Slashdot Mirror


Using Liquid Crystals to Guide Stem Cells

An anonymous reader writes "Liquid crystals, the same phase-shifting materials used to display information on cell phones, monitors and other electronic equipment, can also be used to control the differentiation of embryonic stem cells, Wisconsin researchers say. By using the crystals to mechanically strain the cells, they can prevent the indiscriminate (and unwanted) differentiation common in embryonic stem cell research and therapy. So when you want a bone cell, say, you don't end up with one from the kidney."

104 comments

  1. Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds more like black voodoo magic wizardry to me. If God wants it to be a bone cell, they by His name, it will be a bone cell.

    1. Re:Science? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Funny

      What? You need God to "bone home"?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Science? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds more like black voodoo magic wizardry to me

      BLACK voodoo magic? Why does it always have to be a black thing with you?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, you mean... (whispering) Black Voodoo Magic."

      "Whoa whoa whoa whoa, why is it "Black Voodoo Magic?"

      "No, not in a bad way. It's just to tell them apart because it's... black."

      "Well, why don't you call it Voodoo Magic, and the other one (whispering) "White Voodoo Magic."

      ""White Voodoo Magic?" Heh, that's stupid! I know it's white."

      "Then why do you call the other Voodoo Magic "Black Voodoo Magic?" You know it's black."

    4. Re:Science? by Coyoteold1 · · Score: 1

      Apparently, God decided that we should have brain cells, and our brain cells give us the capacity to learn all sorts of things - including perhaps, how to properly cause planned differentiation of cells in culture.

      And apparently, we are blessed with the free will to choose not to use our brains, or not use them very well.

      To say "No, you should not learn this, if God wanted you to know it or be able to do it already, you'd know or be able to do it," seems silly - if you are toilet trained. We're not born knowing not to poop in our pants, either, but we learn not to do it, and learn how not to do it.

      I frequently hear this kind of argument - "If God wanted it to happen, he'd have made it happen."

      Maybe he's caused things to happen through us - by giving us the capacity to know, to dream, to learn.

      How do you know whether, every time you close your eyes and your mind, that you are not betraying God's plan for you? I'd think, supposing that there is a God, and that there is a plan (and not everyone thinks so), that evidence would be on the side of doing, learning, knowing as the right thing to do. If God does everything for a reason, then he gave us brains for a reason.

      If it is a sin to commit suicide, as many God-fearing Christians believe, because to do so is to turn one's back the gift of life we were given by the creator, then why do so many people seem to think that it's okay to turn their back their capacity to reason, to explore, and to make their knowledge manifest in the world in the form of technology, and craft?

      I'm sorry... I _do_ want to know how our body's cells work and are formed. I do want to know how to create from the very building blocks of life. I do want us to be able to direct our own destiny to a better tomorrow.

      If such learning forces us to also learn the wisdom and foresight to use our knowledge well, I think that's far better than hiding in the closet forever, fearing what we would become if we knew more. Many people are so afraid that we'll all make bad decisions, that they wish to keep everyone in the dark and powerless - fearing what they would do.

      What I'd like to hope that we'll all do is learn how to make good decisions with new knowledge, and choose to do good things.

      Yes, there is a risk, with any new knowledge or technological advance, that people will make bad choices, evil choices in using it.

      That risk is only increased when you limit people's capacity to learn, and limit their ability to ever have the experience of coming into their own power and knowledge. If we all grow up stunted creatures, who have always been kept in the dark, and away from anything sharp, we will never learn how not to cut ourselves.

    5. Re:Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to make a serious comment to all you bible thumping hillbillies. You want to throw out all these verses from the bible that even people who study theology for years do not understand fully.You say stem cell research and the ability to heal is wrong. What is your standing on the transplant of body organs? I guess when you or a family member, friend, or member of your congregation is in need of a transplant you don't pray for them?
      I being parapelegic for almost 6 years unable to walk, go to the bathroom of my own free will, taking so many drugs for pain even this new social security drug plan fiasco won't cover have my own feelings.
      If you're so set against stem cell research and my one hope to ever be 'normal' and walk, drive, go to the bathroom on my own, have and enjoy sex, possibly be free of pain, and maybe even be able to work again then come see me. I will gladly run into you with a vehicle, drop you from a deck with a broken railing, knock you off of a horse, etc. You have no clue what it's like to have your life squashed and being a 1 yr old again learning to crawl, eat, go to the bathroom.
      I bet if it were you or a close member of your family your feelings on stem cell research would changed very quickly.
      We are "human". That in itself is well known for our want to live. So if we give up any chance to live or live normally does that not make us "unhuman" or even "unhumane"?
      Just think about it......

    6. Re:Science? by 2012 · · Score: 1

      The most intelligent writing I've seen on here for a long time! Someone at last speaking sense in this world.

    7. Re:Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said

  2. Lets get this out of they way by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Embryonic stem cells are stems cells that are going to waste anyways. Left over from in vitro fertilization.
    They are from the from the blastocyst stage,and about 128 cells.

    also:
    http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter2.a sp

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to the bible, as well as the Catholic Church, the body doesn't begin life until blood flows through it. The body first has blood flowing through at approximately the 40th day, so using these extremely young blastocysts means that the stem cells aren't living people, thus we can't murder them. So we can use them.

    2. Re:Lets get this out of they way by blurn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe the scripture reference you should use to defend your argument can be found in Leviticus 17:11. Be careful, I agree with you, but this verse (coming out of a NIV Bible) should not be streched to say something it is not. If you found anything else, in any Bible, that can prove what you are saying, please post it.

      It is really ironic, the verse I mentioned was quoted on CSI.

    3. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Easy: just outlaw in vitro fertilization, not just abortions.

      After all, one abortion kills a single embryo, but one in-vitro fertilization kills 100's of embryos for each that is emplanted (and grows into a baby)

    4. Re:Lets get this out of they way by blurn · · Score: 1

      The second verse you posted was dealing with Communion. Look at the context. Communion should not be taken literally to eat the acutal flesh of someone. In my case, as a Christian, that person is Jesus Christ. When someone takes Communion they are recieving a reminder that Jesus Christ died on the cross for them. No matter what someone believes, scripture should be interpreted according to context, and the meaning of the passage.

    5. Re:Lets get this out of they way by metternich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're probably trolling but the second verse refers to transubstantiation. You know when people eat bread and wine during communion? The bread is symbolic for the body of Christ and the wine for his blood. (Or according to some it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ, though not physically.)

