Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Therapy Causes Tumors
SpaceAdmiral writes, "Using human embryonic stem cells, researchers have cured a Parkinson's-like disease in rats. Unfortunately, the Parkinson's cure causes brain tumors." From the first article: "...10 weeks into the trial, [University of Rochester researchers] discovered brain tumours had begun to grow in every animal treated... By definition, human embryonic stem cells have the almost mythical, immortal power to grow and divide indefinitely as they become the various tissues that make up the body. As a result, scientists have always known that any stem cell therapy could result in an uncontrolled growth of cells that could give rise to cancer."
Why not use adult stem cells? There also the cord blood research to add in, as well. So far, all the research I've been reading suggest these to be the best direction to take and such research is funded at the federal level. And as a bonus, has no real ethics baggage associated with it!
Does anybody else find it slightly disturbing that the "Related Links" section has a "Compare prices on biotech" link?
/.?
What are you trying to sell me today,
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
This is the same thing, in reverse. It's an interesting, frustrating animal result in a pretty good journal, not a crashing doom for stem cell research.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The Republicans are evil and want him dead. Vote Democrat.
established.
Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship, then the ship sinks.
...working with stem cells. There at two major practical problems. The first one is maintaining them -- you look at em wrong and the differentiate (BAM, no more stem cells, just some muscle, nerve, epidermal, etc. cells). The second is that BECAUSE they are so good at proliferating, they are prone to turn into tumors when introduced into the body. That isn't a new concern, it's just interesting that the research described here has actually observed that concurrently with alleviation of the targeted disease state (neurodegeneration in this case). I suspect the "fix" to this is already being developed, since the tissue they are destined to replaced in the brain is usually non-dividing tissue, it may be possible to engineer an 'off-switch' into the cells, whereby cell division could be permenantly disrupted (the tissue created by the stem cells would function as normal). This shouldn't be to hard, but does add to the effort already necessary to even generate patient-specific stem cells. More research!
I could just imagine a pointy haired boss in a dilbert like biotech firm talking up the tumors as an extra "feature" - and make the parkinsons patients pay extra for it.
Just give them that cancer cure for mice and they'll be fine.
Should I be worried that my capcha for this story is "plague"?
This is a partial success. The therapy did what it was supposed to do - it cured the Parkinson's Disease. It's just that the side effects are worse than the disease at this point. But that's a whole lot better news than it not working at all.
Everybody with even a modest understanding of how scientific research goes knows that the road from interesting phenomena to practical application is usually a long and complex one, and that the claims of instant cures for everything from heart attack to spinal cord injuries were exaggerated for the purposes of winning political debate. But when a trial has a partial success, in my view that is further encouragement to continue research.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
...And biology research has been proven to cause disease and death in rats...
Seriously though... It doesn't necessarily follow that the cure (especially a cure that is still in its infancy - 'scuse the joke) is better than the disease, and the idea is to do the research now so that we can use the stem cells to cure terrible illnesses (and repair missing limbs and all the rest of it) without the side effect of the stem cells going out of control.
Of course medicine has side effects. Many of the drugs given to a person on chemo and radio therapy are to keep them alive while the actual cure goes ahead and kills their cancer. As yet we are still learning how to control the stem cells, and they are doing what cells do when uncontrolled: making more of themselves and living life to the full. We'll get better at controlling them if we research them. That's why it's called stem cell research...
Because Stem Cells have been politicised left right and sideways.
Right, Embryonic Stem Cells == Baby-killing.
Left, The right want cancer patients to DIE to prove a point.
Welcome to politics in the 21st century. They both put things in the most extreme way possible.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Whoops. Wonder if they used rat stem cells on rats. I would think using any other species' DNA would definitly cause issues.
From the article: Goldman and his team took human fetal midbrain tissues, in which dopamine cells are made, and extracted glial cells, whose normal role is to support and maintain the growth of neurons. They then cultured stem cells in this glia-rich environment.
I'm sure they have an professional ethecist on board who told them all is well, but I'd say this goes a wee bit beyond the use of stem cells harvested from blastocysts. Where exactly did they obtain "human fetal midbrain tissues"?
I cringe in disgust at how far this slippery slope is progressing...
Even a tumor.
Hot off the press... Reading science.slashdot.org also causes cancer!
The human body is an example of really crap evolutionary programming. Horrible spagetti code with no thought to make things modular. New stuff tacked in using old variables. Functions with multiple purposes.
So when you debug one thing, something else brakes.
God was a terrible programmer. But I guess that's what you get with a tight 7 day timeframe.
OR.... as a method of replacing unhealthy humans/rats with healthy ones... why not allow nature to take its course? Generally speaking, the diseased specimens pass away, and new, healthy specimens are born via procreation. Pretty radical theory, I know. But it's time to think outside the box!
By definition, human embryonic stem cells have the almost mythical, immortal power to grow and divide indefinitely as they become the various tissues that make up the body.
No they don't. Otherwise we wouldn't need to transplant them in the first place.
Why not use the embryonic rat stem cells? Or if they don't have them, why do we?
Let's not assume that the fetus in question was conceived solely in the name of science, ok? There are TONS of pregnancies aborted for myriad reasons after many different durations of pregnancy. This is how society does, and should, benefit. The cure for Parkinson's part, not the brain tumor part.
Michael J. Fox, PJPII, and Christopher Reeve will be cured if you vote Democrat this election. Oh, PJPII and Superman are dead? Well, President Bush should be held to account. We must act, before the next human being dies of some disease that could possibly be cured or treated by science. Republicans hate science.
Scientific American had an article in june talking about stem cells and their role in some cancers.. specificly that some cancers are caused by stem cells in "normal" people going awry. From june SciAm: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B1BE D-0C0A-1498-8C0A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322
Pretty interesting read, IMHO.
We've cured your Parkinson's disease! Yes, yes... a marvelous achievement... we are very pleased!
Mr. Johnson cheers and attempts to hug the doctor
Eh...one thing though... it appears though our Parkinson's cure has caused you to develop brain tumors... so you'll a die a horrible death pretty soon!
This could indicate a fundimental flaw in stem cells. Abnormal growth can lead to cancer which is effectively what stem cells do. It may require a form of cancer therapy to go along with stem cell treatment. Kind of like giving anti rejection drugs after tissue transplants. The trick is not making the cure worse than the desease.
...that blocks the operating cells?
Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you're got a virus again...
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
The problem is, if it requires a fetus of a certain age to come up with therapies... and you have poor women in one part of the world or country and rich people in another part of the world / country. What is stop them from setting up a market where fetuses are created (in women) and then aborted solely for someone else's health and being? There are tricky ethical issues that have to be addressed and science operates, or should operate, within a code of ethics.
