Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Bill Clears Australian Senate
jaunty writes "A private members bill has passed the Australian senate which paves the way for the cloning of embryos to gather stem cells. While it only passed by a narrow margin it is expected to gain support in the House. From the article: 'The final shape of the bill is now subject to further debate on amendments including measures to toughen penalties for breaches of cloning regulations, and possibly a move to stop the use of animal tissue in the cloning process.'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6121280.stm
Quite a good way of getting round the shortage in eggs.
Deleted
You do realize that the U.S. Senate and House approved a stem cell funding bill, right? It was vetoed by Bush (the only veto of his entire tenure in the White House). It was simply that the houses didnt have enough votes to override the veto. That may change today.
you know, the idea isn't to grow these stem cells into actual beings. they grow into a group of cells called the blastocyst. consisting of 36 omnipotent cells. these cells can then form into any cell needed, given the proper guidance. thusly creating nerve cells to help victims of paralysis and such. so no there wont be any manbearpigs running around. besides our DNA isn't compatible, because if it was don't you think some lonely farmer somewhere would have goat-boys?
"The average IQ has increased."
Uh, not to be nit picky, but average IQ can't increase. The IQ score is always relative to a bell curve, with 'average' alwaysbeing smack-dab at the 50th percentile (the mean). 200==100th percentile, and 0==0th percentile (both more or less immeasurable).
Now, you could say that the bell-curve's getting humpy at the high end (which it is), and you could say that an IQ of 100 is smarter than it used to be (also true, though most people with higher intelligence but less education never notice), but the 'average IQ' is always 100.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes, etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.
However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.
"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With proper limitations in place, there simply is no reason not to proceed with this type of research. There are many advances that have occurred over time that were fought for what appear now to be "silly" reasons (mostly ignorant fear).
Proceed!
Actually bush was the first president to approve federal funding for human stem cell research. He did veto one but it was for a change of a Clinton law,The Dickey Amendment, that would of allowed the destruction of huamn embryoinic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells does not equal stem cells in discussion they are different both politics and in science.
"Stem Cell research needs to make up for our lack of physical evolution by finding cures to diseases that will otherwise cause the extinction of our race."
So, without stem cell research, we're doomed to become extinct because of disease? Whew! Looks like we discovered stem cells just in the nick of time!
I can see you're not used to thinking like a biologist.
We put our sick in hospitals, we extend the lives of the terminally ill, we allow people with disease to live, we pay taxes to aid the disabled.
Sure, in the West we do those things. In other words, these are benefits avaliable to approximately 1% of the human population. Everywhere else, disease and famine ravage populations. Illnesses that you might simply pop a pill for in America are death sentences in Africa.
People who have genetic disabilites such as Parkinsons, Epilepsy, and Cerberal Palsy, or family histories of disease e.g. Diabetes, High Cholestorol, Heart Problems get taken care of in medical treatment facilities largely funded by tax money.
Which is largely irrelevant, because those diseases typically kill long after maturity. Sufferers of those illnesses, even without treatment, usually survive long enough to reproduce. How else did you think those disabilities were able to survive to this day? Surely you didn't think that diabetes only came about within the last century?
We do not evolve the way Darwin explained it.
Well, I think that's a statement that only a person who didn't really understand evolution could make. Even beyond the simple fact that most of humanity is still subject to the very pressures you claim are no longer present, you've completely overlooked sexual selection, which is still completely operational on the human species - and will be, until people are using random number generators to determine mates.