      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    6. Re:Lets get this out of they way by blurn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. The person that replied to what I had to say was being kind of weird about the verse. I think he was trying to prove a point by something he didn't understand. I worded it so others that are not Christian will understand what Communion is and not be mislead buy some verse that is confusing. Communion is symbolic. That is what the verse was dealing with.

    7. Re:Lets get this out of they way by AhtirTano · · Score: 1
      The body first has blood flowing through at approximately the 40th day, so using these extremely young blastocysts means that the stem cells aren't living people, thus we can't murder them.

      From a strictly biological perspective...

      ...multicellular living things are the result of the growth and development from one cell.... In this process of development, to what extent is its life that of the cell, and from whence comes the life of the living thing as a whole? There is no distinct boundary. The organic integrated body which grows and develops with an indistinct cell-body boundary is a living thing. Although a fertilized ovum is only one cell, this is the living thing in the nascent stages of the embryo. When people talk about the birth of living things, when the seed sprouts a bud, or the egg hatches, or a baby is born, they regard life as having been added to the body of a living thing. This is just a convenient manner of speaking. In reality, just as the living body does not suddenly appear, the life of a living thing does not abruptly emerge.
      -- A Japanese View of Nature, pp. 16-17
    8. Re:Lets get this out of they way by dancpsu · · Score: 3, Informative

      First Verse in context:

      The LORD said:
      I will turn against any of my people who eat blood. This also includes any foreigners living among you. Life is in the blood, and I have given you the blood of animals to sacrifice in place of your own. That's also why I have forbidden you to eat blood. Even if you should hunt and kill a bird or an animal, you must drain out the blood and cover it with soil.


      It's kind of hard to interpret both what it meant to the ancient Hebrew when it says "I will turn against...". Probably in this context it was something to do with a person will fall to ill health by consuming blood. In the "Life is in the blood" section it goes on to reference the animal sacrifice religious practice of the time. It was important in this tradition to set apart things that were at all unclean, and similarly set apart things that were "holy". The blood here would qualify as being holy all the way back to Abraham when he cut animals in half to enter into a contract with God.

      Second in context:

      Jesus answered:
      I tell you for certain that you won't live unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man. But if you do eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have eternal life, and I will raise you to life on the last day. My flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink. If you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you are one with me, and I am one with you.


      To put this in a little more context, this was the middle of the Passover Seder, probably the second or third drinks of wine. This is the time where the Jewish people were supposed to remember the redemption of Moses and in particular the Passover Lamb (as in the Ten Commandments movie). Jesus, by placing himself in this section of the ritual was taking the place of the sacrificial animal as mentioned in the first verse. Therefore establishing himself as the sacrifice in place of the animal. (And literally being killed the next day on the cross)

      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
    9. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embryonic stem cells are stems cells that are going to waste anyways. Left over from in vitro fertilization. They are from the from the blastocyst stage,and about 128 cells.

      Alistair Cooke's bones were going to waste anyways. Left over from his "Masterpiece Theatre" and "America" days. They were from the adult stage, at which point the human has only about 206 bones.

      In addition, Cooke's body -- unlike the embryos from which stem cells are extracted -- did not have to be killed in order to be turned into spare parts.

    10. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Interfering with the privacy of a man and a woman and the privacy of their reproductive choices is considered insightful? We're doomed.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    11. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think GP is trying to argue that in theory, if abortion is considered wrong, in vitro fertilization should, by exactly the same arguement, be considered wrong. S/he has a point there.

      The real question is whether the abortion is wrong, and the answer depends only on the answer to three additional questions:

      1) Is an embryo in fact a human being, and is it thereby entitled to "life, liberty", etc. etc. --> If "YES", then abortion is murder. No further discussion required at that point. Though we could argue if this murder is justified in case or drunken sluttiness, ruptured condom, rape, etc, it is a murder of some degree nonetheless. If NO, go to Q.2 below
      2) Do consenting adults have a right to privacy in regards to reproduction? If "YES" here, its NONE OF OUR BUSINESS what they do with their sperm/egg/embryo. If NO, goto Q3
      3) Do the consenting adults have a right to reproductive choices? If NO (as most Catholics etc. should believe), then abortion, contraception, anal intercourse, etc. are wrong. If YES, abortion is probably not wrong.

      I think this about sums up the current arguement about abortion. Would be nice if people could sit down and decide once and for all. Hope this helps.

      Personally, I am pretty sure that abortion is wrong as a SUBSTITUTE FOR CONTRACEPTION. If you chose to fuck without a rubber, boo-fucking-hoo. Your reproductive choice is made the moment you decide to take the dick inside you!

      I am not at all sure about other cases yet (e.g. broken condom, rape, mother's health in danger), perhaps you could offer some usefull insight?

    12. Re:Lets get this out of they way by elchuppa · · Score: 1

      so basically when does a pile become a heap?

    13. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos on links, but...
      The embryos do not have to be killed in order to collect stem cells, as this post makes clear.
      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=179690 &cid=14880293
      Also, see the link in GPs post.

      Killing the embryo is somewhat more expedient, so is often done in animal research (but is completely optional!). Human embryos (most often donated from surplus fertility tratments) used for harvesting stem cells are discarded not because harvesting stem cells has to kill them, but because nobody wants those embryos back. Each in vitro baby will give you 100's of embryos that the mother could not possibly use. You personally may request to adopt the embryos either before and after the stem cells are collected; please be prepared to spend substantial $$$ to pay for storage, or even greater $$$ for surrogate mothers.

    14. Re:Lets get this out of they way by sqrt7744 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, no, the catholic church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception, not "when blood begins to flow". Where did you come up with that??

    15. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Abortion is perfectly fine if someone has sex without a condom. As a form of regular birth control, it's not cost effective, and it's a waste of resources. That's the reason why it should be discouraged, not any kind of moral judgement.

      We are our brother's keepers. Brother's keepers don't say things like "boo hoo it's your own fucking fault" to their brothers (or sisters). If someone is choosing to have sex without a condom, there's a reason for that, and in a lot of those cases it boils down to ignorance (lack of proper comprehensive sex education) or immaturity. These are not things that I'm willing to judge people for, and I don't think that if some people make bad judgements that violating the right to everybody's privacy is justified.

