Human Based Stem Cell Culture Medium Developed

ubersonic writes "A new culture medium for growing human stem cells -- that contains no animal products -- is offering researchers a cleaner and therefore safer environment for performing the cutting-edge technology. The discovery means that stem cells developed for therapeutic use can be transferred directly to human subjects. By using this medium all of the concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines can essentially be removed."

Comments

Interesting Discovery

[IntelliAdmin]

This is a very interesting discovery. Could this totally remove the argument about stem cell research? Since it sounds like they are able to produce Stem Cells without using other human tissue to do it.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Loc_Dawg]

I don't believe that it will totally remove any arguments about stem cell research. We don't currently need human "tissues", just human "cells".

Re:Interesting Discovery

[TubeSteak]

Could this totally remove the argument about stem cell research?

Nothing can remove the argument about stem cell research.

The measures taken by Pres. Bush only placate some of the critics.

There will always be a group of hardliners who think any stem cell research is bad, in the same way that some people think any abortions are bad, irrelevant of the circumstances.

For some people, the issue is about where the stem cells came from, for others, the issue is about what can be done with the stem cells.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[heatdeath]

No, they're able to produce Stem Cells without using animal proteins, which means that they don't have to remove the contaminating proteins after it's cultured. This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Tallweirdo]

This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.

It is my understanding that research stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses but instead from fetuses or fertilised eggs created for IVF (In-Vitro Fertilisation) but not implanted. This is an important distinction as surplus IVF fetuses are eventually destroyed (incinerated as biological waste) after the mother successfully gives birth.

Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?

Re:Interesting Discovery

[asliarun]

One question: Do the scientists have a moral obligation to get the parents' approval before they commence their experiments? Agreed, the extra fetuses or eggs would have been incinerated anyway. Nonetheless, a parent might still feel icky if they learnt that their fetuses are being used for experiments. In any case, the parents are paying the clinic to help them get a baby, NOT to aid stem cell research.

Disclaimer: I'm definitely not one of those anti stem-cell fanatics. That should not preclude us from raising moral or ethical issues about how these experiements are conducted, however. In any case, most doctors/researchers have such an inflated ego or god complex that they would not even think twice before trampling an individual's basic human values.

[rant] To digress wildly, why are doctors the only breed that give you an appointment after a week and *then* make you wait for 2 hours in the waiting room. Would you take the same shit if it was your carpenter or lawyer? Someone should sue their egotistical asses, i tell you.[/rant]

Re:Interesting Discovery

[RodgerDodger]

Re: Rant. Because a good doctor actually takes time to sit down with their patients and diagnose the issue. If a particular appointment takes an hour instead of the 15 minutes scheduled, then it takes an hour. Doctors schedule their days around average appointment durations, but this invariably means that there will be overruns that will cause delays. These delays get absorbed by the appointments that run short, or by the various buffer periods that doctors schedule in.

On those (rare!) occasions when the buffer period isn't used in catchup, the doctors fit in other work.

Running late is actually a sign of a good doctor - if there's never a delay, the doctors are working to the clock, not the patient.

Happy?

Re:Interesting Discovery

[hunterx11]

There are always hardliners, but as time passes they become less and less relevant. There are still plenty of people against IVF, but it's pretty accepted. There's almost no one against organ transplantation. And you'd be seriously hard-pressed to find someone against using analgesic drugs during birth for moral reasons. Stem cell research will almost certainly become uncontroversial during the lifetimes of young people today, or at least much sooner than human cloning.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[asliarun]

Well, ok. The same argument can be extended to ANY profession though. A good architect also needs to sit with the client to understand their needs and has to tackle both the highly demanding clients along with the easygoing ones. I'm not being so inflexible as to suggest that any delay is intolerable. I can understand having to wait once in a while. However, a trip to the doctor invariably takes away half a day (which is worth more than what i pay to the doctor, incidentally), as opposed to an hour with any other professional. I'm sure that after a few years, a good doctor would be easily able to predict the average time taken for a diagnosis (in my experience, good doctors are paradoxically faster!). Again, perhaps i'm being overly harsh, but i still feel that a disproportionately high number of doctors are in the same league as stock traders or pilots, when it comes to hubris. With due apologies to doctors who don't fit this category.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[TubeSteak]

And you'd be seriously hard-pressed to find someone against using analgesic drugs during birth for moral reasons.

Not to seem like I'm making fun of your point, but Scientologists seem to have some moral objection to painkillers during birth.

I don't think stem cell research will become uncontroversial, but I do agree that the people who're objecting will eventually become marginalized in the debate.

Stem cell research will progress whether they like it or not, both domestically (in some cases, without federal funds) and overseas, where they have very few restrictions.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[QuantumG]

I agree. Even once we can go and get a replacement heart grown from our own stem cells there will be people picketting the hospital saying we're evil for having our defective heart transplanted. Just like there are people now who consider blood transfusions to be evil even if it's your own blood you have banked that you are transplanting.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Maset]

Yes.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[lysergic.acid]

Well, the problem still remains since the main issue most pro-lifers have with abortion is that you are in fact destroying something that has the potential to become a human being. Most individuals who are against abortion do not make distinctions between a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus, and a human being. That's why many pro-life pharmacists often refuse to fill morning after pill prescriptions which are meant to prevent a pregnancy by causing any possible fertilization to be aborted before implantation into the womb. Pro-lifers consider this act an abortion even though a woman's body often does this naturally without the woman's knowledge in what's called a spontaneous abortion--this is why the medical community does not consider fertilization to be the beginning of the pregnancy, but rather when the fertilized egg is actually implanted.

So yea, if you look at the situation from a medical perspective, there are no obvious ethical dilemmas. But those against stem cell research are looking at issue in a religiously framed context using different definitions of terms and medically/scientifically unsupported premises.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[jcaldwel]

For that matter, shouldn't sperm count too? Think of all the lives that get destroyed every time a guy masturbates! Contact your senator!

Re:Interesting Discovery

[RodgerDodger]

You could always try, oh, calling the doctor's office first to find out how late they're running...

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Dcnjoe60]

This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.

While non-embryonic stem cells can come from aborted fetuses, most actually come from bone marrow, fat cells, nasal and cheek linings, umbilical cords, etc. Stem cells from these sources are not controversial and have been successfully used to treat parkinsons, diabietes, leukemia, spinal injuries and some 61 other diseases. All of which is well documented, but usually not reported. It is only the use of embryonic stem cells derived from cloning a human embryo (nuclear transfer) that are controversial.