Bah, tired of trying to figure out how to turn it into a relevant joke, so I'll just come out and say it: "It's NOT a TUUUUMAH!"
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a major proponent of stem-cell research, has already issued a denial.
Where were you when the voynix came?
TYRELL
The facts of life. I'll be blunt. To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system, at least by men, makers or not, is fatal. A coding sequence can't be revised once it's established.
BATTY
Why?
TYRELL
Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies -- like rats leaving a sinking ship. The ship sinks.
BATTY
What about E.M.S. recombination?
TYRELL
We've already tried it -- ethyl methane sulfonate is an alkylating agent and a potent mutagen -- it creates a virus so lethal the subject was destroyed before we left the table.
Batty nods grimly.
BATTY
Then a repressor protein that blocks the operating cells.
TYRELL
Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you're got a virus again... but all this is academic -- you are made as good as we could make you.
BATTY
But not to last.
There's no ethical baggage with most foetal stem cells either. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the crazy notion that life begins before preganancy...
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
"It's not a toomah."
-- Alastair
There are tricky ethical issues that have to be addressed and science operates, or should operate, within a code of ethics.
Not really. Why not just culture them in a petri dish? Cells taken from ethically acceptable sources, of course. Given the right conditions, you could do it on an industrial scale, surely?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Did't these scientists pay attention when they were kids?
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent a potent mutagen It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
It doesn't say that any of the rats developed tumors in the article. It merely acknowledges the possibility that they could:
But there could be alarming side effects. Each stem-cell transplant also contained cells that had failed to become neurons, and which remained undifferentiated. These cells keep dividing, and can turn into tumours, says Goldman. (The rats in the study were killed before any such tumours developed.)
This is certainly a possibility, but as other have mentioned, we should be more excited that they cured Parkinson's. Later and more long-term studies will show whether or not the cancer risk is real or not.
I agree, and it raises an important question - why are these political parties the only ones we are paying attention to?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
... What do you want first? The good news or the bad news?
Well, the good news is we have cured your Parkinson's disease..........
God Be Gone
Where exactly did they obtain "human fetal midbrain tissues"?
Well now... IANASTR, but I'll go out on a limb and say "from the midbrains of human fetuses", with a pretty high level of confidence in my answer.
I cringe in disgust at how far this slippery slope is progressing...
What slippery slope? We have a significant portion of the population that deliberately aborts unwanted pregnancies. If someday we benefit from the use of their medical waste to cure Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or even just slow down plain ol' ageing - Good for me, good for you, good for everyone!
This doesn't require any sort of moral relativism to accept. It can provide nearly miraculous benefits for no (extra) cost. Sounds like a win/win, even if you take the FUD spewed by its worst opponents (tempered by a small dose of reality).
The fact that it causes tumors I consider an exceedingly inconvenient (if somewhat predictable) complication, but one we can hopefully overcome with continued research.
As an aside, I also fully encourage continued research into adult stem cells... Though not for any squeamish "oooh, no dead babies" line of BS. Nope - Simply for the far more pragmaic reason that tissue rejection doesn't present a problem after the cure itself takes effect.
I was just about to ask you what the hell you are talking about...
Dead things are mineral, or meat. There is nothing magical about any of them. There is no magic anywhere. If you're greatly concerned about the real ethical dilemmas that science occasionally unearths, and those other fancifal false dilemmas you imagine, might I humbly suggest you give up all of the good works that science has created in protest. Since I love my fellow man so much, here's a guide to get you started.
Step 1: GET OFF THE FUCKING INTERNET, AWAY FROM COMPUTERS AND ELECTRICITY.
Step 2: Never make use of any health care beyond tournequets, but including soap.
That you would begruge the gavely ill the promise of a future unburdened by disease for the monsters you imagine in shadowed corners of your safe and undisturbed life says much about your utter lack of character, and reminds the rest of us that what seperates us from the animals isn't our biology, but our capacity for reason. An admirable vice increasingly rare in modern humans. I'm not kidding when I say this: Please, for the rest of us, kill your blood relatives and yourself, in that order.
I place my trust in natural evolution rather than trying to cheat at life and death.
... sure you may sidestep death, but only long enough for nature to catch its breath and come after you with a vengeance.
Its all about a delicate balance, and that balance is an ever-evolving, self-correcting force.
I figure it is a lot like Final Destination
Aren't you guys supposed to be all for the free-market and anti-government intervention?!
Come off it, it's not as if you need a large feedstock, just the occasional infusion to
replace "worn out" lines. Of course you need some ethics, but existing sources acceptable
to many/most (but anti-FSM hardliners) should suffice.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Because they're the only ones that get attention.
Kind of pathetic, isn't it?
The problem is that the political parties feel the need to motivate the "faithful" in this case the extreme right and the extreme left.
Combine that with the joys of Blogs and the current news services and you have our current situation.
Extreme pays in headlines. Take a look at Slashdot sometime. You will fine the faithful that feel that anything the republican party opposes must be good. Of course you will find the exact opposite as well. Almost nobody wants to try and see the othersides point of view anymore.
Other parties? They tend to be more extreme than the ones we have now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Not every attempt at something new works the way you want the first time. The first heart transplant patient didn't live very long. The first medications for aids didn't work as well as what is out there now. That's why this kind of research is done on rats. *cough*eatshitpeta*cough* If medical research stopped the first time there was this kind of result, we'd all still be dying of yellow fever and polio. There are entirely too many people getting their shorts in a twist over this. Sheesh!
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Man, I thought anal leakage was a bad side effect, but I'll take that over brain cancer any day!
This is /.
He didn't say anything but watch it will still get modded +5 insightful.
"Take this object, but beware, it carries a terrible curse"
"Ooo, that's bad"
"But it comes with a free frogurt!"
"That's good"
"The frogurt is also cursed"
"That's bad"
"But you get your choice of toppings!"
"That's good"
"The toppings contain potassium benzoate..."
Good news everybody, we've cured skin cancer with stem cells. The bad news is it gives you testicular cancer. Even if you're female.
Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
Presenting adult stem cells as an adequate substitute for embryonic stems cells is just not true. Adult stem cells lack the ability to differentiate as widely as embryonic stem cells, i.e. they are multipotent rather than pluripotent. I'm sure that you wish it were true because then you wouldn't be sacrificing the lives of people who could benefit from embyronic stem cell research for the sake of some balls of cells. But it isn't true. And that's what this is all about. So-called "pro-life" people are more concerned about non-feeling, non-thinking, undifferentiated balls of a thousand cells, than they are about living, breathing, feeling people. That's just fucked up.
Gee, since embryonic stemcells can cure Parkinson's Disease, but have problems. Doesn't that mean we should do a lot more research?
--
make install -not war
So, now the parties opposed to stem-cell research (who shall remain nameless) have ammunition for their FUD cannon. Great.