      I am not at all sure about other cases yet (e.g. broken condom, rape, mother's health in danger), perhaps you could offer some usefull insight?

      This is what I think. Pro-life can't have it both ways by declaring an exception for the mother's life, or for rape, or for any other circumstances. If that really is a human being, then there's no way it can be legal to kill the child. Even for rape. That 11 year old girl is just going to give birth. The mother of an hydroencephaletic fetus is just going to have to deliver a baby with a head a foot and a half in diameter, though it'll probably kill her.

      The fact that most people make exceptions for certain circumstances is an indication that they aren't really pro-life at all, and they don't really view the blastocyst as a full human being. They're saying that a child conceived by a rapist isn't as human as a child conceived by a husband.

      Now for the insight. I don't know how useful this will be, but here it is. Opposition to abortion is really all about a conception of justice that tries to punish immoral behavior. If you've been naughty, you've got to live with the consequences. If that means that you don't go to college and escape poverty, then that means that you and your child will just have to be poor and like it too. When you're 48 years old, you can think back to that one mistake you made when you were 18 years old and realize that there's nothing you can do to fix it. It's truly an unforgivable sin, and your lack of education and ensuing poverty is all your fault. Nobody helped you because you didn't deserve to be helped (you slut).

      If you were a churchgirl who was raped, then you deserve a second chance, so we'll allow an abortion in that case. Get out of jail free, because this is really about punishing immorality. If you were raped, but you had a history of sleeping around, then maybe you'll have to have the baby after all. You don't have to believe me, just read what South Dakota legislator William Napoli said about the recent SD ban on abortion:

      FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

      BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

      Your sentiment that you hope that everyone could just sit down and decide the issue once and for all is a good one. The problem is that it's already been done, in 1973. Roe vs. Wade was a very comprehensive ruling, and for all the trash-talk that it's received it's an extremely good ruling. Most people have never read the whole thing, and for that we are going to have to hash everything out one more time. Most people have no conception that Roe vs. Wade was predicated on a Constitutional right to

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    16. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're looking for the truth, don't look within yourself... You're the one who's confused.

      Instead, ask the guy who's carrying on about drinking some dead Jewish guy's blood. He'll clear things right up for you.

    17. Re:Lets get this out of they way by AhtirTano · · Score: 1
      When does grey become black? When does day become night? When does the Herring gull become the Less Black-backed gull.

      Redshift shows us that colors are not fundamentally distinct entities. Ring species show us that species are not fundamentally discrete populations. Dusk and dawn show us that night and day are not fundamentally distinct times. In exactly the same way, the lives of embryos and adults are not completely distinct things.

    18. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abstract: she had her right not to procreate, she chose to gave it up, now shut the fuck up and respect the rights of the fetus.

      thank you for your comment; I am not sure if you are trying to flame, or serious; in any case, I will read if closer tomorrow to see what I can learn.
      As I can tell, you decided that a fetus does not have any rights (e.g. to life); this is a valid opinion, though quite different from mine.

      For now, let me just address this:
      This is what I think. Pro-life can't have it both ways by declaring an exception for the mother's life, or for rape, or for any other circumstances. If that really is a human being, then there's no way it can be legal to kill the child. Even for rape.

      In this country (US of A), even an adult human being may be killed legally, under some circumstances. Even though the right to life is guaranteed by our Constitution, there apparently are some exceptions to that (e.g. certain crimes, etc.). So rape, health, broken condom may very well be circumstances that excuse the murder of the fetus.

      Please note that I do not say that a fetus is the same as a grown human being. What I said was that the fetus has some rights (such as the right to life, right to proper nourishment). This would also mean I think it wrong for mothers to use certain drugs that can cross to the blood, such as cocaine.

      To make it clear, in some cases the rights of mother may outweigh the rights of fetus. What is quite clear to me is that mother has a choice, but once made, she has to stick with that choice. Consenting to an unprotected vaginal intercourse is such a decision.

      Once again, you had your right not to procreate, you chose to gave it up, now shut the fuck up and respect the rights of the fetus.

      Didn't make the choice (rape, broken condom, etc.?), well, this could be a different story, I am not yet sure what to make of this.

      How is this unreasonable?

    19. Re:Lets get this out of they way by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      According to many people our 'self awareness' that makes us 'human over animals' is our soul. According to science this happens when the frontal lobes start to gain their myelin sheath, this doesn't happen until several months after birth.

      If the 'baby' has no soul then it is an animal and killing it is not murder.

      At around the age of 10 the their are still large areas of the frontal lobes that still do not have a myelin sheath, and even at the age of 20 the myelin sheath isn't complete. That's probably why we 'mature' mentally as we get older.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    20. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Rolgar · · Score: 2, Informative
      Incorrect, according to both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the host bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ spiritually and physically in all regards except in appearance. The distinction that the matter can look like wine and bread and physically be flesh and blood is based upon the philosophical work of the Aristotle.

      God has proven the point on a few occasions, as the appearance has changed as well, and the priest was left holding a piece of flesh in his hand and a chalace of blood with testable DNA on the altar. Some instances of this can be found at http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.htm l

    21. Re:Lets get this out of they way by jotok · · Score: 1

      I have never read this concept stated so elegantly. Thank you!

    22. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Just a couple comments. I'm not trying to persuade you or flame you. I just answered your question because you asked.

      I've presented information from *both* perspectives in this debate, and offered some analysis on why people believe the things they believe. In other words, I'm talking about *why* people are on a particular side, and I am not really talking much about the particular sides themselves. It's a meta-level.

      Of course, I've interjected my own commentary into it, as I'm pro-choice and pro-privacy. That's not central to what I'm talking about. Pro-life people have said everything that I've said (in different terms) and that's how they formulate their strategies. They take a step up and understand why each side believes what they believe. If you don't do that, you're not going to have a strategy worth much.

      If you're going to argue about abortion here, you're missing the point. I'm talking about WHY you believe a certain way. What core value do you have that drives your conclusion. I can assure you that I also have a core value, and it's different than yours, it's no less moral, and it drives a different conclusion.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    23. Re:Lets get this out of they way by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that one can look at something from the 8th century and assume that the events happened as reported. While DNA can certainly be proven to exist in something, that doesn't mean it used to be bread. And I'm (kinda ex) Catholic.