To date, the only thing that embryonic stem cells have produced are cancer tumors. Evidently, they are so undifferentiated that they cause uncontrolled cell growth (tumors). The push for having government funding of embryonic stem cells is because businesses and private individuals won't fund it. They are pouring millions into non-embryonic stem cell research, which has been proven to be successful time and time again.

Regardless, the "discovery" reported doesn't impact the moral or ethical discussion, it comes into play after the intitial stem cells are taken (or created, in the case of embryonic ones).

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Idarubicin]

I'm sure that after a few years, a good doctor would be easily able to predict the average time taken for a diagnosis

And I'm sure they do, and I'm sure that's what the grandparent poster said as well. The physician wants to go home at the end of the day just as much as you do. Any reception and other support staff want to get back to their families. The cleaning crews would like to get in to vacuum the waiting room.

The problem is that patient appointments very seldom last for precisely the average period of time. Unfortunately, there's a very large variance associated with that mean time.

My family physician is one of those few that still delivers babies--at least, for the relatively low-risk pregnancies. My brother and I were both delivered by him. I was born in the middle of the night and probably didn't screw up his appointment schedule too badly, but my brother was likely a nuisance. On the flip side, I've been kept waiting because the good doctor was delayed at the hospital by a time-consuming birth.

Was it inconvenient? Somewhat. Did I mind? Not really. My mother felt much better about having a long-term, trusted doctor who was intimately familiar with her medical history present for the births. I don't mind waiting a bit for a guy who still provides that level of care and attention to his patients.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[aug24]

I'm not trying to be an arse, but FYI, a foetus is 8 weeks old - that's quite clearly a human! These are embryos, a little bundle of cells.

People think of the two quite differently (for good reason, I think).

Cheers,
J.
Going to be a dad in June ;-)

Re:Interesting Discovery

[ebyrob]

Even once we can go and get a replacement heart grown from our own stem cells there will be people picketting the hospital saying we're evil for having our defective heart transplanted.

Well, if you have a kid, then rip it's heart out for a transplant then I imagine quite a few people are going to object (even if the other parent agrees it's a good idea). A few less might complain if you clone yourself and do the same thing. Harvest some eggs and grow them into a heart plus a few organs minus any kind of brain and you'll be one better. Finally, if you're merely pulling a few cells out of your elbow and growing them into a heart with no fuss and no muss you'll hear far fewer complaints.

Bottom line: There's a bit of grey area yet in this kind of research and you can expect people to quit objecting to research involving the raw materials of procreation about the time you can expect the abortion debate to get resolved.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[GuyverDH]

Except that now, there are whole lines of human stem cells that did not require aborted fetal tissues. So that whole avenue of stem cell research objection is null and void.

So if you still object to stem cell research, then yes, I'd consider you a hardliner.
Next objection please.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[WheelDweller]

Well, of course not; stems cells that don't involve killing people are the point of the article, no? I'm fine with this. Totally clam-like.

I just took a smidge of offense that an original poster seemed cavalier about taking lives of people who, by their very definition, are innocent. As things progress, I see more people who treat this like waste, than life. Religious or not, it just seems wrong to me. I welcome an alternative!

How about an alternative fuel, next? :)

Re:Interesting Discovery

[The Spoonman]

the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses

It was my understanding that stem cells from aborted fetuses were LESS useful than those that were regressed from the host that would receive the benefit of the treatment. Thus, the reason the US ban is only on aborted fetus stem cell research is not a bad thing (if it's not the better way to go, let's not go there anyway).

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Tanktalus]

I suppose I'm one of the (relatively) hardliners. I don't object to stem cell research, only the stem cell research that, as WheelDweller says, results in the death of children to produce.

According to Wikipedia (which is not exactly one of my favourite places to get information):

[T]here are a number of clinically proven adult stem cell successes.

and

To date there is no evidence that any medical treatments have been successfully derived from embryonic stem cell research.

As far as we know, there are no clinical uses for embryonic stem cells. All successes have come from adult stem cell research. I say, cut our losses (both financial and ethical) and focus on what works. Let's find all the uses possible from adult stem cells before we revisit any ethical dilemmas about killing children for their stem cells to deal with other problems.

As for the original story, I say great! Combine this with using one's own ("adult") stem cells, and we should have an easier time getting our successes to work consistantly.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[shaitand]

"Regardless, the "discovery" reported doesn't impact the moral or ethical discussion, it comes into play after the intitial stem cells are taken (or created, in the case of embryonic ones)."

I have no doubt that at the moment of this discovery there are some embryonic stem cells already harvested somewhere. But if I can now multiply them eternally in a glass dish without risk of contamination and without needing anymore embryo's then that essentially ends the debate, right?

After all, I can always take a cell from this dish and use it to start another... and another... and so forth until the end of time.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[poot_rootbeer]

Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?

I would imagine that a good number of the stem-cell research opponents feel that it's a horrible act to destroy a fetus (ok, let's be precise, embryo) at any point after the sperm breaches the ovum.

Neither science nor common sense would suggest that each and every embryo that is formed is destined to be carried to term and birthed, but there you have it.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[DukeToma]

"Stem cell research is performed using fetuses that would have been destroyed anyway. Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?"

No. Which is why IVF is just as bad as embryonic stem cell research. Look when Nazis were killing folks anyway they decided they ought to at least benefit from the killing. They then decided that experiments should be performed on them. You know. They were going to be killed anyway so it was moral research right?

From the Nuremberg Trials Count 2 Paragraph 6:

Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects' consent, upon civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. Such experiments included, but were not limited to, the following:
A) High-Altitude Experiments
B) Freezing Experiments
C) Malaria Experiments
D) Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments
E) Sulfanilamide Experiments
F) Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation Experiments
G) Sea-Water Experiments
H) Epidemic Jaundice Experiments
I) Sterilization Experiments
J) Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber) Experiments
K) Experiments with Poison
L) Incendiary Bomb Experiments

Count 3 Paragraph 11:

Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, upon German civilians and nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.

