New Hope for Stem Cell Research

ExE122 writes "A new scientific breakthrough allows scientists to harvest stem cells without harming the embryo. From the article: ''We have shown that we can not only generate stem cells without destroying the embryo, but that the remaining embryo also has the potential to go to on create a healthy blastocyst' said Dr Lanza, whose team's research is published in Nature. Asked if he expected the advance to satisfy President Bush, Dr Lanza said: 'Well, as you know, the President objects to the fact that you would be sacrificing one life to save another, and in this instance there is no harm to the embryo.''"

Comments

off topic, but still...

[Travoltus]

Feminists for Life of America would completely shatter the grandparent poster's parody script (which was quite funny IMO). There are a lot of pro-lifers out there who don't bomb clinics, adopt kids, and who believe strongly in societal safety nets for the working and poor class.

Pro-life liberals outnumber pro-life conservatives but they get almost no press.

Re:Irrelevant

[ILikeRed]

You don't understand the goal. (Most) Scientists do not want to create a clone of an entire person - rather the idea is to clone parts (e.g. organs such as the liver, heart, and lungs) so that people who need a transplant can get a clone of their own heart rather than trying to match something from a dead donor.

For an interesting perspective on the impact of life and culture in the future without the benefit of cloned organs - try reading some of Larry Nivens works. (I think Limits is the collection with the stories of a detective who goes after black market organ harvesters.)

Re:We'll see...

[A beautiful mind]

For the complete picture instead of half-truths (from wikipedia):

In 1995, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel advised the Clinton administration to permit federal funding for research on embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments and also recommended federal funding of research on embryos specifically created for experimentation. In response to the panel's recommendations the Clinton administration, citing moral and ethical concerns, declined to fund research on embryos created solely for research purposes,[21] but did, however, agree to fund research on left-over embryos created by in vitro fertility treatments. At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995 (the final bill, which included the Dickey Amendment, was signed into law by Clinton) which prohibited all federal funding for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells). This prompted the Clinton Administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research.

The bolding was done by me.

Hu, intresting that.

[S.P.B.Wylie]

Technechly, all body cells have two sets, so should all cells be protected? I know that seems silly, but the issue I am pointing out is can you really call something a seperate organism if it cannot, in any way, live outside in another organism? If you remove an embryo from a mother, it would die, just like if it were skin cells you scraped off. Also, if the mother is not in good condition for some reason (injury, malnutrion, ect.), the body will get rid of it, causing a miscarrage. It is totally dependent, and therefore, IMO, it isn't a life yet, just another part of the woman carrying it.

Also, no matter what you do, women will have abortions by inducing miscarrages, often in unhealty ways. By making it illegal, you are trading potential lifes for actually lifes of women everywhere.