      Unfortunately, the Catholic church hitched its ride to a saying by Alfred Einstien, trying to explain this phenomenon of Transubstantiation:

      "But if every gram of material contains this tremendous energy, why did it go so long unnoticed? The answer is simple enough: so long as none of the energy is given off externally, it cannot be observed. It is as though a man who is fabulously rich should never spend or give away a cent; no one could tell how rich he was."
      --Albert Einstein, "E=MC2",
      Out of My Later Years

      Einstein was basically saying that matter could exist in two states - the state that it appears to be, and the underlying actual state that it is. This idea is widely critisized, and I believe that Einstien himself even laughed it off in later years.

      However, it is an interesting theory to re-open, now that we have things like molecule-sized silicon-based "quantum dots" which can be manipulated to appear to have the properties of certain types of matter by manipulating electron fields around the quantum dot. Remember that the physical state of matter is represented mostly by the orbiting electrons, including mass and appearance. (Interesting read: Hacking Matter.)

      So if we, as humans, can manipulate quantum dots to take on all of the physical characteristics of a different state of matter, even though it is itself silicon dots surrounded by orbiting electrons, perhaps matter itself is capable of disguising itself.

      It's an interesting place to be, to deny that matter can appear to be something different than it is, and at the same time, be able to manipulate matter to appear to be something different than it is...

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    24. Re:Lets get this out of they way by blurn · · Score: 1

      This is why I think it is symbolic. In the process of Transubstantiation, I believe, that God lets it be a reminder of what the original Supper was about. I do not think that Transubstantiation is some scientific anomaly, but just the process of a small miracle happening that will spiritually strenghten those who take the Communion. I Corinthians 11:23-25, talks about a new covenant during Transubstantiation, not a scientific process.

    25. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 1

      But what about an animal that could evolve into a human? That's a baby. I personally think that there should be an alternative to abortion - like the fetus being removed and artifically raised(though I personally think that everything natural is the best way, it is better than killing them. I have heard some convincing argumetns for abortion, so I still sit on the fence. However, there will always be abortions for more "valid" reasons, and dead embryos, so obtaining Stem Cells is not necessarily a problem.

      --
      EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
    26. Re:Lets get this out of they way by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I personally think that there should be an alternative to abortion - Sterilization from birth.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    27. Re:Lets get this out of they way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      This is what I think. Pro-life can't have it both ways by declaring an exception for the mother's life, or for rape, or for any other circumstances. If that really is a human being, then there's no way it can be legal to kill the child. Even for rape.

      Life of the mother is actually fairly easy to explain. Let's say that you're a medical technician and happen upon a multiple car accident. There are many people injured, but two are injured seriously. You're the only one with medical training. In your opinion, one is going to die no matter what, the other, you may be able to save.

      It's a judgement call. You cannot save both, so you save the one you can. Realistically speaking, this doesn't happen too often today, most of the time either the woman spontaneously aborts or a C-section is performed. Early pregnancies aren't that big of a strain on a woman's resources. They may fail to save the baby, but at that point it's not an abortion. Still, the government deals in 'rare cases' all the time, and it's best to have the law be able to handle it.

      That 11 year old girl is just going to give birth. The mother of an hydroencephaletic fetus is just going to have to deliver a baby with a head a foot and a half in diameter, though it'll probably kill her.

      C-Sections? As for the 11 year old, I personally agree with you, but I'm sure the situation is rare enough that most would be able to find an out of state doctor to perform the procedure, as well as people willing to pay the expenses.

      The South Dakota Law IS bad. Still, it's inhabited by some of the most conservative people in the USA, and I have the feeling that it's more of a statement than a well-thought out law. You also have the whole arguement that only the poorest citizens of North Dakota will be affected. I say 'poorest' because even the middle and upper-poor classes will be able to drive the couple hundred miles out of state to get the procedure, much less the 'rich'.

      The fact that most people make exceptions for certain circumstances is an indication that they aren't really pro-life at all, and they don't really view the blastocyst as a full human being. They're saying that a child conceived by a rapist isn't as human as a child conceived by a husband.

      Allowing abortion in the case of rape is a sort of extended 'health of the mother' exception. I can't help but feel that there's also an element of punishment in denying abortions. You were foolish enough to get pregnent, now you have to deal with it. This would not apply in cases of rape, where the woman did not choose to engage in procreation activities.

      If you were a churchgirl who was raped, then you deserve a second chance, so we'll allow an abortion in that case. Get out of jail free, because this is really about punishing immorality. If you were raped, but you had a history of sleeping around, then maybe you'll have to have the baby after all. You don't have to believe me, just read what South Dakota legislator William Napoli said about the recent SD ban on abortion

      Agreed, however I feel that a specific statutory exception has to be made, otherwise women who have been raped will have an even more difficult time finding a doctor than what they would otherwise have. After all, the doctor is looking at a prison sentence if somebody feels that the rape wasn't tramatic enough to the woman to make the abortion for 'the health'.

      Of course, I feel that abortion should be legal. If people don't want it to occur, they should subsidize adoptions and medical expenses so that women choose not to abort. Not outright forbid it, only to try the mother for child abuse and possibly murder when she throws it in the trash or shakes it to the point of brain damage. I feel that that is the true crime.

      Being a child is tough enough in this life without being unwanted.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  3. what i really want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is to grow a new 19' LCD monitor. can we do that? No? Oh screw Bush and his policies

    1. Re:what i really want... by GundamFan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dude... if you get that to work grow me a 24" wide screen!

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    2. Re:what i really want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why settle for a 30" widescreen LCD when you could clone a Shakey's Pizza?

    3. Re:what i really want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, hello, Bush isn't banning embryonic stem cell research, he just didn't allocate federal funds to embryonic stem cell research, how do you think this study was conducted?

    4. Re:what i really want... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...is to grow a new 19' LCD monitor. can we do that? No? Oh screw Bush and his policies"

      What the hell are you going to do with a 19 foot LCD? Sit in front of it and say "Make it so"?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:what i really want... by chengmi · · Score: 1

      Very nice. Well done. Bravo.

  4. Building Hearts And Minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..from the cells of new life. (Yes, I believe life begins at fertilization).

    Destroying life to build and enhance ours.

    Sorry, but I don't want to be part of that brave new world.