And of course Count 3 Paragraph 14 details their Euthanasia program

The Nuremberg Trials

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Dcnjoe60]

No, it has nothing to do with the debate, because if one accepts the argument that the embryo is human life and therefore unethical to use or destroy, then any cell lines derived from them are still unethical. The medium used to multiply the stem cell line does not impact that. What it does is makes the stem cells grown in that medium more viable to be put into a human being without causing rejection from the animal proteins.

The ethics are tied up,not in the medium used to propogate the cell line, but in destroying the embryo to obtain the stem cells.

Regardless, this is more likely to be useful for adult stem cells than embryonic ones (which aren't hindered by the ethical discussion).

Re:Interesting Discovery

[eheldreth]

Actualy there is another interesting twist to the argument you are making. The German Reich determinied that certin races where not as evolved as them and did not deserve to survive and there fore justified the murder of those peoples. In the modern world we have decided that unborn children are not human enough deserve protection under the law, and we therfore can justify thier murder. We are not alone though it is common for mankind to dehumanize thier victims. Just look at the way the west is viewd by radical muslim terrorist.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[vertinox]

In any case, most doctors/researchers have such an inflated ego or god complex that they would not even think twice before trampling an individual's basic human values.

I have never met a doctor that has a god complex. I've seen politicians on TVs who may suffer from this, but most doctors I have met generally respect the patient because they sincerley wish to make them better.

Secondly, an individual basic humans values should not include willfully waste of things that would ease the suffering of other humans. This goes against the teachings of all major religions.

I'm not going to debate whether or not the original cause is moral or not, but the waste of material because someone believes the oringal is wrong is definatley immoral.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[vertinox]

[rant] To digress wildly, why are doctors the only breed that give you an appointment after a week and *then* make you wait for 2 hours in the waiting room. Would you take the same shit if it was your carpenter or lawyer? Someone should sue their egotistical asses, i tell you.[/rant]

And I forgot to point out that if your lawyer or carpenter is late, you don't sue them either. You simply get a new lawyer or carpenter. If you doctor, lawyer, or carpenter really screws up something that causes you direct damages then you sue them.

I think your being a bit vindicative here.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[shaitand]

Well if we can multiply existing cells there is no further need to destroy anymore embryos to harvest more cells.

I seriously doubt anyone would claim the cells themselves are somehow more sacred if taken from an embryo than a human. The debate is whether it is ethical to destroy embryos to harvest said cells. As long as we can reproduce the cells already harvested destroying embryos could be outlawed from this point forward and stem cell research could continue unhindered.

After all, how is a stem cell in itself anymore sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell? Claiming an embryo is life is one thing, claiming that individual cells taken from an embryo have souls is even more of a stretch.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Dcnjoe60]

Well if we can multiply existing cells there is no further need to destroy anymore embryos to harvest more cells.

I seriously doubt anyone would claim the cells themselves are somehow more sacred if taken from an embryo than a human. The debate is whether it is ethical to destroy embryos to harvest said cells. As long as we can reproduce the cells already harvested destroying embryos could be outlawed from this point forward and stem cell research could continue unhindered.

That is effectively what Bush did when he allowed government funding to be used for embryonic stem cells. Only those lines already in existance could get research grants.

What has occurred though, is that the lines are not as useful as first thought and they can not be multiplied indefinately.

After all, how is a stem cell in itself anymore sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell? Claiming an embryo is life is one thing, claiming that individual cells taken from an embryo have souls is even more of a stretch.

That is the point, the stem cell itself is not any more sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell. The embryo, however, is not the stem cell and must be destroyed to collect its stem cells. In effect, if you accept that the embryo really is alive, then destroying it to obtain it's cells creates the ethical and moral dillema, regardless of any potential cures that could come from it. That is why there is very little opposition to using non-embryonic stem cells (which actually have cures today) and a lot of controversy over using the embryonic ones (which might produce cures someday).

Unlike Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few or the one," if it involves killing the one. At least that is the moral question.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[cagle_.25]

Just to be precise:

The argument is that the current source of embryonic stem cells destroys something that is human life, not something that has the potential to be human life. Now, that obviously raises the question of what counts as human life, but the argument is not over potential.

(It should also be noted that Catholics who are pro-life are often (not always) anti-contraceptive because of their understanding of sexuality. See here for a sample.)

The medical community has never decided that the embyro is not alive. Just because pregnancy is defined to begin with implantation does not mean that the embryo's life is defined to begin with implantation. Obviously, until implantation occurs, the fertilized zygote is functioning as a simple organism, but is not yet attached to the woman. Therefore, she is not pregnant, but the zygote -- well, biologically, it is alive. Tricky? Not really. When the woman gives birth after nine months, she is no longer pregnant, but the baby is nevertheless alive.

The mistake that is commonly made is to think of the zygote's/fetus's/baby's life as somehow being dependent on its connection to the mother. It's an understandable mistake, because up until the last thirty years, the baby could not survive without the mother. But now, live embryos can survive "outside the womb", be frozen and stored, and be implanted into other women and develop into babies. That fact alone shows that the baby and mother are separate organisms that lead interconnected, but distinguishably different, lives.

So: the beginning of pregnancy cannot be used to mark the beginning of life.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[TubeSteak]

I just took a smidge of offense that an original poster seemed cavalier about taking lives of people who, by their very definition, are innocent.

I suggested that? Where?

Maybe you misunderstood my point.

I was only comparing the types of people who are anti-abortion with those who are anti-stem-cell-research.

There is and will always be a small group who considers one or the other to be completely unacceptable in whatever way, shape or form.

I said nothing about embryonic/adult stem cells and nothing about aborting a 3-week old collection of cells.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[lysergic.acid]

Yes, that sums it up quite nicely. I was phrasing it in terms commonly accepted by the pro-choice camp, in which an gamte, fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, etc. are distinct from an actual human being. I would consider human life to begin when the fetus actually starts exhibiting detectable brain activity which I think happens sometime in the 3rd trimester.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[QuantumG]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that regardless of the procedure there will always be people apposed to it.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[gg3po]

Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?

No, but the same people that are against IVF in the first place for the very reason that it results in surplus that must eventually be destroyed will remain opposed to it.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[HiThere]

You've dealt with other "professionals" than I have. If you get furniture delivered, the closest I can usually get people to promise is the nearest couple of hours for when they'll show up. And they're often wrong. Same thing with a plumber.

Now if you show up in their office, that would mean that there should be less variation, and I've generally found that there is, but even relying on the bus schedule is an uncertain thing at best. Sorry, I don't have much experience with engineers, but contractors are notorious.