It looks like a minor setback in my eyes, only in need of further research and development. After all, it's not like we could expect the so-called "miracle cure" to be perfected overnight.
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Ok... now I know I have been watching to much sci-fi fantasy and anime type stuff because I can't remember whether this was a fact tidbit I picked up or an excerpt from fiction. The line is blurring In my head.
Well anyways I thought cells could only divide so many times over the course of a person's life time. So, from the day you are born your cells are dividing as you grow and age, but eventually your cells stop dividing and you body starts to decay.
Could someone please tell me if this was just fiction? I'm pretty sure if was from some fiction involving immortality but I can't remember where.
What about EMS recombination?
0xfeedface
I really hope I'm wrong but the cord blood mentality seems like an extrememly high pressure sales pitch giving the feeling that the whole process is bogus.
I was really shocked when the pitch was given to me and you literally have 30 minutes to decide if you want to store this once in a lifetime thing "for your childs health". "Don't you want what's best for your child?"
By not paying the $2500 and $250 yearly fee, they make you feel like a bad parent and you've signed the death warrant for your kid that isn't even 24 hours old.
You can be aware of cord blood before you're a parent but there is a switch inside of you that flips the moment you see a progeny that contains part of your code using it's own life support system. That vulnerability is preyed upon by the cord blood companies, hospital staffed photographers, and hospital doctors because "The hospital doctors are better equipped and knowledgable than your own pediatrician." My guess is that they use that pitch to prey on people who haven't picked out a pediatrician prior to delivery.
I can understand people that have a genetic pre-disposition for bad health would want this but I question the validity of the methods of storage, insurance regarding it, possiblilty of `visits` to make sure they still have it, and that the cord blood stored is in fact yours.
We know for a fact that there are cases where stored sperm did not belong to the donors but to the doctor or the technician responsible of storing it. Obvisouly, there have been cases where labeling was an issue. This would be disastrous in a cord blood case if it were a labeling issue.
Another scam (not calling cord blood a scam, I just don't approve of their sales tactics and I question their validity) is Stride Rite shoes. They want to have your kids in shoes before they learn to walk because "you don't want to have your kids feets deformed, do you?" It's funny that they have their own `certification` for Fitting Specialists, like Microsoft has their own certification for System Engineers. I have seen parents with crawling babies wearing Stride-Rite shoes and I know a former 'Fit Specialist' so I know that their tactics work.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Type 1 Diabetes, also known as Juvenile-Onset Diabetes currently has no cure, and stem cell research is currently the best hope. Testing blood glucose levels through finger sticks and taking insulin through multiple shots per day or an insulin pump is a poor treatment - with many long-term side effects and the chance EVERYDAY of having a low-blood glucose episode that may cause lose of consciousness and/or seizures. 1 in 600 kids worldwide develop Type 1 Diabetes and they did NOTHING to cause it - which means the incidence is MUCH higher than AIDS. Stop listening to the christian right and start reading actual medical & scientific journals.
Shady Guy: Psst. You want to buy organ? Fresh and cheap, ready for transplant.
Fry: [points to the eyeball] Ooh, what's this?
Shady Guy: S' X-Ray eye. See through anything.
Fry: Wait a minute, this says "Z-ray!"
Shady Guy: "Z" is just as good! In fact, it's better, it's two more than "X."
Fry: Hmmm, I can see where that can be an advantage. Do you take cash?
Call me cynical but I think that some researches will only lead to more misery and the things they actually manage to save are only a matter of time. I for one believe that nature itself has also a very big saying in all this and while we can all pretend to be "superior" to it things don't work this way.
Just like you have deer grazing in a savanna, and by doing so maintaining the vegetation, you also have predators which hunt the deer in order to make sure only the strong survive and keep things from growing out of control. This leads to weak animals which can breed like wildfire (yet a very small amount survive) and animals which hardly breed (Elephants) when compared to those awesome rates but then again, those have nothing to fear. Not that much anyway
I don't think us humans can keep on fighting diseases and expect to win. That might in the end even turn against us. We can't pretend to stop nature from whatever its doing, and I for one believe that nature itself will make sure that we won't be able to "overpopulate" the planet. So my, perhaps controversal, idea is that even if they would succeed here it wouldn't be too long before some other nasty diseases appears.
This idea is probably not very popular amongst some people but IMO the signs show. This is just one of those, to a lesser extend.
Bah, ethics! No worries, they just need to make sure they use the whole thing. No part should go to waste!
or wait was that hunting deer....
First of all, they aren't cancerous.
Secondly, these researchers went through great lengths to make these cells grow, without understanding exactly what they were doing. And they found afterwards that their method went a little overboard, or perhaps that they were using a bad stem cell line.
Of course, it would be nice if this particular method had worked, but it's not a "setback" in the sense of calling into question the value or safety of stem cells in general.
AFAIK, embryonic stem cells aren't taken from unwanted pregnancies at all - they're taken from frozen embryos (fertility clinic waste) that have never been implanted.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/23/video-claire -mccaskills-michael-j-fox-ad/
I hate to admit it, but Ann Coulter was right! Liberals love to show us victims that tell us things like war is bad and stem cells are good and don't disagree with them, they're victims. So here's the science--Michael J Fox can now have Parkinson's--and cancer! Bravo!
The human body is an example of really crap evolutionary programming. Horrible spagetti code...
Hey, don't talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster that way. He might smite you with his noodly appendage.
Standardized human embryonic (or adult) stem cell therapies for Parkinson's disease are a long way away. Not months, or even years, but I'd bet at least a decade and a half. Why? Because of exactly the issues shown in this article.
In order to have a successful therapy you have to have the following:
1. A disorder sufficiently well-understood that you can identify the missing cells. Parkinson's is sort of in this class, although the rat model is a pseudo-Parkinsonian condition caused by chemical poisoning of the cells of the substantia nigra, while "classic" Parkinsonism is the death of these cells by an as-yet undetermined mechanism. The difference will be crucial as we get to further steps.
2. A way to use stem cells to recreate the missing cells. This is the step that these researchers seem to be taking here, although even with their new efforts nearly a third of the cells they've produced do something else. The "something else" appears to involve generation of tumors, although this is speculation.
3. A way to get the stem cells into the right place, and to encourage them to divide. Again, apparently the researchers here have made some progress.
4. A way to stop the proliferation of the cells when they've reached replacement, without unwanted spread or effects. This is the step that stymied the study in question, and they're just guessing about why this may have happened. Just fixing this in this one study will take a year or two.
5. Repetition of the study several dozen times, with concomitant improvements in efficiency and safety of the technique. Only a madman would take a single study, no matter how successful, as proof that the technique is understood.