    1. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by GundamFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do not deny that there are ethical issues here. I also think condeming others to death by supressing or crippling scientific advancment is wrong. As wrong as using this reaserch for anything other than life saving purposes. Long and short: your views are valid but you have no right to force them on others or make those who bleave diffrent things sound like monsters. If you don't want to be a part of the "brave new world" then don't.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    2. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by the_humeister · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Technically, life even begins before fertilization since eggs and sperm are living entities.

    3. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Long and short: your views are valid but you have no right to force them on others or make those who bleave diffrent things sound like monsters

      I agree whole heartedly. That's why I think the president's "compromise" was so brilliant. The President did not outlaw embryonic research, he simply won't allow for tax payer money to support getting new stem cell lines from embryos. The President does provide money for research using existing stem cell lines. He is the first president to do so.

      I personally am not against embryonic stem cell research, but I feel that destroying an embryo to get the stem cells is wrong. From what I've read, it seems like adult derived stem cells seems to be the way to go anyway.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Funny how the parent is flame bait, but this is interesting. I'm glad the moderators are living up to the standard of impartiality.

    5. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least he was referencing some source to back up his facts.

      An unfortunate number of Jesus lovers can't quote relevant sections of the New/Old Testament to support their positions. They just take it on faith that the Bible supports their position.

      You can't argue with someone who hasn't put any thought into their positions. Someone who has read background material, will hopefully have thought about what they've read.

      I know "you must be new here" because people RTFA all the time and make ignorant statements, but at least you can point to TFA and say: See, here's why you're wrong.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by bhirsch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The initial comment here was no more grounded in empirical data than the +5 Insightful Linux fan boy postings.

      Out of curiosity, why do people like you dislike Christianity so much? I realize you think its stupid, anti-scientific, etc., but there are many things I have low opinions of without holding hostile attitudes toward.

    7. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, it's because Christianity is the ultimate evil!
      http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/07/one _nation_indi.html

    8. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Don't be a hypocrite- stop eating. You're continuing life from other life.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    9. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      people like you
      And who would that be?
      You don't know me.

      Anyways, I can respect most people who have thought out their positions and are able to handle a discussion on the matter.

      I take a hostile attitude towards anyone who chooses to hold religious or philosophical beliefs without doing some independant thinking.

      I know people who hold (in my opinion) rediculous beliefs for no better reason than "that's just how I think." All their explanation means is that they are basing their belief on assumptions and prejudices they haven't explored.

      If you go back and read the responses to the post you linked, people were able to have a discussion about the merits of that statement. That is something I can respect.

      I respect people who understand their beliefs. A system of belief should never be about blind faith.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by Frangible · · Score: 1
      So where are the facts in your, and all these people attacking Christianity's, arguments? How much background material have you read about Christian support for stem cell research? Guess what: most Christians support it.

      73% of Christians polled by the Harris Group in a large, well-designed study (95% CI) favored it. (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde x.asp?PID=488)

      I'm sorry if a small minority of fundamentalists you see on the local news make us look bad, but why don't you try reading the viewpoint of the mainline, majority body of Christians, like the ELCA? http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/discussion/

      Most Christians are not what you think, and the facts and data support this. It's simply that extremists always make the best news stories.

    11. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..from the cells of new life. (Yes, I believe life begins at fertilization).

      Destroying life to build and enhance ours.

      Sorry, but I don't want to be part of that brave new world.


      ...and thus spake the Crotch of America.

      Thank you, Jebus!

    12. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      A virus is a form of life, when it invades out cells it creates new life, should we ban anti virals? Are you a christian scientist?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    13. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Destroying life to build and enhance ours.

      Sorry, but I don't want to be part of that brave new world.


      You eat food, don't you? How is that different?

      And I agree with the other comments - life begins with the creation of the sperm and egg cells. Sorry, you can't use the biological definition of "life" when it suits you, but not when it doesn't.

    14. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by jcaldwel · · Score: 1

      In that case we should get legislation passed to outlaw masturbation. Does anyone want to join my picket line?

    15. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Correct, I don't know you, hence, the question.

      I suppose the best inference I can draw is that you dislike Christians because there beliefs are unscientific? That gets back to my question, what's it to you? Out of curiosity, what do you think of Islam?

    16. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Destroying life to build and enhance ours.

      Sorry, but I don't want to be part of that brave new world.


      "If God does not understand what we must do here today... Then he is not God."

      Apoligies to the Kingdom of Heaven.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    17. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who believes this and tries to pretend to have a clean conscience is an idiot. If you strangled yourself with your ambilical cord "Butterfly Effect" style, you would still die with blood on your hands from consuming nutrients from your mother.

      Where did your protein come from? Was she a vegetarian?
      What about all the sperm and eggs that were killed in the process of your coming to be?
      Were you your mothers first cycle?
      Were you artificially inseminated and the extra sperm was put in a sperm bank?

      To live is to kill and that's something everyone has to learn to deal with or they are just fooling themselves. Dying with a clean conscience is just dying smug about issues where feeling smug is encouraged. What you value is your own choice, but when you start getting high and mighty about values, you'd better be damn sure about how well you're actually following through with upholding those values if you want to avoid hypocrisy. If you draw the line at human life, you'd better do your homework on what constitutes human life. When you can define that to where everyone can agree you'll have achieved quite a feat.

      I refuse to be a hypocrit so I draw no line. I live my values, do you?

    18. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by Coyoteold1 · · Score: 1

      I suggest that you stop eating any animals or plants them. Oh, and try not to move or speak, because that will cause your body to shed cells, especially epithelial cells.

      And in any case, if a stem cells _does_ happen to come from an aborted fetus, I'd prefer to think of it as life being allowed to continue when otherwise it would have been lost completely.

      Human beings seem perfectly willing to destroy life to enhance their own, when it's convenient, or when they can pretend that other life is somehow less valuable than their own.

      Every time I eat a steak, I'm enhancing and supporting my own life with something that's died. And every time I walk on the land, I am walking on land that was won through the suffering and death of others.

      But it also came from the striving, the dreams, the hopes of those people, living and dead.

      We always are taking when we live. We just need to remember to give back, and not pretend that we're the end product, or that we are _owed_ a living.

    19. Re:Building Hearts And Minds by zopf · · Score: 1

      What do you think about people who donate blood? And what of people who wish their organs to be donated upon untimely death? In these procedures, living cells are transfered from one body to another without causing significant harm to the donator. A single stem cell can be removed from a living human embryo without significantly affecting development. No death of the embryo is necessary. In parallel, if an embryo does die, however, wouldn't it seem ethical and even morally approvable to salvage some of the cells to help those still alive?