Now ticket sellers are at their jobs on time, and the same with most clerks, secretaries, receptionists, teachers, etc.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[gg3po]

I just want to point out that it is possible to be against both IVF and stem cell research that derives from embryos, *but* still in favor of stem cell research that uses umbylical or bone marrow cells.

Who actually takes issue with what can be done with the cells? I'd really like to know what or who you were referring to. As far as I knew, all contention really was about where the cells came from.

Re:Interesting Discovery

[asliarun]

Sigh, actually, you're right. I did go over the top. It's just that sometimes this unprofessionalism gets a little bit too much... and i just faced it a few hours ago. Anyway...

Re:Interesting Discovery

[Y2]

Not to seem like I'm making fun of your point, but Scientologists seem to have some moral objection to painkillers during birth.

Er, did you mean Christian Scientists? Different breed entirely.

Contamination

[nativequeue]

It has been shown that an animal based culture medium will contaminate the stem cell line.
Might this still happen in the long run, just contaminated with human molecules, as they mix with the growth medium?

Re:Contamination

[Belseth]

The problem was rejection and posible bad reactions to being exposed to the animal proteins. The human proteins aren't likely to cause the same rejection issues. The real problem now is Bush is demanding that they stick with the small number of existing lines, most of which are already contaminated. They can still experiment in this country but they can't recieve government funds if they use new lines because it upsets the radical base. I think there will be a lot of opposition to treatments being approved because of the same ignorant stance. They are terrified some of the hundreds of thousands of unused embryos might be used to treat the sick. It's about control and they don't care if the donors approve or not. It's a religious issue like many facing the government today. So long as the current administration is in power religion will always trump common sense.

Ummmm...

[TubeSteak]

Should we really be trusting a story from RedHerring.com?

Re:Ummmm...

[msouth]

Heh. You're on slashdot disparaging another site's credibility.

Re:Ummmm...

[bp m_i_k_e]

One of the arguments raised against stem cell research was that it is a red herring, for which a trip to hell would be certain.

Re:Ummmm...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

hould we really be trusting a story from RedHerring.com?

If I recall correctly, Red Herring is a fairly popular venture capitalist rag. So, the answer is a definite maybe, but don't invest in whomever has made this without doing some independent research.

Real Contri

[dartarrow]

FTA: "The scientists hope their findings will help reopen the debate over federal funding of stem cell research in the United States."

the real contribution any stem cell research/findings should at this point be :
1. clearing up its name, after the incident from *that* korean scientist
2. reducing if not totally eliminating legal limitations based on ethical issues.

do these things and you're good to go.

Re:Real Contri

[Stripe7]

None of the stem cells from these clean lines can be used in any Federal funded stem cell research. Bush made certain of that.

Re:Real Contri

[digitaldc]

"None of the stem cells from these clean lines can be used in any Federal funded stem cell research. Bush made certain of that."

Judging by Bush's current credibility, it won't be long before this changes.

Stem-cell green

[penguinoid]

"We describe the derivation of two new human embryonic stem cell lines in... culture that includes protein components solely derived from recombinant sources or purified from human material," reads the paper.

Stem-cell green is people!

Finally!

[pcgabe]

By using this medium all of the concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines can essentially be removed.

And thank God! Now that the major concern regarding stem cell research has been cleared up, we can get on with this vital, life-saving work.

That =was= what all the controversy about stem cell research was, right? Contaminating proteins?

In other news...

[heatdeath]

Chinese scientists have made amazing advances in enabling multiple births, for those Chinese people who want to have twins. Iranian scientists have also genetically modified a pig so that it will reproduce and grow at 5 times the normal rate. Iran's hunger problems will surely end soon.

Re:In other news...

[iendedi]

Iranian scientists have also genetically modified a pig so that it will reproduce and grow at 5 times the normal rate. Iran's hunger problems will surely end soon.

Yea, indeed, since there is such a huge demand for pig flesh in muslim Iran...

Re:In other news...

[counterfriction]

Interesting that they're researching birth proliferation in China...
I thought they were more or less set population-wise

Re:In other news...

[TubeSteak]

I think George Bush will solve Iran's hunger problems fairly soon

Re:In other news...

[hunterx11]

Allow me to describe the situation here in pictorial terms:

. * < - joke
.
. O < - your head
. -|-
. / \

Further research planned

[LameJokeGuy]

American scientists expect further research to lead to breakthroughs in Large and Super-Sized stem cell cultures in the near future.

Re:Orthogonal issues

[mrbooze]

No, the argument that it "encourages" abortion is not strong at all, it's completely non-existent.

Does anyone out there really think that young women are sitting around thinking "Hey, if I get pregnant, I can go through annoying hormonal shifts, then have a painful and mildly risky invasive procedure, then they can use my aborted fetus to do medical resarch! Hooray!"?

People can reasonably have ethical objections to the concept of aborting a fetus for any reason, but it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.

Especially since one of the most commonly suggested sources of stem cells are excess fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.

How about...

[Douglas Simmons]

As cloning advances, perhaps there'll come a day on which it is possible to somehow clone stem cells or figure out a way to get them to reproduce. Impossible?

who wrote this article?!

[dlupyan]

you *cannot* "contaminate proteins"! what contamination in the context of stem cells is that cells may become differentiated due to the way how they're cultured. the essence of a stem cell is that its undifferentiated cell and has a potential to transform to any cell type (muscle, brain, cardiac, liver, etc). With time these cells may loose this totipotency, or their ability to turn into any cell type. Contamination has nothing to do with culturing stem cells in heterologous medium!

Re:who wrote this article?!

[m50d]

The cells can be contaminated with animal proteins. If that happens it makes the tissues unsuitable for implanting into humans (because of rejection).

Re:Orthogonal issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the psychological impact of having an abortion. I doubt there are very women that look upon abortions all that trivially, despite what religious fundamentalists want to believe.

Is it so hard to RTFA?

[TubeSteak]

"All of the concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines can essentially be removed using this medium,"

"We describe the derivation of two new human embryonic stem cell lines in... culture that includes protein components solely derived from recombinant sources or purified from human material,

"Derivation and culture in serum-free, animal-product-free, feeder-independent conditions mean that new human embryonic stem cell lines could be qualitatively different from the original lines

And one more quote for good measure:

The two new cell lines managed to survive without developing abnormalities for four and seven months.

