Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using Liquid Crystals to Guide Stem Cells

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the building-hearts-and-minds dept.

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."

8 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
  2. 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)

  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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!