      You don't have to be a part of that brave new world, but then perhaps you should be the one to tell the dying and incapacitated that they will simply have to suffer. Stem cell research can be completed without devaluing or destroying human life, and has the potential to bring improved quality of life to millions of people with debilitating diseases.

      Off topic a little, I suppose perhaps you've read about our 'war on terror', or really any other war in human history. If you think stem cell research involves destroying life to build and enhance ours, you should check out what soldiers really do. And for a touch of historical guilt, think about the beginnings of America. We killed ourselves and the British so we could be independent. We dehumanized and massacred the indigenous people so we could take their land. We have a history of destroying life to enhance ours. So let's break with that history and use our new-found knowledge of biology to respect life and enhance it.

      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
  5. And what's so wrong... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...with having a spare kidney growing instead of a stomach cell? If it works, it'll help make NHS food edible. If it doesn't, it'll replace the NHS food altogether.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  6. technology crossovers are funny by mrpeebles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Makes you wonder if 100 years from now, after display technology has moved on to God-knows-what, people think LC technology primarily as some sort of biotechnology, sort of like we think of the radar device in our microwave as being primarily a cooking device, or the mirror as a safety device in cars. Then the moment is over, and you post whatever your view is on the personhood of embryonic stem cells.

  7. "That's strange." by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I could've sworn I was going to have my bone tissues replaced, but somehow my femur feels a lot like a kidney today..."

    1. Re:"That's strange." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... why is piss squirting out of my leg???

  8. Not always... by Upaut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From in vitro fertilization. You can also get these cells from theraputic cloning. Take a good cloning cell (hair folicle or gut work best. Basically cells that divide most often into themselves.), take an egg cell (Or, if your really good, some studies have shown you can get adult stem cells to become a reproductive cell. Though that technology is a bit far behind to work for this example. Ten years from now -or a week, can never tell when an advancement like that will be made- then you could get as many egg cells from your own body, regardless of sex, and for a lot less pain of finding a donor and injecting her with a shitload of hormones, then plunging a harvesting needle into her abdomen... And it would be a "true" clone, with the mitotic DNA being the same.) Make a slit in egg, remove nucleus. Make a slit in donor cell, remove nucleus. Put donor nucleus in egg cell. Apply a small shock to promote healing and division. Wait a few days. Now you have perfect embrionic stem cells that are a match to your own DNA. Do this a few times to ensure you get at least one healthy sample.

    Now you can take these cells, and make new neural tissue, for treating diseases like parkinsons. Or fit into a mold for a new bladder (they managed to make this in dogs), or use the technology of the bladder example, advance it in a few years, and you could make genetically identicle livers and kidneys. Or a new pancreus, good for some insulin goodness, and help the adult onset diabeties.

    --
    3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
    1. Re:Not always... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " Make a slit in egg, remove nucleus."

      That would be the tricky part. No one can do this yet. Suk claimed to, but it turns out he was a big fat liar. On the plus side, this shows that the scientific method of publication works.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Not always... by JakartaDean · · Score: 1
      Or a new pancreus, good for some insulin goodness, and help the adult onset diabeties.
      Not to nitpick, but a new pancreas would be good for Type I diabetics (like me), which used to be called juvenile-onset diabetes. In Type II, which usually hits older people, the pancreas is happily making insulin, but the other cells have trouble using it. My pancreas is as dead as Elvis, so stem-cell based advances would be A Good Thing, in my opinion.
      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    3. Re:Not always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your idea is so 60's. Seriously though, while this is a good idea, and will likely work, this is essentially growing spare parts, then transplanting them. The method you describe will actually result in a human being, who while may be your clone, will have a different "soul", while is admittedly a problem when trying to slaughter her to harvest that heart.

      There is a better way! The ultimate goal of current research is not to grow another human replacement, but to grow cells that when injected into you, will repair/reconstruct any organs that you may have damaged. If you ever played Deus Ex, these will be like those nanorobots (nanites sp?) inside Dentons.
      Except that the stem technology is already here, and does repair extensive damage, including brain damage. One example is in the following article

      The injured brain interacts reciprocally with neural stem cells supported by scaffolds to reconstitute lost tissue Nature Biotechnology 20, 1111 - 1117 (2002)
      Published online: 15 October 2002; | doi:10.1038/nbt751
      http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n11/abs/nbt7 51.html
      Use a .edu proxy if you do not have Nature Biotechnology subscribtion.

    4. Re:Not always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuculus is easy to remove, all's you need is a pipette puller ;0
      I did done it some 20 years ago, as a teeny undergrad, in Xenopus eggs (I recon not much more harder in them Homo eggs?)

      Problem is making the new nuculus work :)

      Megadittoes!

      Billy Bob

    5. Re:Not always... by Asklepius+M.D. · · Score: 1
      On the plus side, this shows that the scientific method of publication works.

      Peer review? Yeah....shame the software industry is so slow to catch on......

      --
      He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
    6. Re:Not always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no you dont grow a human clone to rip it's heart out. you would just grow the heart, perhaps in a pig or the lab, and then harvest it for transplant. no humans are dieing here, in fact one life was just saved by growing himself a new heart

  9. It's only voodoo... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...if the bone cell has a top hat and tap-dances to Live And Let Die.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Screen savers.. by Prince+Lorak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sounds like you could do some pretty cool stuff with screen savers.

  11. Re:Life begins at conception. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just Godwin'd this thread...

  12. Much hype about nothing. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hope the following make it clear that stem cell research of any form does NOT need, or involve, the destruction of an embryo. Current hype is used specifically to harvest the votes of well-meaning, but maleducated populace.

    IMACB (I Am A Cell Biologist), and I suggest you also look some of this up in your college-level bio text, or talk to a bio prof, they will love it:

    1) Absolute majority of stem cells are not people, and cannot be grown into them.
    2) The only stem cells that can be grown into a human being are the omnipotent cells created within the first 2-3 cell divisions past the fertilization.
    3) Any cell harvested after the 8-cell stage becomes pluri-potent, and can grow into adult human tissue, but will NOT form some of the embryonic tissues, such as placenta, under any condition (no placenta-> no new human possible).
    4) Stem cells harvested from tissues of adults are called adult stem cells (d'oh); these are multi-potent, meaning they can only make some, but not all, of the tissues of an adult. E.g. bone marrow stem cells will only make blood cells.
    5) Under some conditions, adult SCs of one tissue type may be coaxed into turning into another developmentally related tissue type (e.g. skin SCs may be grown into neurons). Like cells in 3), these will never directly grow into another human.