I'm not sure how long you want "long-term" to be, but they must have chafed at having to hold back their paper for an extra 3 months.

Re:Is it so hard to RTFA?

[nativequeue]

I did read the article. The medium gurantees no contamination from animal cells. My question however was, might the human material used contaminate the cells? It took them how long to figure out most if not all existing stem cell lines are contaminated by animal genes?

Re:Is it so hard to RTFA?

[lbbros]

It's not a contamination by genes, I assume that animal proteins in the medium would influence the ability of stem cells to preserve their status. It's more likely that contamination here means proteins that "shift" stem cells to become another cell type.

Re:Is it so hard to RTFA?

[nativequeue]

Thank you very much! This article does shed some more light on the issue.

Re:Is it so hard to RTFA?

[HiThere]

They didn't " most if not all existing stem cell lines are contaminated by animal genes". There was a legitimate concern that some viroid particles might have caused contamination. Concern doesn't equivalence to "consider as a proven fact". There was also some concern that perhaps some of the sugar molecules might decorate proteins differently in different species, and hence in the cell-lines. Concern isn't proof. This is offered as a way to shelve the concern without refuting it. And it's likely impossible to refute it, since we don't yet know all the variables.

Double Woosh

[lock robster]

I wish to give a double whoosh to the two posters above me.
*WOOSH WOOSH*

Re:Orthogonal issues

[quokkapox]

There is nothing wrong with encouraging abortion. I know all you FSM-freaks out there will lend some support to this alternative religion (the Church of Euthanasia). I mean, abortion is one of the Four Pillars, which were written down, indeed first conceived, when Bobby Henderson was still in diapers.

And yes, I did RTFA and the new growth medium may be a helpful contribution to this area of research, although I think it might be better to grow the new tissues within the recipient host body, if that is possible. This is already being done with certain (bone/muscle?) tissues IIRC, but not yet with stem cells.

Re:Orthogonal issues

[parlyboy]

Especially since one of the most commonly suggested sources of stem cells are excess fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.

Leftover embryos from fertility treatments aren't just the most commonly used source of stem cells. They're the only source of embryonic stem cells used in any serious academic or clinical research. Religious right propoganda to the contrary, cells from aborted fetuses are unsuitable for myriad reasons.

Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[peterfa]

I appear to be alone in my opinion.

While I find it great that technology can find cures and whatnot, I find stem-cell research rather unethical. Stem-cell research is using the bodies of wouldbe humans. Now I say wouldbe but in reality these are full human beings. They are hardly developed however, but they have all the components to grow into babies, so they are completely human. Stem-cell research would be taking a body of another human being, and changing it's growth pattern to become part of someone else.

I know that this could allow people to walk, but I think that other methods must be found in instead of Stem-cell treatments.

This is essentially playing God in the worst sense. While many of us might not believe in God, certain, this violates the sanctity of life. Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human?

I know that many of these come from fertility treatment, and would be disposed of anyways. If this were to happen to you, do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance. It would be better simply to not exist, because either way, you wouldn't be conscious, just in the latter you would be worse off.

In the least, Stem-cell research is pretty creepy if you ask me.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Firethorn]

Given the success of cloning, it could be argued that any cell culture could be reformed into a complete animal. We can't do that quite yet with humans, but we're pretty close.

Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human?

Wouldn't be me. Obviously you're a member of the soul on fertilization camp. Which would you rather be? Part of a cell culture that's saved the life of another human, allowed somebody to see, to walk, etc or to be incinerated with half a dozen others as 'medical waste' because you didn't happen to be the one implanted?

Besides, for actual treatment they're more likely to use cloned or artificial stem cells to prevent rejection by the immune system.

Somebody should probably mod this guy up. I don't agree with him, but he's a perfect example of the anti-stemcell viewpoint.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[giorgiofr]

I disagree with almost everything you said but I won't flame you because you are being polite in your exposition. That said, I think there is a big flaw in your reasoning that I want to comment on.

Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human? [...] Do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? [...] Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance.

I am sorry but there is nothing "besides" or "outside" life/living. You're implying the existance of some sort of sentient being who would suffer under certain conditions and would like a different treatment: but such sentient being, by your very definitions of the circumstances (not being born at all), cannot exist. You're kinda condraticting yourself. So, to answer: *I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here. I wouldn't have any problem being turned into a treatment if I didn't exist yet, because there would be no *I* to speak of.
So unless you give evidence that somewhere some soul is crying, right now, because it doesn't want its body-to-be to be turned into a treatment, I will disagree with your opinions.
Besides, I think your opinions, my opinions, and everybody else's opinions have *no* relevance at all and that every scientist should do whatever he likes to do. Cloning babies and engineering planet-destroying death stars... whatever. Then again, I also think they should not be subsidized at all, no matter what they're resarching. This would make all these discussions quite useless.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Will Fisher]

They are hardly developed however, but they have all the components to grow into babies, so they are completely human.

So by this definition i suppose that an unfertilized egg and some sperm is completely human? After all, those are components required to create a human.

Hell, by this definition, a large mound of carbon, oxygen, iron, hydrogen etc. is completely human as well.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Liam Slider]

Stem-cell research is using the bodies of wouldbe humans.

No, it's just using a tiny clump of human cells.

Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance. It would be better simply to not exist, because either way, you wouldn't be conscious, just in the latter you would be worse off.

Better off to simply not exist? There's no person existing there, except the one who got the cells implanted into them to enable them to walk! An embryo may be life, may be human (just cells up until a point)...but it sure as hell isn't a person. Personhood doesn't come for a good long while. And stem cells (which themselves are not embryos) certainly have no personhood, and come even farther from it than embryos do.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[fdiskne1]

I don't disagree with the basic idea of what you are saying. The problem is that you are confusing "stem cells" with "embryonic stem cells". Not all stem cells are embryonic stem cells. The stem cell lines that so far have provided the best results have been stem cell lines extracted from adults and umbilical cords and not aborted or non-implanted embryos. Most people who object to embryonic stem cell research have no problem with adult or umbilical cord stem cell research. Just be sure that when you put forward your argument against embryonic stem cells, you specify embryonic stem cells. Unless, of course, you disagree with ALL stem cell research. In which case, good luck!