5. Safe transfer to human beings. This is a HUGE step, because of the ethical and legal implications. This won't begin until the techniques are well studied in animals. It also won't begin in the United States, not because of Republican politics, but because of the plaintiff's bar. Phase 1 studies of a technique like this will start in nations with weaker litigation factories and more authoritarian government. Think large countries in Asia with a strong drive to modernize.
6. Formal studies establishing the efficacy of the treatment. This will take years and billions of dollars, and it won't start until the therapy is shown to be safe. What's worse, this is the step that will run afoul of that little problem that I mentioned in step 1. That is, we don't really understand the disorder as well as we might, and it's not too much of a stretch to believe that whatever was killing neurons before will do it again. In which case, the treatment will have no long-term efficacy, and unless re-implantation of the cells is no more difficult than an outpatient infusion (which is NOT the case with current methods), it will be considered to have been a failure. Return to step 1.
This is not to say that this research is futile, or even that we won't see interim benefits as we understand these systems better. Like most things in science, the point of doing the research is to discover the unknown, not to engineer the perfect treatment for a single disease. This is a fascinating study and an excellent piece of science.
It was probably a rat fetus.
The ethical problem is that, if the raw material is "medical waste" and the results are successful, how long will it take before the demand out-strips the supply and people start looking for ways intentional generate the raw material? I'm already concerned about the outsourcing of pharmaceutical testing to thrid world countries - whether the test subjects are actually giving informed consent. Are we going to find out in ten or twenty years that these new wonder drugs are being produced by intentionally impregnating women and then harvesting their fetuses?
Before you respond that I'm being ridiculous, do a little research into the blood diamonds mined in Africa or children forced into the sex industry in southeast Asia. People will be "farmed" if there is a market for it, and it cna be hidden behind enough shell corporations that the big biotech firms have plausible deniability.
What, no Pinky and the Brain jokes? Slashdot must be slipping.
"22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
and the Christian Fundamentalists have had lists of names of women that died trying to give their egg cells for stem cell research and therapy. Men and women treated with fetus stem cells do get tumors and cancers, because it is not a perfect process. This is just like cloning, when they cloned Dolly and got a clone that died of old age because they could not reset the biological clock in the genes from the donor sheep used to create the clone.
Nanotechnology may be the way to go, along with bionics and nanosurgery to correct spinal cord injuries and other serious medical conditions.
Right now, as far as stem cell treatments go, they are basically a crap shoot, and even if they do work, you could get tumors or cancer from it later on.
The Chinese are more along in cloning and stem cell research than the rest of the world, maybe we need to team up with them and compare notes?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Reminds me of the story about a new drug that converted cancer cells into beneficial stem cells.
Despite its promise, it was banned when it was shown to cause rats in laboratory cancer.
Lets see... cancer is uncontrolled multiplication and growth of cells.
Stem cells are cells that are specifically designed to multiply rapidly.
Stem cells behaving like cancer, this surpses them WHY?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Maybe funding science shouldn't be one of the mundane tasks of government. Maybe it's a radical, dangerous task, precisely because some voters (who do have rights, whether they are wise or stupid) don't want to face the reality that science reveals.
And before anyone says "well, they should just suck it up and have to face reality whether they want to or not", keep in mind that there are lots of things government could conceivably do, in your name and with your involuntarily-taken tax dollars, that you will disagree with. Some people dislike all war. Some people dislike preemptive war. Some people don't like subsidizing tobacco farmers. Some people don't like subsidizing unemployed single mothers. Some people don't like putting a man on the moon when there are still hungry people on Earth. Some people don't like feeding hungry people when we don't have a man on the moon. No matter who you are, I can guarantee there's some government program that you hate -- and there's someone else who calls your most-hated government program "mundane" and an obviously wise use of tax funds.
We could set an example for using government's power. We could choose to not use it for science, even if we personally agree that science is a desirable and worthwhile. We could say that the only "mundane" tasks of government, are the tasks enumerated in the Constitution -- pretty non-controversial government tasks that very few people disagree with.
If America could do that, then We The People (as opposed to We The Government) would have all the money We want to spend on science, and embryonic stem cell researchers would have all the funding they merit.
But instead, we all want to spend someone else's money on what we want is important. So it's no wonder that we have a government that isn't committed to the ideals of science: we aren't committed to any fair ideals. We deserve this bullshit for as long as we keep voting to use government power against other people.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Unless there's a way to get Embryonic Stem Cells from a fetus without harming it, it does kill a fetus. That's not politics. That's a fact.
The left's argument that they want cancer patients to DIE to prove a point is completely ignoring what the right is saying, and is just political grandstanding. That's because if they start making any acknowledgement at all the something dies during this process completely undermines their whole "a fetus is not a baby" argument, and they'll do anything at all costs to avoid that.
I'll be glad when there comes a day when they can do this sort of research without harming a fetus.
Now, wi
I think we should give credit where credit is due:
Note that we know in mice that blastomeres, put in the right environment, will multiply, organize and create trophoblastic cells (Many of the more promising lines of stem cells have been derived from blastocysts).
It is pretty uncanny that Beard nailed it pretty darn close in 1902, and he probably concluded that it was trophobastic cells because they couldn't get any deeper than that at the time.
transporter_iiDoctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I wonder if we could get cancer cells to work in place of stemcells, hell, it seems like everything we try to do produces them, might as well give them a chance.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
[Again, keep in mind that to isolate stem cells, scientists "peel away" the trophoblast.]
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1227/070.ht ml
Cancer Killer
Radical researchers are onto a controversial idea for stopping cancer: go after stem cells
Peter Dirks uses a talented pair of hands to cut cancer out of the brains of sick children. But no matter how brilliantly he performs, he rarely is able to stop cancer's return; sometimes the tumors come roaring back just months after he excises all visible signs of disease.
This inevitability--of children dying in the face of his best attempts to heal them--got to him. "It broke my heart that we couldn't do more for them," says Dirks, a surgeon-scientist at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children. So in desperation he set out six years ago to pursue a radical new theory of what truly fuels cancer's growth, one that might unlock new therapies and explain why today's treatments often provide only fleeting help.
His concept was so fringy that government agencies repeatedly rejected his grant proposals. Parents of several of his patients kept the research going by donating $100,000 to his efforts; one of the couples even took up a collection at their child's funeral. But this fall Dirks reported a breakthrough that could dramatically alter our understanding of how cancer grows. His revelation, which could take a decade or more to take hold, is the latest in a string of findings that may one day uncloak the key triggers of many different kinds of cancer.
Scientists have long assumed that all of the dozens of kinds of cells inside a tumor are created equal--and are equally deadly, capable of spreading elsewhere in the body to create a totally new tumor. So they focus on chemotherapy that kills as many cancer cells as possible.