    In terms of usefulness:
    1) Adult stem cells are hardest to control, and are least promising for research, but may help combat some types of cancer.
    2) Pluripotent stem cells are easiest to manipulate and will have lots of applications in geriatrics, damage reconstruction, cancer, AIDS, etc. People I personally know have shown that these may be used to treat Parkinson's (in rats), as well as replace ischemia-induced brain damage (a group rebuilt a damaged brain in mice); clearly there are lots more things going on, but application to humans will require volunteers, changes in law, and massive infusions of cash.
    Most importantly, acquisition of these cells does NOT require the destruction of embryos. One could harvest these cells, and the embryo will (to the best of our knowledge) develop normally. Vital extraction is more expensive, however, and does carry some risk to the embryo. Additionally, using such extracted cells will not destroy a human life, since a human cannot be grown from such cells, under any conditions.

    3) Cells from before the 8-cell stage of embryo developments are as powerful as cells in 2), but are harder to control. While these may also be harvested with little side effects (can take one for research, leave 7, and these 7 will still grow into a normal baby), the one cell we take out can also be grown into a baby, hence some might call it "destroying life", but common sense here suggests the original embryo will survive, so "borrowing" that one cell is not killing life.

    Bottom line? Stem cells do not need to involve destruction of embryos. We have the technology to only "borrow" some of the cells from a human embryo, and let it develop normally. The reason surplus embryos (from in vitro fertilization treatments and such) are currently destroyed after harvesting is because whoever donates those embryos does NOT want them back. It is trivial to just "borrow" a few cells and give back the embryos to implant.

    Once again, stem cells !=destruction of life.

    1. Re:Much hype about nothing. Here is why. by tHatDudeUK · · Score: 1

      "3) Cells from before the 8-cell stage of embryo developments are as powerful as cells in 2), but are harder to control. While these may also be harvested with little side effects (can take one for research, leave 7, and these 7 will still grow into a normal baby)"

      As an adult I would be very unhappy to find out one of my cells had been removed as an embryo, even though I may well be a fully healthy adult. I would consider it a violation of my human rights to abuse my existence without my fully informed consent, even if science says I can do without one cell. I'm sure even you as a cell biologist would feel at least somewhat similar.

      You could also guarantee that people who would have had disabilities anyway would be suing people responsible for taking cells from their embryo claiming this in some way caused their disability/problem. They may well win to as surely it would be difficult to disprove their condition was related to the removal of a cell.

      Maybe science should try look at replacing the internal combustion engine and helping the environment!

    2. Re:Much hype about nothing. Here is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IM(not)ACB, hehe, but here goes

      Maybe science should try look at replacing the internal combustion engine and helping the environment!
      I imagine this is being worked on.

      I hear funding is not great with the current leadership and economy. I mean, who the hell cares about environment if the Leader of this great Country does not believe in Global Warming or Evolution?

      OTOH, not all are best at math/physics, and some people may enjoy biology more than engineering. The principle of diminishing returns means that more researches does not mean more progress. Why are you reading slashdot instead of curing AIDS (could be because you cannot do research effectively 24/7, and need a break to stay effective?)

      I imagine writing a good novel, or composing a symphony, or finding a cure for cancer just might be more important than the mileage of your car...

      just my $0.02

    3. Re:Much hype about nothing. Here is why. by Asklepius+M.D. · · Score: 1
      I would consider it a violation of my human rights to abuse my existence without my fully informed consent

      So you're saying we should wait until you're completely mentally and legally competent before performing any medical procedure upon you? IANAL, but it is my understanding that a minor (an embryo is definitely under the age of consent) the parents have the sole rights to grant consent for any procedure whether the child understands it or not. Ergo, as an embryo, your parents would have to give consent in order to "harvest" that single cell. This is no different than the parents giving consent to circumcise their son - losing billions of cells for purely religious/asthetic reasons. I doubt you would have given consent at the time. Oh, and I probably should point out that the vast majority of people don't want to be fully informed about anything.....a state that would require them to assume responsibility for their consent. They'd rather have just enough knowledge to feel empowered while leaving enough room open to blame another party if something goes wrong. The few people who really want to be informed don't wait to be "told" by the experts....they go out and do some (gasp) research on their own.

      Your second arguement on how this could be abused by the legal system is 100% spot on. This is not a valid reason not to proceed with research however. "I'm not gonna even try to cure AIDS because there could potentially be lawsuits that potentially implicate me based on research that I would potentially perform." Armchair science at its best!

      --
      He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
  13. Why we dislike Christianity by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We do not dislike it because it is stupid, anti-scientific, etc. We dislike it because many of the most vocal followers are stupid, anti-scientific, etc AND they interfere with our lives. It's not the holding of opinions that bugs us, it's the actions.
    I can get along fine with a Christian who minds his own business.

    1. Re:Why we dislike Christianity by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      I suppose I see that going both ways. It seems like forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, advocating against Intelligent Design being taught in schools, or advocating for female priests seems like quite a bit of meddling in the lives of Christians. In the defense of Christians though, they think they are doing God's work by saving the heathens or something, whereas anti-Christians who try to meddle with things that are isolated to Christians just seem to be going on their dislike for them. Is it just a tit-for-tat thing or what?

    2. Re:Why we dislike Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      'Isolated to christians'? Excuse me?!

      How is trying to keep a religious, faith-based, totally NON-scientific, unfalsifiable hypothesis (at best) out of PUBLIC, government-funded SCIENCE class 'meddling in the lives of christians'? How is the public school system at ANY school 'isolated to christians'? ID isn't even a 'christian' doctrine, it is an idea pushed by fundamentalist biblical literalists. Even the Catholic church has spoken out against it and in favor of real science.

      I suppose if you consider 'stopping the Inquisition from killing innocent, NON-catholic people' to be 'meddling in the lives of christians', you might have a point - But you don't. As usual, it's the 'christians' who are using their religion to push their doctrine into areas where it isn't allowed or wanted, like public school SCIENCE classes.

