painful reality, doesn't make it less true. This leads to letting wishful thinking arbitrate truth and that's an obstacle to finding actual truth.
2. I don't consider evolution a philosophy on its own, for mostly the same reasons I don't consider it religious. We can look under microscopes at how cells interact with one another and find out how organism A is related to organism B and so on... which philosophies does that give us? If "raw" biology is the sole basis of your philosophies, you're going to end up quite depressed and nihilistic.
3. Oppression has been linked to "leaderships" of all sorts of religious and philosophical backgrounds. In some environments, "survival of the fittest" may mean "survival of the most religious".
Other stronger organisms are part of the habitat. Surviving predatory behavior is certainly part of successful survival in any habitat.
Yes, but... there are numerous ways in which an organism can gain the ability to not be eaten, for example by being able to fly, by being able to outrun the predator, by being untasty, by being greater in numbers, etc. A fly is physically weaker than almost any being, yet thrives everywhere.
No, this argument can't be made.
I agree: just like your argument cannot be made regarding a humanist point of view.
see a Text Widget
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The "linkage" isn't what is significant.
Well, since it can be shown that atrocities were committed in the name of the Christian God, then according to your logic, the Christian ideology is evil. In fact, the bible outlines various scenarios in which killing is allowed or even mandatory. Today, such actions are highly illegal.
Actually, in the case of evolution, anything is acceptable, because there is no standard for right or wrong.
That's exactly what I've been trying to clear up: evolution is not an ideology, it describes the mechanism by which nature works. Most of us take part in this process by mating with people with whom we have "chemistry" (i.e. estimated chance of fertility is high). It would be quite an insulting strawman fallacy to claim that people who accept evolution theory have no philosophies or ideologies at all other than "law of the jungle".
In order to save lives, we have to understand how biology works and for that, evolution theory describes and predicts really well. This is what you're going to need if you want to make medicine to cure people. This is the reason most people go to hospitals instead of to faith healers. This is why I think it's far superior to any non-scientific or pseudo-scientific theory, but only within the confines of biology. I much prefer my personal philosophies and ideologies if I want to find purpose in my existence.
It brings up an interesting question of what right anyone has to tell someone else that they have to obey a law, and more so, punish them for not doing so.
Very simple: you choose to live in their territory and you do not have the military capability to defeat them in a confrontation. In exchange for your productivity, you get protection and certain limited levels of freedom. Territories with reasonable levels of freedom usually have higher wealth and power than those without. It makes sense.
If the core values and ideology is true, the true followers will be able exist in truth.
Ideology has nothing to do with evolution and evolution doesn't dictate that you should not be religious, hence people who believe in "theistic evolution" (i.e. evolution as a tool of God). It seems that the ones who dislike evolution hold it in higher regard as a moral standard than those who don't.
see a Text Widget
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You make two circular flaws in your argument.
1. First you label evolution an ideology and then you criticize it for not living up to your expectations of an ideology. Certainly, you seem unaware that people who support evolution theory (and the scientific method) may subscribe to a whole range of ideologies, including Humanism, Buddhism, Christian religion, etc. Whether you consider them to be mistaken or not changes little in their convictions. You might want to mention your own qualifications before making statements that broad and bold regarding correct interpretation of translated scripture.
2. Your almost valid point that oberservation can be influenced by preconceived ideas is then highlighted by your own biases regarding supernatural forces. To distinguish between natural vs. supernatural may seem attractive at first, but all your assumptions regarding the supernatural are based on the Christian deity. The whole spectrum of supernatural entities are not limited to this deity and if you want to make this distinction, you have to be open to the hypothetical possibility of the entire spectrum. The distinction you present in your argument is (natural + supernatural - Christian-like deity) vs. Christian-like deity.