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
When the researchers implanted just a couple hundred of these cells into mice, they developed huge tumors and often died within weeks. Other brain cancer cells, by contrast, were incapable of forming new tumors, no matter how many were injected into the mice, Dirks wrote last month in the journal Nature. The more stem cells present, the more virulently the tumor grows:They account for 1 in 4 cells in a glioblastoma tumor, the deadliest type of brain cancer, but only 1 in 500 cells in slower-growing forms of brain cancer, Dirks found.
Some researchers predict that stem cells eventually will be found in most major types of cancer. "It will completely change the search for new treatments and the way we think about the disease," says Irving Weissman, a renowned stem cell expert at Stanford University, who says several big drug firms have taken an interest in the latest findings.
Stem cells are the primitive master cells
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
And what was Beard's Trophoblastic Thesis Of Cancer?
This lead some to say that cancer, rather than being an invasion of mutated cells, was more correctly an "over-healing" situation in the body (admittedly, that is an oversimplification). But there are many that think this is one reason why cancer so easily evades the immune system, which would under normal conditions kill off anything foreign to the body fairly quickly...
Transporter_iiDoctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
It's a quote from the movie BladeRunner.
:)
Roy Batty has managed to find his creator and is asking why replicants have such short lifespans and why the lifespan can't be increased for him.
Googling it will turn up the exact scene if you really want
(Unfortunately for anybody nowadays the whole bit of psuedobabble is quite laughable - the script manages to confuse a whole range of biochemical concepts and is pretty much nonsensical. It's still a great movie, but it does detract from the whole experience when you hear the conversation).
Everyone except for the said fetus, that is.
So my own Shakey's Pizza clone is gonna have brain tumors? Aw, shucks.
SO... I guess my dad harvested his own mother for nothing, all he got was brain tumors? Explains why he's such a dumbass...
Shopkeeper: I must warn you, the doll is cursed!
Homer: That's bad.
Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt!
Homer: That's good.
Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.
Homer: That's bad.
Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free choice of toppings.
Homer: That's good!
Naah, sombody always gets their skull crushed, somebody else gets their fingers broken, and so on...
Who is John Cabal?
had 4 people who work in the back office at a church read this article.
As I assumed, they only skimmed it.
So I went and 'skimmed' it as well.
Here's what I dont like about this article.
They mention human fetal(baby) midbrain tissues and also 'embryonic'(baby) stem cells.
Yet it wasn't clear to any of the skimmers if the stem cells used in this study were actually from fertilized human eggs or dead human babies. We could only assume it was one or the other.
Yes, I know the article says which source the cells were from:
Goldman and his team took human fetal midbrain tissues, in which dopamine cells are made, and extracted glial cells, whose normal role is to support and maintain the growth of neurons. They then cultured stem cells in this glia-rich environment.
But none of the regular everday church secretaries bothered to try to comprehend the entire paragraph.
Also, from a skimmers point of view, it doesnt seem to point out that there are usable stem cells to be found in a living humans body. No need to kill babies to get stem cells.
Articles like this that aren't very clear to the average person and also don't mention adult stem cells probably do nothing but hurt the stem cell agenda. Personally I think if all embryonic and fetal stem cell experiments were put on hold and everyone focused on actually achieving a world changing breakthrough using adult stem cells, then the public might someday be more open to the idea of embryonic stem cell research (I never will).
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits...
It's a lot easier to sit when you don't have giant tumors covering your ass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
God was a terrible programmer. But I guess that's what you get with a tight 7 day timeframe.
And on top of that consider that He had not yet invented Mtn. Dew yet either. No wonder things are a little askew.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is a period in human brain development where many, many neurons are pruned, and many glial cells diferentiate into neural tissues to help control the process and serve as a sort of safety net for mistakes in pruning. Those glial cells are probably ones that, before the pruning proper starts, actually progress down several intermediary steps while still looking superficially like any other glial cells. They may have significant interesting properties as a source of nerve cell replacement tissues. The sole, tiny little problem is the pruning process usually peaks well over a year after birth. Everything you have pointed out about fetal midbrain tissues seems to apply to these tissues as well, except we will have to substitute the word infant for fetus in a few places. It's a good thing your average 2 year old can't pass a turing test over a keyboard link.
Even worse, there some rather spectacular changes involving glial to neuron development in the human brain right about puberty...
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan once suggested that we define human life as beginning when the fetus shows significant brain activity (which is still basically somewhat after the first trimester). This would, as Dr. Sagan pointed out, make the test for human life at the beginning match the definition most civilized nations have adopted at the other end, with irrevocable cessation of brain activity the standard for clinical death.
Does it make any difference to all these posters who are defining the politics of those opposed to midbrain tissue research here on Slashdot, that your definition of Religious Right, Far Right Wing, Bush loving, Scientifically Ignorant Neo-con fodder evidently now extends to include Carl Sagan?
Who is John Cabal?
Reminds me of aspartame. Except that aspartame doesn't have any of the benefits.
Think of it this way: look at how many bits the human DNA has. Each nucleotid pair is one of 4 possible values, so 2 bits. A human has about 3 billion pairs. So on the whole about 750 megabytes or so.
I dunno about you, but I'm thoroughly impressed. _You_ try programming a human in 750 MB, and then you can criticize. I'm talking not only the brain (which is a feat by itself), but also the whole organism there, including immune system, self-healing, metabolism, etc.
I don't even know if it's unstructured. What we have here is some people trying to use that stuff without knowing what it really does or how it was supposed to be used. It's sorta like watching the client PHB trying to just drag and drop a button on a form himself, and then wondering why it doesn't work like he just assumed it would. ("Hey, I dropped a "Save" button there and it doesn't actually save when I click it!") You can't really blame it on the original programmer if it doesn't work that way.
So if I were mean, I'd up the ante and also say "and program it so it also works when some clueless guy later tries to use a human cell in a mouse, in a way that was never in the specs." But let's be generous and skip that. Just program a human in 750 MB, no matter how.
What _our_ engineers (and I'm one, so I'm allowed to criticize) manage today in 750 MB is a stupid text editor or a spreadsheet. We're past even just structured programming. Now we pack everything in layers upon layers of frameworks, EJBs, factories, decorators, managers (the pattern, not the PHB), events, SOAP, JMS, etc, just because it's _fashionable_ to have one more buzzword on the resume. And, oh, if it's Java, let's add add a layer of introspection too, because it's become soooo unfashionable to just write "myObject.getID()" instead of cracking the class open the class at runtime and reaching in its internals.