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[eluusive]

I know that many of these come from fertility treatment, and would be disposed of anyways. If this were to happen to you, do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance. It would be better simply to not exist, because either way, you wouldn't be conscious, just in the latter you would be worse off.

There's a little red heard on my driver's license that says "Organ Donor", what about yourself?

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Dcnjoe60]

Not to jump into the stem cell argument, but I think you have a precarious position in your argument. You talk about existance and appear to define it as being born. And also imply that you would need to be sentient.

The danger in your argument has to do with those two areas. For if a being must be sentient, does that mean someone in a coma no longer exists? How about the severely mentally disabled? As for being born, does that mean a baby that is two months premature exists, but a fetus still in the womb at seven months does not?

Depending on how you view the being born and sentient positions you pose, you might actually be supporting the original poster. For instance, if you say, well the premature baby exists and therefor the seven month fetus exists, since geography (located in the womb or out) really doesn't come in to play, then what about the six month and 28 day fetus? What about the six month and 14 day fetus, etc. You can take this argument all the way back to the moment of conception, which is what the original poster is proposing -- the embryo used to harvest stem cells is just an early version of the human being that will be born nine months later.

Looking at the sentient argument, since a coma patient is not sentient -- not aware of his/her context in the universe, etc., then is it alright to kill that person? Would it make a difference if it was only a temporary coma? If so, then sentience can't be a defining factor and something else must be.

Anyway, I understand both the original poster's position and yours, however, I just want to point out that your argument doesn't actually refute his (or hers as the case may be).

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[BananaPeel]

What is a stem cell, it is a bunch of DNA with some surrounding cellular machinary. It is the same DNA, give or take, that you have in every cell. Given the correct chemical stimulus and processing you may be able to encourage many cell types into this state. We just don't have a good handle on the cellular biochemisty to be able to do this at the moment. On this assumption it may be possible to create new life from any part of you which has it's full compliment of DNA. In this context, you would seem to be suggest that we should treat everything with Human DNA as a fully fleged human being. Clearly this is impracticle. "Impractical" may seem a strange word but that is how society is. It tries to be practical and it uses money as it's measure. For instance motorway speed limits, knock 10mph off the maximum speed limit and you will save a whole pile of lives, lives are important right you can't put a value on them? However lower the speed limit and people have to move around slower. In the end the speed limit is set at a practicle level even though we know it will cause more deaths than one even 5mph lower. It's practicle How much is a human life worth, well in the UK it depends entirely on how much it will cost to fix it and how much money your regional health authority is willing to spend on that procedure. If they don't have the money say £20,000 for cancer drugs or an operation and you can't afford it either. Then unlucky you are dead. Society always puts a practicle value on things, it may be distastful or distubing to you but thats the way life is. Trying to get every cell treated as a human being just won't fly and is even less likely to do so in the future.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Dcnjoe60]

Are you propsing that all stem cell research is wrong or only embryonic stem cells? Non-embryonic stem cells can come from any number of sources including bone marrow, fat cells, umbilical cord blood, nasal cells, etc. These, non-embryonic stem cells don't destroy an embryo nor require creating an embryo through nuclear transfer to produce them. As such, they are not and never could be a living human being and are truly just cells (just as skin cells and bone cells are).

I only raise the point to raise awarness, because it is from these non-embryonic sources that the real progress has been made in treating diabetes, spinal cord injury, parkinsons, leukemia and a host of other cures and treatments.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[bhima]

I see in the hours between when I read this at lunch and my after work response many people have responded with surprising lucid criticisms of your imagined fears and misplaced objections. I can't help to add a few of my own.

You make a number of statements that are either very vague, mischaracterizations, impropbable, or philosophically faulty... either way they leave me with a lot of questions about how you arrived at your conclusions... actually let me restate that...
Your statements lead me to conclude that you find stem cell research morally wrong on a religious basis and rather than coming out and saying that you are casting about for some hidden horror which precludes any advantage responsible research could lead to.

Your statement "I find stem-cell research rather unethical" do you refer to all stem cell research or is it that you try to incorporate the ethical difficulties of abortion in to all forms of research of stem cells?

Your concept of "wouldbe humans" what do you mean by this? Do you mean, as someone else suggests, a fertilized egg or a more developed fetus and again trying to incorporate the ethical difficulties of abortion into the research of stem cells?

Your assertion that "wouldbe humans" "have all the components to grow into babies, so they are completely human" which components are those? Do you suggest that either a group of cells in a petri dish or an unborn fetus left on their own (without the intervention of an existing "complete human" .i.e. a mother or scientist and without any form of nurishment) eventually some how becomes a "complete human"?

Your statement "This is essentially playing God in the worst sense." and "this violates the sanctity of life" I take this to mean "Deciding which human lives and which one dies" or "Deciding what form a life, based on human cells, takes on". Is this what you meant? How is that different than the decision making of judges, lawyers, solders, &tc that has been going on since time in memorial? Can you say how a god would decide or that a god would never act through a stem cell researcher.

Your question if I were to be a fertilized egg would I find it "ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existence". With what neurons would detect, recognize, and remember this event? Where is the identity that would object to such treatment? How did that identity become linked to those particular cells and not to other cells. Why wouldn't that same mechanism revise the link?

Your idea that "a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existence". I must say that philosophically this is your most bizarre and problematic statement. The my cells in my back seem neither happy, sad, pampered, or tortured. They simply exist and in their existence contribute to my life liberty and happiness. How could they be anything else? Continuing with the example of spinal cord injury treatment... Once a stem cell treatment had been administered the cell differentiate to become nerve cells... Again I have to ask how cells lacking in mechanism to detect, recognize, and record the event retain this information and find misery in it. And after the short time these cells are actually living & active cells expires how and why would the specialized nerve cells carry this misery forward to future generations of cells.

"In the least, Stem-cell research is pretty creepy if you ask me." What I find creepy here are some of the bizarre ideas you bandy about as "reality"

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Faux_Pseudo]

the embryo used to harvest stem cells is just an early version of the human being that will be born nine months later.

s/will be born/has a chance of being born/

Please keep in mind that 50% of all pregnancies result in miscarage during the first trimester. I will leave you to ponder the reasons or ramifications for this but I couldn't let that absolute sit there uncontested.

