Slashdot Mirror


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.''"

13 of 466 comments (clear)

  1. This will probably be modded -1 Troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    It should be modded +1 Insightful.

  2. Re:This is good news... by sgt_doom · · Score: 0, Troll
    Using logic.....what a peculiar idea when one has a psychopath for president.

    [When an individual kills a person, he is called a murderer. When an individual kills, maims or tortures over one hundred thousand people, he is called George W. Bush.]

  3. War Protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    hey're also against most forms of birth control, cloning, and the death penalty,..

    I find it funny that, aside from he occasional Catholic Priest, most of those folks don't protest against wars and have no problem sending our young folks off to a dubious war.

    Where's their outrage over those lives?

  4. Re:A little one-sided by garcia · · Score: 0, Troll

    where's the Left Wing Say-anything-to-get-me-elected-zealot?

    Up there on the stage... Right next to the New-Aged-Right Wing Say-anything-to-get-me-elected-zealot.

  5. Re:Irrelevant by Threni · · Score: 0, Troll

    > This is similar enough to cloning to trigger the same hostility. I don't really see the difference
    > it will make.

    Pro-life people are driven by dogma rather than science and logic. It's a close enough call that it's possibly possible to choose which position they'll take by phoning radio shows, posting to net forums, writing to church leaders etc and putting your side of the argument. Once it's been decided upon it'll probably have enough enertia behind it to become hard to change back without a humiliating u-turn. So probably a good idea to push a pro-cloning (with regard to "soul copying/duplicating") argument now!

  6. Re:Yay! (Sort of) by ArmyOfFun · · Score: 0, Troll
    Ok.... here's practical sex ed.: Don't want a child? Don't have sex.
    That's not education. People already know how to not have sex. Abstinence should be promoted, it should be made clear that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid getting pregnant or an STD. That doesn't solve the problem that a sex drive is innate and not all people, despite all the indoctrination society can muster, will be able to supress or ignore that urge.

    So, given that some people will succumb to their natural desires at some point, what is the better choice, that people have knowledge and easy access to the tools to help mitigate or avoid the negative consequences or that people have none of those tools?
  7. Re:We'll see... by danbeck · · Score: 0, Troll

    What good does the re-examination of the guidelines do if no substantive action is taken? Is this one of those "I feel your pain" moments?

    Your point is -1 Irrelevant and the original point remains valid.

  8. Destroying one life for another? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 0, Troll

    When you harvest stem cells from an embryo, you are not destroying a “life” in the same way you do not destroy a life when you trim your fingernails. An embryo, at the stage stem cells are collected, is just a small cluster of cells. No nervous system, no heart; the thing is far from human. Can we stop letting religious fundamentalists who do not have an ounce of scientific understanding (or deliberately practice ignorance) on the matter frame the debate? There is nothing magical or spiritual about fertilization and the cells which result. The transfer of genetic material does not mean the ovum is suddenly imbued with a “soul.” You might as well get upset over the deaths of the millions of sperm and monthly wasted ovum that do not result in a zygote.

  9. Re:Abstinence - BEWARE OF SIDE EFFECTS by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: -1, Troll

    While abstinence certainly drop the chance of accidental pregnancy to near zero, it also drops you chances to scoring to absolute zero. For most sane humans, this side effect can include damage to normal social life. People who have tried abstinence as a form of birth control have reported depression, compulsive masturbation, a dramatic increase in dull and/or fanatically religious significant others, no significant others, and feeling like a looser for being a 35 year old virgin.

    There's this institution that solves all of the above, called Sacramental Marriage. You should check it out sometime.

    I have found the best form of birth control is a combinatorial treatment that does NOT include abstinence. Liberal condom usage and/or birth control pills with abortions as a final backup has proven to be extremely effective to the point of rivaling abstinence. As an added bonus, these methods of birth control have been shown to have dramatically less side effects and result in far more play.

    Only if you're lucky enough to avoid the 00 on the roulette wheel of life. Unlike Abstinence, none of your methods exceed 99% effective rate- even when used in combination. And their side effects are much worse than you've been told- hormonal birth control and abortions have been shown to cause death at about 3 times the rate of pregnancy, and the condoms available at Planned Parenthood and free on college campuses were shown by Consumer Reports to have a dismal 65% failure rate.

    But then again, that's a matter of good sex ed, isn't it- as opposed to the crappy sex ed available in most public schools.

    There are a variety of choices of birth control out there. Like any treatment plan where you have many options, I suggest giving them all a shot and deciding which one fits you the best. For catholic priests, the abstinence option has proven to be effective and provide minimal interference. For those of us who don't want kids yet don't feel like being 40 year old virgins, some of the other anti-pregnancy options might work better.

    Marriage and actually having a kid being the most effective- as my original message pointed out :-)

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. Re:Yay! (Sort of) by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Troll

    You have to have available birth control because a percentage of young people will gleefully start having sex as soon as their hormones kick into gear...No amount of education will stop this.

    Not true at all. If you bother to tell kids the TRUTH about sex (that it has a specific purpose, procreation of the species, and that when done sucessfully it takes about 20 years, give or take 5 or ten for maturity levels of parent and child) then there's no problem with self control of hormones. For those who choose it, you simply marry them to their significant other, and no divorce allowed until the children are adults.

    And when I say education, I mean education. I don't mean "teach abstinence". I mean "this is sex, this is what goes on, this is what you can catch, and this is how you can do it safely." I'm talking a significant course here, not just a day out of gym class.

    Implying that it can be done "safely" is a lie at best. But the rest I most certainly DO agree with- just be sure to tell the WHOLE truth, not just the recreational half-truth that sex is just intercourse and only takes sleeping together and one night stands.

    The only way to help people make the right descision, is to make sure they have access to all the information. They may go through the whole class and not learn a damn thing, but they have a much better chance than if you'd tried to keep them in ignorance all along.

    Completely agreed. And when you have laws that back that up; requiring people take parental responsibility, then there's no need for birth control at all.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  11. Embryos are not the issue... by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 0, Troll

    This story shows that /. readers are too stupid to deserve to live.

    The issue with embryonic (totempotent) stem cells is that they cause cancer in the patient receiving the injection...EVERY TIME.

    If you can point to one patient who has survived 18 months after receiving an injection of embryonic stem cells, and does not have terminal cancer, I will pay you $100 (US.)

    The only reason embryonic stem cells are being pushed is to make abortion look like the cure for cancer or diabetes. (I'm a Type I diabetic.) I have giveun up home of a cure for diabetes in my lifetime, after knowing that one was only 3-5 years away. The reason I've given up is that the stem cell fundamentalists (pro-abortion NAZIs) have stolen all funding to cure diabetes, and misdirected it towards embryonic stemm cell "research." (Think Dr. Frankenstein, or a doctor at Treblinka in 1944.)

    Andy Out!

  12. Re: So now we submit? by Dudukain · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't understand the point in this. Bush will still hate it because he's afraid of science, and the embryos that are "saved" will just be thrown away.

  13. Re:Irrelevant by deKernel · · Score: 0, Troll

    You sir could quite possibly be the biggest ass here. Because _YOU_ have let your life go to crap does not mean that all should be as bitter as you. Try getting out of your celler, off the liberal blogs, get a job and take control of your life and for God's sake, please stop being a victim to your laziness.