Let me stress again: this crap doesn't even have to do with OOP or with structured programming any more, and in fact sometimes _prevents_ proper OOP. Project after project I run into crap designs where you _can't_ use OOP, e.g. define a simple subclass of something, because for example there's an EJB layer in the way and the other end wouldn't know how to deserialize your modified objects. Or because all the data objects are generated from some XML definitions -- and I don't just mean the stuff that'll get persisted in the database, but really internal data objects -- just because someone thought it's _cooler_ to write an XML and run a third-party generator than to just write the fucking member definitions and ask Eclipse to make getters and setters for them. And as a result you can't even attach the relevant methods to them, like you learned in the OOP classes, like attaching a "findChild()" method where it belongs in the tree node, because it would get overwritten in the next build when those objects are generated from XML.
Engineering used to be about having a problem and designing the best solution to it. E.g., you have a river to cross, and you consider whether it's best to build a bridge, or a tunnel, or a ferry, and pick the simplest and cheapest solution that solves the problem. Now we're at the stage where we want to have a "suspension bridge" buzzword on the resume, and we'll cheerfully dig a canal just to have something to build that bridge over. Or detour the road through 3 states to the side so we can find a gorge to build the bridge over. Must have that precious buzzword even if it kills the project. That's not engineering, that's marketting and playing.
Anyway, at this rate we'll soon need a 750 MB framework just to pass the parameters around.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You are certainly correct that there are people within the medical community far more qualified to *understand* issues of medical ethics.
However, with equal certainty, such experts are *not* qualified to make final decisions on these questions. They represent no-one, were elected by no-one, and are accountable to no-one outside their medical specialty.
Whatever you may think of politicians - and believe me, I probably share most of your views - they are nevertheless the only people in a position to make legitimate ethical decisions that bind us as a society. This is almost axiomatically true, because in a democracy, legitimacy comes from the people as represented in the legislature.
So the medical professionals are needed for their expertise, and the politicians are needed for their legitimacy. Medical professionals can't take over this role. What needs to happen is for the two groups to work together.
Whether the U.S. system of government remains structurally capable of allowing this to happen remains an open question, of course.
-Graham
I think the general sentiment is, "Stop the madness from getting worse."
Back in the day, children weren't considered human beings until they could speak. Have an unwanted child? Just leave it on the city walls to die of exposure. Or, dump it in the sewer. Or if you're really old-skool, go to the local temple and sacrifice it.
Now imagine that you're living in this society, but you happen to believe that killing a 1-year old child is murder. It's bad enough knowing that all the babies are dying and there's not a thing you can do about it. Now, the philosophers (scientists of that day) come up with a new use for all those dead babies: cure cancer! live longer! Instead of letting them die of exposure on the city walls or suffocation in the sewer, cut them open and take parts of their organs for other purposes. The babies are dying anyway, so at least we can get some good use out of them, right?
If you really were in this situation, wouldn't you be tempted to cry, "Stop! Wait! Slam on the brakes!"
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Anyone reading the article should be informed that rats are particularly susceptible to tumours. Although the most common form is mammary tumours in post-menopausal females, brain tumours are also well-known problems.
I know this from experience - we used to keep rats as pets.
Anyway even if you just want to be pragmatic a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Where you draw that line is the problem - lots of people are going to complain wherever you draw it.
But if you draw a line somewhere, even though it was difficult to decide a good place for it, if done well, it can make it unnecessary to draw even more difficult lines.
For example if they start doing more and more human animal hybrids: then the question = human or not, murder/manslaughter or not?
Sure there could be some benefits in doing XYZ, but the long term consequences may cost more than the benefit.
I believe people need to know that though every day more and more things become possible with technology, it doesn't mean that all that is possible should be done.
Just because you can build a Big Red Button that when pressed kills everyone else, doesn't mean you should, nor does it mean you should allow such a button to be built.
Lastly, I'm not saying that XYZ research should be outlawed, my main point is that humans as a whole appear to be rushing into things before thinking about the long term consequences. If in doubt, one could choose to do a safer ABC first and postpone XYZ for later - after all our resources are not infinite, and our wisdom is definitely closer to zero.
Too much greed around and too little wisdom.
I can't believe I still have to post this....
Embryonic stem cells DO NOT COME FROM THE WOMB. At all. At any stage. Period. Can I make this clearer?
When you do a procedure called in vitro fertilization (IVF), you extract unfertalized eggs from a woman's ovaries. Note the words "unfertalized", and "ovaries"; no unborn child is removed from the womb.
You then combine these eggs with sperm in a test tube (no special procedure is required to get the sperm, guys are well equiped to provide their own sample). You now have N embryoes outside the human body, which can be frozen to preserve them.
You take some of those fertilized eggs and implant them back into a host body (often the same woman who donated the unfertilized eggs, but not always). If the first batch takes, then you're still left with (N - variable number) embryoes in a test tube in the freezer. Those embryoes are destined for the medical trash can. The "mother" is already pregnant at this stage, so the leftovers are no longer needed. Usually they're discarded as medical waste, but in the case of stem cell research, they're instead used to provide embryonic stem cells. Then they're still discarded as medical waste, the same way they would be if no stem cell research existed.
Got it? No fetus was aborted from the womb, as it was never in there in the first place. There is no abortion involved at any stage, according to the legal, technical, and generally understood meaning of "abortion". No pregancy was terminated.
Now, some folks believe life begins at conception. They have every right to oppose stem cell research, but they should also oppose IVF, since a much larger number of "lives" will get flushed down the drain with or without stem cell extraction first. Some people who are inforned about the issues do in fact oppose both, but they're in the minority, and they aren't motivated by politics. Politicians gloss over these facts because facts are often inconvienient for their goals of getting elected.
People who only oppose abortion when the embryo has a chance to develop into a child, for example, should have no ethical problem with stem cell research. However they do have a problem because politicians have lied to them. They've been told that stem cells come from abortion. This lie is so widely believed that it's polarized the entire debate. It's even more amazing that somebody who supports stem cell reseach would fall for this.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
OK, now when you look at it, it is at least on par with organ donation - used up embrionic stem cell does not die (not immediately, at least) - it lives in new host and it has own (cellular) offsprings.
Before you respond that I'm being ridiculous
I don't consider your point ridiculous at all! We made it to the top of the food chain by evolving as the most savage, brutal, but somewhat intelligent creatures on the planet. If our savagery can still give us an edge in the modern world, I have no doubt we haven't forgotten it.
However, we look at this slightly differently... While you fear that success in curing some diseases with stem cells might lead to fetus-farming and thus research should stop (or greatly slow down with massive hindering oversight), I consider more research with more public funding the best way to avoid that gruesome future.
Also, something people often overlook on this issue, stem cells interest the world of medical science precisely for their ability to divide and remain undiferentiated. Even if we don't need to use them to establish a "line" that can remain viable for several decades as we do today due to the scarcity of new lines, we can certainly carry them on long enough to grow therapeutically-sufficient quantities from just a few dozen new lines per year (far lower than the tens of thousands physically, but not legally, available).