[ mod -1 offtopic && -1 bad_spelling ]

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[peterfa]

I got one too.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[peterfa]

I would like to see cloning of body parts. Some doctor takes a cell from the patients body, and it grows into the organ that's neede, and that's implanted. Though a long shot with todays technology, the controversy of Stem-cell research would be a thing of the past. Further more, the complications with a donated organ would not exist.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[peterfa]

Obviously you're a member of the soul on fertilization camp.

Yup!

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[dimension6]

because it doesn't want its body-to-be to be turned into a treatment

I had to read that a few times...

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[gg3po]

I agree with you completely with regards to stem-cell research that involves taking the cells from viable human embryos. I'd just like to point out, however, that research that involves cells from umbylical cords or bone marrow avoids the ethical dilema that you present. Neither an umbylical cord, nor bone marrow, if left alone, would ever grow into another human being. Both have shown much promise, as well.

As far as your points on invitro fertilization, I disagree slightly in that I don't think I'd like to be used as a treatement *or* sent back to non-existance, as you put it. I don't agree with IVF for the very reason that it creates viable human beings that it will knowingly have to destroy. There already exists a surplus of living children that need to be adopted and cared for. We don't need to create more through IVF. People are just too selfish to adopt, anymore, I guess.

Still, stem-cell research takes things a step further than IVF by not only taking life, but taking it, and then repurposing it to further the convenience of others. If I were paralized, I wouldn't want to walk again, knowing that I did it by destroying a fellow human-being, no matter how undeveloped he/she had been. You may think this is crazy. I have read, however, that it is fairly common for people that have gone through organ transplants have to endure some very real psycological misgivings about the fact that there are parts of people that are now dead inside of them. The first hand transplant patient even went as far as to request the hand removed for this very reason. In the case of organ recipients it's not even their own fault (organ donors are not destroyed willfully). In the case of stem-cell research, being responsible for the willful destruction of those involved would just be too much.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[gg3po]

*I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here.

Besides, I think your opinions, my opinions, and everybody else's opinions have *no* relevance at all and that every scientist should do whatever he likes to do. Cloning babies and engineering planet-destroying death stars... whatever.

If you feel that every scientist should be allowed to do whatever he/she wants even to the point of engineering planet-destroying death stars, I really don't see why you should mind them turning the fully developed *you* into a treatment.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[gg3po]

*I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here. I wouldn't have any problem being turned into a treatment if I didn't exist yet, because there would be no *I* to speak of.

I think the point is that there wouldn't be any "real, living *you*" here and now if, some years ago, someone somewhere decided to harvest the stem-cells of your embryo so they could grow back the finger they accidentally cut off. Now that you *can* speak for yourself (even though you couldn't then), is that what you would have liked to have happend?

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[peterfa]

Well, if taking your own bone marrow and growing this into a new organ for your own body is what happens, then I can honestly say not only is that not unethical but also a nice way to evade the difficulties that come with organs. I don't like organ transplants, not because it's unethical, but because that person has to take medicine reguraly which puts them at risk to all sorts of problems. Using someone elses bone marrow simply isn't going avoid the doner problem, but will make it possible relieve the deal with a short organ supply...and everything that goes with organ donation.

Re:Stem Cell Research and Ethics

[Dcnjoe60]

Unfortunately, it only works that way in sci-fi. In reality, to clone a body part, you must first create an embryo, either with a sperm and an egg or with nuclear transfer into an unfertilized egg (cloning). Regardless, you have to grow the embryo to create the "body part" you want. Even then, say you are a 40 year old man, a newborn infant's heart will not do you much good. Even with the cloning of the embryo, if the body part needs replaced because of genetics, then the embryo and subsequent organ will have the same genetic defect (using somebody elses nucleus would have the same rejection problems as organ transplants do today).

Regardless, you would still have the same ethical dilemna of creating embryos with the intent of destroying them.

Re:Orthogonal issues

[misanthrope101]

People can reasonably have ethical objections to the concept of aborting a fetus for any reason, but it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.

They want to make sure the field is covered. If you categorically oppose anything related to research involving anything that could have been any part of something that could have, under any circumstances, become human, then you are, in a way, making sure that abortions never, ever have an upside. It's a propaganda war, and generalities are a necessary, though sloppy, weapon. This issue is discussed before church, after church, at prayer meetings, etc, in the context of a strictly binary, good-vs-evil worldview. There isn't a lot of room for nuance and careful hairsplitting. Simplistic ideas that can be concisely and fully explained on a bumper-sticker or a rally slogan are what fills the seats, the collection plates, and the voting box. The position we're fighting against isn't susceptible to reasoning or facts. This doesn't mean that they are stupid, only that they are non-rational(*). They're on God's side, which to their eyes leaves only one other side.

* - Lest anyone take offense, let's remember that there is a rich, proud history of this. "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."

--Martin Luther

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

careful please! ..

[Savage650]

... you *cannot* "contaminate proteins" ..

It's not about proteins being contaminated, but about proteins from the medium ending up in (a.k.a. contaminating) the stem cells.

The original text ".. concerns about contaminating proteins in existing stem cell lines.." is somewhat ambiguous ..

Re:Orthogonal issues

[lysergic.acid]

Well, the problem lies in the fact that:

A pregnancy is considered to begin, by the medical community, when a fertilized egg is implanted into the womb. Thus, morning after pills (Emergency Contraceptive Pills), which prevent this process, are not considered abortion drugs, even though they are often used after fertilization has occured.

However, religious groups and other individuals who base their ethical judgements on religious arguments or appeals to pathos(pictures of aborted fetuses, religious rhetoric, etc.) believe that a pregnancy begins the moment an egg is fertilized. By this definition then, ECPs are abortion drugs, and women who've had sex which resulted in the fertilization of an egg, but which was never implanted for natural reasons, are also guilty of having performed an abortion (on themselves).

It's also worth noting that often when an egg is fertilized and implanted, the woman's body may still spontaneous abort the pregancy, otherwise called a miscarriage, and that this often happens so early on that the woman might not even know that they had gotten pregnant in the first place. Medically, this is called a spontaneous abortion, and about 25% of all women will experience a spontaneous abortion sometime in their life. So I guess 25% of all women are doomed to be murderers.

They already reproduce....

[lbbros]

The problem is not the reproduction of stem cells, but how to have them expand *without* losing their ability to differentiate into any other type of cell (called in biology "totipotency"). I'm not very updated on human stem cells, but for other organisms (mice mostly) you can already cultivate them in vitro. The biggest problem is that they're rather delicate, and they are extremely prone on differentiating into other types of cells.