      Somehow I have a feeling that the 'forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortions' is a lot of hooey as well, unless said hospital is getting a lot of $ from non-catholics. If the Public is funding the hospital, then the hospital has to act like a hospital, not a church.

      It's positively amazing how many fundamentalist, outspoken 'christians' are willing to lie, cheat, and many other dishonest and unethical things to push this creationist agenda. They've been caught at it over and over and over!

      Look at the Dover trial, and the LIES that the school board was caught in. Blatant, outright lies. Look at the various amendmants and pro-ID 'teach the (manufactured)controversy' pushes that have been going on. First time they push the bill, it's flat out creationism. After that's struck down by the judges, the creintelligent designist proponents do a simple search and replace to push ID instead. Now that the Dover trial is over and the dishonesty and lack of science is made clear, *BAM* 'Teach the controversy!'. It's amazing how quickly evangelical 'christians' will stoop to lying and cheating to 'do god's work'. Here's a hint - if you have to lie and cheat and trick people to get them to go along with you, you're NOT doing god's work.

      Why do some of us dislike christianity? I don't dislike christianity at all. I would LOVE to see people actually living like Christians, loving and treating our fellow man as we ourselves would like to be treated, giving them leave to live their own lives and make their own choices, and judging others (if it has to be done at all) by their ACTIONS, not by their beliefs or skin color or what they wear or whatever stupid reason it is today.

      Unfortunately, nearly every outspoken 'christian' I've ever met has gone on to prove by their ACTIONS that they are using their religion as a club to bully and control others, a shield to hide their real actions behind - not as a way of life.

      You yourself bring up ID, and not as real science, oh no - rather than propose any real study on the subject, you want it taught in schools as indoctrination. Evolution EARNED its place in the classroom by 150 years of empirical testing and real, peer-reviewed, multiply repeated by others of any and every religion and creed and never yet falsified.

      And if we hold ID up to the same standards of testing, what do we get? 'You're meddling in the lives of poor, god-fearing christians, you atheist monsters!'

      Come back when you've got a real argument, shill.

    3. Re:Why we dislike Christianity by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      WRT to Catholic Hospitals being forced to perform abortions, they are now legally required to in Massachusetts. It is not hooey.

      And whose money do you think funds the school districts that want to teach ID? I can promise you it isn't secular humanists. That aside, why is it that the biggest opponents of teaching ID in a handful of schools in the South are Northerners who seem to have it out for Christianity? If these Christians are just dumb and unscientific, what do you care if they teach their children God created them or they came from monkeys?

  14. Did anyone actually read the paper? by idriver7 · · Score: 1

    Although it is possible to envision such wonderful things as being able to tell differentiated cells from pluripotent ones they haven't managed or even tried to do such a thing. They simply showed that Liquid crystals coated with Matragel (collagen more or less) were capable of sustaining stem cell growth. Not entirely surprising since Matragel is the only substrate capable of sustaining hESCs (other than mouse embryonic fibroblasts). It has potential but there is a good reason this paper is in Advanced Functional Materials and not Science.

    "This has limitless scientific possibilities, which means one thing: We must keep Christians from finding out about it." -The Onion

    1. Re:Did anyone actually read the paper? by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      1) Yes
      2) Actually, it has enormous possiblities. Look beyond the fact that HESC are involved.

      Lets take a look at what Palacek is trying to do.

      He was studying how differentiation is triggered by environment. In this case, consider a bone fracture. In a bone fracture, cells start differentiating into cartilage and bone, a process triggered by the reduction in stess on the cell membranes (actually, it is caused by a release of hyaluronic acid isomerase, but stress is the macro cause)

      THAT, has implications way beyond hESC's In the best case, you might considerably speed up wound healing such as broken bones using liquid crystals and some sort of electromagnetic field for positioning them. But liquid crystals could also be used as a form of nanotool for such things as non invasive surgery to clear plaques in blood vessels.

  15. Next thing you know... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    ...they'll be transplanting spare displays from used cell phones into people to save their lives.

    Do you know anybody who's always talking on their cell phone? Have you heard the joke that goes something like, "Did you hear Joe is going in for surgery next week? He's going in to have his cell phone disconnected from his ear." Yeah. That will become reality sooner than you think!

  16. Re:Life begins at conception. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell us - is "benite" short for "benighted"?

  17. in other news... by thisislee · · Score: 1

    George Bush introduces legislation banning LCD Monitors to prevent the creation of animal computer hybrids

  18. No life without liquid crystal by x2A · · Score: 1

    From memory, cell membrane's are made of liquid crystal molecules. Memory's hazy, but it goes something like this:

    ( o = water molecule, => carbon liquid crystal molecule )

      o => <= o o
    o o=> <= o
      o => <= o o (inside of cell)
    o o=> <= o
      o => <= o o
    o o=> <= o
            \ \ \____ inner layer
              \ \_________ charged void
                \______ outer layer

    The chain of carbon molecules forms the skin of the cell, as the charge at one end means that water molecules move to that side. I seem to recall carrots playing a role in it's discovery. You'll have to google for more info, but basically, liquid crystal is "borrowed" bio-tech :-)

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  19. exactly by x2A · · Score: 1

    if you DID cure all disease and disability, there'd be none of them left!!!

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  20. Why do we care? by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a Type I Diabetic, why do we care? Everyone knows that totempotent and polypotent (embryonic) stem cells are a death sentence to anyone treated with them. We know that no useful cures can come from something that kills everyone it's given to.

    Stop the PC crap and concentrate on adult stem cells for a change.

    Andy Out!

  21. Transhumanism and the Singularity Draws Nearer! by netrangerrr · · Score: 1

    I for one can't wait to become one of our Transhuman cyborg overlords!
    Welcome me!

    Where do I get me some of these super stem cells to keep my body young forever, give me the ability to heal damage, a direct mind to Internet implant, and a memory augmentation and storage system, ceramid skeleton, and super-conducting nervous sytem?
    Oooh, and retractable claws!

    --
    "As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  22. What I'd like to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...do these new body parts come with DVI ports and support for HDTV?

  23. Does this mean... by Basecamp88 · · Score: 1

    There is a use for my old Gameboy? Feed in a stemcell, play a round of Tetris, and sell the Kidney I just grew on the black market. Sounds like a good replacement for the whole waking up in a hotel tub filled with ice thing.

  24. Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life... life... Life is the ability to comprehend, build, contribute. This "all life is sacred" bullshit is crap.