It's unfortunate that you are confusing a practical understanding of a political situation with moral justification and even extrapolate this to saying that slavery, murder and rape may be "okay" the next day. Bad people use anything to justify their actions. The bible was used to justify slavery and racism too. It's just interpretation. To see why your statement is silly, look into biology and psychology. Most people have no desire to kill others. We are social animals after all. Heck, even in nature you're not going to see one antilope or ape kill another for no reason and they don't subscribe to any explicit moral code at all.
see a Text Widget
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I haven't stated what I believe, but more than that, my statements on evolution and Christianity are based on what the Bible says
:-) ) ..by people who were distoring what the Bible said.
That's exactly what I'm pointing out. You cannot bring the Christian deity into the discussion without unfairly ignoring all the other deities or supernatural phenomena.
The fact that science cannot disprove the supernatural applies to any supernatural entity. Which supernatural entity is the true one is a different question.
It should be a different question, but you've already answered that question by assuming that all of supernatural phenomena are inherently non-falsifiable and desire to keep their interactions with the physical world secret.
But...in an evolutionary belief system, there is no absolute good or bad...so therefore, there is no such thing as "bad people."
You will start understanding reality a lot better once you stop treating a scientific theory as a belief system. Are you really so misguided that you seriously believe that my capabilities of forming opinions on ethics are limited to the workins of raw biological processes? We both hopefully accept as reality that we started our lives inside the vagina of a woman. Does that mean our ethics has to be based on vaginas? (hhm.. now that I think about it, that might be close to the truth...
The bible says "treat your slaves well". It doesn't say "don't have slaves". It just depends on interpretation. My bet is that you only read portions of the bible in english translation. Unless you attempted to read it in the original language, you're not an authority on what it actually says. As a side-note: no one seems to know who is Christians, because they always accuse other Christians of not being Christians. Odd.
In an evolutionary world, morality based on majority opinion is quite dangerous.
Interesting point. I agree that morality based on majority opinion IS dangerous. We see that happening in the U.S. with the majority wanting e.g. constitutional bans on gay marriage.
Perhaps today *most* people have no desire to kill others, but if the mob shifts whims, it would be completely justifiable.
Look in your closest supermarket. You will find body parts of dead animals neatly packaged, labeled and categorized. How is the murder of billions of animals justified? I think it's grotesque. Most people don't desire to kill directly, but indirectly they kill a lot. Almost all people have the desire to not be killed and giving up the freedom to kill is an easy choice. Too bad for the people who do enjoy killing. Remember that in the U.S., most people wanted the U.S. to go to war against Iraq and indrectly the mob did indeed want killing to happen... and it happened.
You are getting it right when you say morality is relative and culture/environment dependent.
All religions are faith-based belief systems. Evolution is a faith-based belief system. Atheisim is a faith-based belief system. All belief systems have as their bedrock a belief about something that cannot be observed, measured, tested, or proven.
You're contradicting yourself: evolutionary mechanisms have been measured, tested and proven. Would you like me to cite scientific papers on this subject for you to verify?
I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to change a belief from X to Y.
What you are doing is claiming that people who accept evolution theory have to find murder, rape, racism, etc justifiable. That's what I'm taking issue with. In my own experience and observation, strong morals do not conflict with evolution theory. Ignorance on what constitutes personal ethics, valid science or solid logic does not constitute proof.
I can tell you from that everything else they are going to claim as "science".
The difference is that one claim does have measurable backing, the other does not.
see a Text Widget
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As for me, there's no rule that requires discussion of every deity ever concocted in order to raise the issue of the inability of evolution to explain or disprove the supernatural.
Okay, I'm beginning to believe you're just trolling here. I'm willing to give a more in-depth answer to your points, but before I do so, I'd like you to confirm if you're familiar with these concepts:
1. Proponents of evolution theory subscribe to a range of beliefs and branches of philosophy and also count religious people.
2. Evolution theory is not antithetical to the existence of all supernatural entities and phenomena.
4. When discussing natural vs. supernatural, it shows bias to constantly focus on one supernatural entity and base conclusions on that one instance. For a balanced discussion, we both have to accept the hypothetical possibility of any supernatural entity.
5. Falsifiability, the important property of scientific theory. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
see a Text Widget
Comment removed based on user account deletion