I have good news... and I have bad news.
I'm seeing a lot of criticism in this thread that seems to read like --it's all been tried and there is no question it's a complete failure, let's move on.
In light of this defeatism, I'd like to remind the readership that the first time in the history of recorded human research that a human embryonic stem cell was induced to reproduce outside of the human body was in . . .
1998
1998. The advent of this technology that could potentially transform human existnce far beyond anything remotely close is about as old as the Linux 2.2 kernel.
I'd say it's a bit transparently political to go around touting the failure of embryonic stem cell therapy.
shouldn't they be using rat embryonic stem cells seeing as they're working with rats? Seems to me there would be less of a chance for the cells to grow uncontrollably if they did.
I agree, that makes very little sense (to my untrained mind) to use human stem cells in rats. I would like to know if rat stem cells would work the same way, or if they are even available, but I assume that rats have similar embryonic stages.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Okay. So what exactly are Stem Cells?
.
Stem Cells are "un-programmed" cells which can become any kind of cell in an organism. They are full of possibility! --As the organism grows, cells branch away (from the stem) to differentiate into eyeball cells, fingernail cells, knee cap or elbow cells. The medical community is excited about them, because you can use stem cells with their vast potential to regrow damaged organs. How wonderful!
The 'Big Problem', as it has been sold by the media and medical P.R. firms works like this. .
You can only get stem cells from babies or fetuses, where they still exist and have not yet differentiated. Why? Because, we are told, a cell once it has branched off to become an eyeball or an elbow, once it has differentiated, cannot de-differentiate. It's stuck as an eyeball or an elbow cell. Thus doctors and researchers must go to the source. Babies.
Horrors! What an effective way to keep people divided and in a constant state of uproar.
The only trouble is that it's a lie. Eyeball and elbow cells can de-differentiate. You can recreate stem cells.
--Observe the humble salamander which can regrow whole limbs if they are cut off. New cells split from existing ones and are able to grow into new elbows, arms and fingers. How do they do this? There isn't a storehouse of stem cells hiding somewhere in the salamander waiting to be used in an emergency. Nope. What happens is that when the salamander is injured, at the site of the injury the cells regress into a fibroblastic state, and then emerge as stem cells which then proceed to form the new parts required to re-grow the entire limb. Elbow cells, arm and finger cells. No dead babies required. Cool.
Interestingly, it is also observed in salamanders that when you attach electrodes to the creature's nose and tail, a charge can be measured. Apparently the nose is negative and the tail positive. Okay. And when you injure the creature by cutting off one of its legs, that charge reverses for a period of time until the healing process is well underway.
Um. Okay. That's kind of weird.
At the site of the injury itself, the DC electric potentials also do other strange things, and the cells exhibit behaviors directly related to those changes. Curiouser and curiouser.
And guess what? Humans exhibit similar DC electric traits. The currents are extremely small, but they are there. They are not the same as those in salamanders, but then human cells also behave differently. We can't re-grow limbs, for one thing. But at the site of an injury, our cells also go into a fibroblastic state. Cells stop being elblo and toenail cells and become fibroblastic cells which form into scar tissue.
But what happens when you apply DC currents from an external source? Well, it's odd, but the cells react. Human cancer cells, for instance, start to grow much, much faster. Hm. What else can happen? Well, lots of things, apparently. The human body, and in fact, all living tissues in all creatures, react in a variety of ways to micro-electric currents.
Chinese accupuncture, for instance, is almost certainly based on this. --A metal needle is inserted into a key point on the body, it is set to rotating, (cutting through the Earth's magnetic field, thus creating a small current), and the body reacts in some manner. Place the needles correctly and a variety of different healing effects can be obtained by accupuncture doctors.
Cool. What else can be achieved?
Well, human cells in a fibroblast state can be made to de-differentiate. They can be turned into stem cells. Hold on. Say what? That's not supposed to be able to happen! We're supposed to be in an uproar over dead babies. We're supposed to be distracted through a permanent state of in-fighting amongst ourselves so that we don't have the energy to ever be free of the control systems holding us fixed into place.
Has anybody mentioned this to the medical
There are a few hundred (or is it thousand these days) "snowflake babies" that would like to contest your assertion that those extra embryos have no chance to survive. Usually, an excess non-implanted embryo is destined for the freezer for a time because extracting eggs and fertilizing them is expensive, somewhat risky, and there's pain involved. There are people willing to help those children be born. It's a separate question whether an embryo has rights but rather fascinating in its own right, who gets an unwanted embryo? Why does the biological donor get to maintain property rights?
The non-religious point is that at some point you have to make a bright line of what gets constitutional protection, becoming a "who" and what does not. You have to do this both at the start and end of life and the rules that you adopt should not permit some sick bastard from manipulating things so that people can be driven down into "non-people" status and killed without triggering the murder statutes. It's harder than you think.
The religious point in a bunch of faiths is that it is murder because God said so.
Just because you don't belong to one of the faiths that hold it so does not mean you get to opt out of the first discussion.
There is a very good chance that adult stem cell research will cure parkinsons without brain tumors (which are a known problem of embryonic stem cells in general) long before the brain tumor problem goes away. The brain tumor problem may *never* go away. But you don't see a lot of lefties admit these basic scientific research realities. Their screaming point is built on the sand of an assumption, that embryonic stem cell research is just better. It's an unscientific bet that nobody knows whether it's right or wrong yet.
The right's screaming point that embryonic stem cells = baby-killing is a moral point and a practical marker on the broader question of when do humans acquire and lose their constitutional rights. They might be wrong but they're not making irresponsible bets and taking half the country to the barricades over their speculation.
The right has the better case.
"Cuddle that and you'll never play the guitar again!"
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
What is Irony?
When people claim to speak for God about an issue Bible says nothing about. There is no mention of abortion is scripture, just as God didn't tell his follow to stop exploring science and engineering. Abortion was a common practice (although a really deadly one) throughout the ancient world (even the so called "Christian world"). Its not uncommon for young rape victims to be forced into to arcane abortion practices in the third world, b/c it would shame their fathers. So, in reality, evangelicals are actuall rallying against stem cell research and abortion because their minister said so. People's lives and science are held hostage by right wing "gonadal politics" and outright male chauvanism. (If men had to worry about getting knocked up, there would abortion clinics in Walmart and Home Depot.)
Now, how often does the Bible speak out against poverty and violence and so called Christians supported welfare "reform" and war? Here's a hint -- There are two-four scriptures dedicated to homosexuality and two-four entire books dedicated to the subjects of poverty and injustice in the Bible. Delicious irony.
