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

Irrelevant

[LunaticTippy]

Pro-life people are generally against cloning. I don't understand the objection if no embryo is destroyed, but it does bring up some difficult issues regarding souls.

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

Not to mention the problem of what to do with the excess embryos after the desired number of offspring has been reached. I don't understand how pro-life POV can accept fertility treatments that generate extra embryos.

Re:Irrelevant

[neonprimetime]

I'm pro-life and voted for GW (a minority on /. from the sounds of it), but I for one would be very pleased and happy to vote for this new stem cell research. As long as it is confirmed that the embryos are not being harmed, I am all for this. I don't have an ethical issue with cloning (although I see it as a major problem if the technology was abused ... just take for example several of the movies that have been released about cloning). I would hope that GW would come out supporting this new stem cell research that does not harm the embryo.

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:Yay! (Sort of)

[distilledprodigy]

I'll have you know that I plan on, and know many "right wing right-to-life zealot's" that plan on, or already have, adopted. We are well aware that if we say adoption is the best option we have to step up and make it possible. You insensitive clod.

A little one-sided

[PrescriptionWarning]

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

Makes sense

[krell]

"Lab Tech 2: "Would you like to adopt one? Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Absolutely not!!! I insist they not be murdered, but I'm no charity, go find someone else to raise it!"

Makes sense.... as much as the idea that anyone opposed to the death penalty being should be required to take death row inmates into their homes.

The word "harvest".

[Anonymous Coward]

The US team, led by Dr Robert Lanza, have now shown that a single cell harvested in this way can also be grown in culture to create stem-cell lines.

I wish folks would stop using that word and find another one. "Harvest" gets a lot of folks riled up and gives them the impression that people are going to be farmed (or whatever) for their parts.

Yeah, yeah, I know that's not the case, but in this day and age of bumper sticker sound bites, that's all people hear and they don't want to investigate further. They'll just jump to the first two-bit opinion that fits or the opinion that was given to them by a pundit and to hell with the facts.

Re:We'll see...

[Lux]

> The President objects to things he doesn't understand.

Clearly untrue! The President has always been an avid supporter of the war in Iraq.

Raises a new problem

[Michael Woodhams]

So you extract stem cells from an embryo, and allow the embryo to come to term, so now you have a baby and a stem cell line. The baby grows up. What rights does this person have over the stem cell line? Can they demand (e.g.) that the cells be used only thereputically, not for research? Can they charge a licensing fee to use them?

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:not the first time I've heard that....

[neonprimetime]

Hmmm, confirmed by an AC on /.
That's reliable.

Re:Yay! (Sort of)

[SatanicPuppy]

So you guys are stepping up and adopting all the unwanted babies? And you're working to reduce the social/societal consequences on young unwed mothers who carry children to term?

I'm pro-choice, but I do think there is a negative moral angle on abortion. I don't think any truly advanced society should have a place for abortion; education, contraception, and societal support for young mothers should completely remove the need for any such thing.

But you know what? The same right wing that preaches so hard against abortion, also preaches against practical sex ed, available contraception for minors, and social services for unwed mothers...not to mention the moral stigma they attach to young unwed mothers.

So don't talk about how you're adopting some of the babies who actually got born...That's the smallest part of what you need to be doing.

Re:Yay! (Sort of)

[Lord Prox]

It is always amazing that given the incentive, science always finds a way to work through the requirements if the application is worth working on.

It is also amazing that we make them work through the requirements at all. It would also be amazing what they could have done if their work had not been bureaucraticly retarded for how many years now? At least they did manage to do it. Give thanks.



Bless Dr Lanza

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.

Re:Yay! (Sort of)

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm not demonizing anyone.

However, I do believe that the bulk of our societies sex issues have a religious root, and I don't think that adding more religion is the answer, especially since their method of dealing with the problem is basically to deny it exists until a child is born.

The first step is to slow down the number of unwanted pregnancies, and that takes education, and that takes contraception, and since the church is anti-sex ed, and opposed to providing any form of contraception, and only promotes the use of abstinence/"Please god don't let me get pregnant", I don't see how getting them more involved is going to help in any way.

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.

Re:Yay! (Sort of)

[SatanicPuppy]

Preaching abstinence is not the answer. It doesn't work. They already know they're not supposed to be having sex...hell, that's probably one of the reasons they're doing it! And if you don't tell them anything besides "Don't have sex" you haven't taught them anything about how to be safe when they actually do have sex. And they will! It's a sad specimen that goes through life with no sex, and very few people wait until after marriage these days.

And economics? To minors who think that money is something you ask your dad for more of? I don't think that'll be a compelling argument.

I don't have problems with those things being taught, but they should be only a small part of the total lesson. Those kids should be taught about sex, they should be taught about rape, they should be taught about many different kinds of birth control AND HOW TO USE THEM. They should be taught about abortions, and how to make sure you don't need one. STDs, abuse, health issues, legal issues, the works, all the stuff that we had to learn the hard way.