Re:Orthogonal issues

[lheal]

it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions. [...] Especially since one of the most commonly suggested sources of stem cells are excess fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.

No, it doesn't. You see, even if in reality no fetal tissue were ever used, that wouldn't keep the idea of it from being used as a softening touch to a young woman making her decision. "It's ok, like donating your body to science." Ignorance works both ways.

And the argument is not just about the effect on a woman making the decision, but about the condition of society at large and the respect for life. Experimentation on cells from embryos is no different than experimentation on cells from aborted fetuses; neither will ever live a life. The question is: what's to be done with them? The embryo's legal and moral status is the same as the fetus'.

What's to stop fertility clinics from making just a few more embryos when couples ask for IVF? After all, it's for research. They'll never be missed.

Pretending that your actions don't have side effects takes a special kind of brain damage.

Oh!

[Snaller]

For a moment there i thought it was a tiny stemcell which could predict the future!

Joke

[Clueless Nick]

Do you also find masturbation unethical?

Highschool joke:
=======
(Two spermcells are talking)

Sperm1: I am gonna be a Doctor when I grow up.

Sperm2: Oh yeah, I'm gonna be a *Computer* engineer when I grow up.

(would-have-been-father ejaculates)

Sperm1: Damn asshole! Screwed up my career!!

Sperm2: Goodbye, /.
=======

Your streetcry: Spermcells are (haploid) people too! Prevent cruelty to sperm! Give life a chance?

So you won't ever accept an organ donation, even if your life depended on it. Right? This would stand true also for your wife/son/daughter, wouldn't it?

Get off your high pedestal. Those ants crawling around your feet are people who are suffering. The proposed treatment has only a sunk cost, anyway.

And little do they realize...

[Alpha_Traveller]

...and THUS, The Tleilaxu Masters are born unto mankind...

That's the first thing that came to mind, genetic engineering DUNE style.

Let the Tleilaxu religious furvor begin.

Re:Orthogonal issues

[m50d]

Does anyone out there really think that young women are sitting around thinking "Hey, if I get pregnant, I can go through annoying hormonal shifts, then have a painful and mildly risky invasive procedure, then they can use my aborted fetus to do medical resarch! Hooray!"?

No, but what about the doctor advising her after she becomes pregnant? If he wants to do some research and get a paper published but needs some cells to do it, he has a motive to advise for an abortion even when it may not be in her best interests.

There are better ways to get stem cells

[Anonymous Coward]

There are companies out there that can produce stem cells without the use of baby fetuses, the problem is the government is not informed enough to separate these company from the companies that do use baby fetuses. http://www.aastrom.com/ is a company that produces stem cells for you using your own bone marrow and they have had a few positive human tests around the world (including the US) but everyone is still worried about human fetuses. I just don't understand.....

Irrationality will be the death of us...

[cr0sh]

This doesn't mean that they are stupid, only that they are non-rational

This irrationality, if it continues for much longer, will be the death of the human race. It sickens me to see it continue, here in the 21st century. I am currently reading a book (don't remember the title exactly - something like "Descartes' Secret Notebook"), which I haven't finished yet, in which the author gives a biographical account of Descartes' life, and his struggle against irrationality in the face of the Inquisition. For instance, he wrote a book named "Le Monde", which backed up Gallileo's assertions about bodies in motion, especially that concerning heliocentric theory - but didn't publish it (it wasn't published until after his death) for fear that he would end up in the same situation as his contemporary. Letters between him and Mersenne (a Catholic monk, whom he was close friends with), reveal how Descartes had to couch his language in such a manner so as not to possibly bring the wrath of the Church down upon him (it is twisted to see - he wants to confide in his friend, but at the same time realizes his friend might sell him out). Basically, the book is about what may (or was?) contained in another book, now lost, that Descartes wrote but never published, of which we have but a fragment which was copied by Leibniz (IIRC), after he pursuaded the keeper of the original book (who was entrusted with it after Descartes death) to let him look at it. What was in that original book we may never really know, but the author of the book I am reading details a bunch of twists and turns. It seems a tragic tale. At the same time, a glimpse of the man who was Descartes reveals him to be an amazing character who had many interesting journeys in life.

Will we lose another secret "notebook" this time around? Are there geneticists today who are couching their language, fearing another similar Inquisition? What will we lose, and why, oh why, are we so willing to lose it?! One would think we had learned our lesson after 300+ years!

Re:Orthogonal issues

[FlopEJoe]

...it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.

Does it take a special kind of brain damage to imagine a woman considering getting pregnant to have an abortion to create stem cells if it would save a loved one? I think that's what some have a problem with.

Re:Read the literature...

[RussR42]

Looks like the last word in your post was somehow croped. Wierd 'cause there is a period there. I sure you meant "don't actually work yet."

Re:Orthogonal issues

[mrbooze]

Considering how unreliable it is to get pregnant in the first place, yes, given that said mythical woman could simply donate eggs and sperm to be fertilized in a lab to extract stem cells from, in this mythical situtation where she for some reason needed her own stem cells to save her own child. (Stem cells are very unlikely to have the immune reaction issues a normal tissue transplant would.)

And as an earlier poster said, as far as I know there is nobody working with stem cell lines extracted from aborted fetuses. Abortion procedures are not performed with the eye to proper preservation of stem cells for one.

Double-checking with my wife, who has worked in a genetics lab doing stem cell research, she's not aware of any stem cell lines in use from any sources other than lab-fertilized eggs, and possibly one line grown from umbilical cord blood (which would not have been from an abortion).

Stem Cell Argument is so 2003

[Thecarpe]

What folks are failing to see is that the stem cell argument centered around harvesting stem cells from fetuses and umbilical blood / placenta...gross!

What science is finding is that adult stem cells are just as viable as those found in baby town - we can get stem cells from our own bone marrow, from inside the lining of our noses, and from other places yet to be determined.

People who argue about stem cells now do it just to argue - adult stem cells have no contriversy in the therapeutic realm. Use my marrow to repair my heart tissue. Use my nose lining to repair my liver. No rejection drugs, no unfortunate (dead) donor, no worries. Stem cell research isn't about cloning, and it isn't about killing babies, it's about learning how to make our own bodies work for us...