Now that is a somewhat narrow-minded and bigoted view. You're taking a christianity centered viewpoint, adopting a protestant Sola Scriptura spin on the thing and saying that those who do not conform to that Sola Scriptura spin (the majority of christians in the world, *all* the non-christians) are just making stuff up.
For the over 1 billion Catholics, I say "Tradition and Magisterium", for the 300 Million Orthodox I second "Tradition". The muslims also place numerous restrictions on abortion but in no way rely on the Bible.
Furthermore, there are biblical quotes that even Sola Scriptura protestants use to justify conception as the start of life.
You haven't a clue.
Your concerns are valid, but i think it is defeatist to denounce research on what it MAY bring. Your worried about "people farming", but rembember these are stems cells, controlling how they proliferate and when they proliferate may mean we don't need to "people farm". But even if we end up in your specific situation, we can still figure (ie research) ways around it. Like more efficient techniques to obtain stem cells or UN bans on these "people farms".
Basically, we as humans will work it out.
Vote Libertarian... because you're against the government spending money on things like education. Vote Libertarian... because you're against corporate regulation. Vote Libertarisn... because you want freedom without paying the price.
This sounds like BS to me. Propaganda all the way. I'm sure there is some risk, but come on people, every single animal!!! I think not.
Jan 1, 1901
Dear Orville and Wilbur,
Your grant request to fund research into heavier than air flight is rejected. Misters Santos-Dumont and Zeppelin have already successfully flown controllable dirigible airships, while everyone attempting controlled heavier than air flight has crashed.
You say heavier than air flight shows promise. "But as a U.S. Taxpayer, I would prefer not to have my tax dollars wasted on research that has to date proved useless when there is similar alternative that has been proved quite fruitful to date."
Sincerely,
Gary Walker
Um... don't look now, but I think you missed an important fact. Orville and Wilbur received no federal funds for research. It was a private enterprise. And they made a bundle. Fancy that... all from the private sector.
If we could fly without government grants, just imagine what else we could do without government grants.
Go figure...
Just like always happens. They use adult stem cells "success", they use the embryonic stem cells "tumors".
Hey, maybe once we have a better handle on and understanding of the much more stable adult stem cells we might be able to utilize embryonic stem cells. But right now, it's like putting a 16 yr old in a F1 race car for their driver lessons.
STUPID!
Thank you for helping prove my point.
To put it into perspective the Nazi's did research in to hypothermia and several other ways to die using people from concentration camps. Most scientists refuse to use that research because they feel that it could in some idiots eyes make those deaths seem less evil. I mean all those people did die but at least some good came out of it... Yes a stupid idea but I am sure some where there are some people that will buy it.
The Pro-life/Antiabortion people feel the exact same way about stem cell research. The also fear that if it does look it it could be of some use that companies will create embryos just to harvest stem cells.
As to why they feel that way is simple. They feel that it is a human life. If you want to understand how they can feel this way just wait until a friend or family member shows you an ultrasound and then tell them that no that isn't a baby it is just some tissue.
What ever you do not tell someone that has just had a miscarriage to not be sad because it wasn't a baby. That would be cruel and not worth it to prove a point.
If it is your wife that has had a miscarriage or your baby in an ultrasound then it isn't just a fetus, it is a child. Some people feel this way about all fetuses not just the ones that share genetic code with them.
I know that there are some people that use this debate just for power or to prove a point they exist on both sides. However there are real people that have real feeling both ways on this subject. As I said try and understand why they feel the way they do.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Nevertheless, the person I replied to indicated that (s)he thought stem cells came from aborted fetuses. Ie, that you start with an unwanted pregnancy, you abort, and harvest the cells from what's left. I've run into so many people who believe that nonsense, and I was correcting it here; stem cells come from IVF clinics, not abortion clinics. If you want to oppose stem cell research, fine, but to be ethically consistant you must likewise oppose the disposal of unimplanted embryos at IVF clinics (something that politicians opposed to stem cell research are notably silent on, since being factually or ethically consistant isn't part of their agenda).
The misconception about where stem cells come from is widespread, and the blame lies soley with those who seek to polarize the debate for their own ends (well, to be fair, scientific illiteracy plays a part as well, but you can't very well blame anyone for that). There are legitimate ethical questions to be debated no doubt, but we can't very well discuss them if both sides are so poorly informed that they equate stem cell harvesting with abortion (which is a largely a seperate issue).
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
The Wright bros. plane was a piece of shit. Planes didn't become viable until federal funds were supplied.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Does it really matter whether Terri would have been indiscernable from the pre-injury Terri? Human life is sacred and should be protected. I would think that if Terri had above-average IQ to begin with, and after treatment she had below-average IQ, she would have been OK with that. It beats being dead!
The Schiavo case was more complex than that anyway - her husband denied her opportunities to have treatment which could have been beneficial for her, and had much to gain from her demise - freedom from responsibility of caring for her, money which had been allocated for her care, etc.
IMNSHO, he should have given the money and the responsibility for her care to her mom and dad - who wanted that. He could have walked away and had his freedom. Instead he chose to have her legally killed.
Let me ask you. If you're in a similar situtation, would you want your "guardian" to have you starved to death with no food and no water?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Either you are lying or you are ignorant. If you are lying, I can make stuff up, too! I just don't because I think it's rude and insulting to the intelligence of the person I'm conversing with. If you are ignorant, look up the stuff and get informed, I'm not going to waste my time correcting your ignorance. Thats something you can easily do yourself.
Actually, the major source of the idea that stem cells will be coming from aborted fetuses that I've noticed has been pro-lifers waving around internal memos from inside the abortion industry. Secondary use of tissues from fetuses who have been killed is a big money maker for these clinics and the clinics apparently have been positioning themselves as "stem cell central" when the supply of excess embryos runs out. Some in the industry apparently believe that aborted fetuses can be a low cost supplier of these cells in the bulk quantitites needed for mass treatments.
Keeping the clinics financially viable has always been an important issue for the pro-choice faction while the pro-lifers are all in favor of tight regulation and closing as many secondary income streams as possible to limit clinic marketing and expansion. This is why you see the abortion wars refought by the same people in issue after issue after issue. If there's money to be made in the clinics, both coalitions will reform and clash over any issue irrespective of the merits.
So, yes, fetuses are not currently being harvested for their stem cells. That doesn't mean that abortion clinics have no involvement or financial interest in what goes on.
I don't think I'm lying or ignorant. Aviation technology went through a huge leap during WWI and WWII due to government investment. Radar was invented with federal research. Heck, the internet we're having this discussion on was developed by federal research. I just wanted to point out that the private sector didn't give us modern jets. In order to get huge investments such as this, you can try using patents if return on investment is likely and large or you can use federal grants. I doubt we'd have landed on the moon or developed the bomb without grants.
Man, you really need that seminar!