Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Bill Passes in Australia
nickd writes "Having recently being passed in the Senate by only 2 votes, an Australian bill to overturn the ban on 'theraputic cloning' has now been passed in the House of Representatives by 82-62. The amendment that was seeking to prevent stem cells being extracted from the eggs of aborted late term female fetuses has also been voted down. The changes will allow scientists to create and use embryos up to 14 days old for research."
Glad some country isn't taking Christian fundamentalist BS.
Using the term embryo conveys a level of development not present at up to 14 days of development. At 14 days, we're talking about a blastocyst. Technically, it needs to be 3 weeks old before it can be considered an embryo.
Totipotent stem cells can differentiate into any other cell type. Polypotent (I guess you refer to pluripotent) are a later type of cells. The point is, totipotent stem cells are as good (or better) than pluripotent cells. But I agree, that it should never be an excuse for abortion. There should be no benefit (be it monetary or whatever) for donating stem cells.
It's incredible how countries around the world are prepared to take bold steps to further science, while we are still mired in our ridiculous issues. (I'm sorry, but squashing a potential cure for a disease like Parkinson's, to protect an embryo that was going to be destroyed anyway, does not fall under my definition of "ethics") Leave it to the fundamentalists, and our country is going "down under"
You, who speaks so highly of ethics, have just told a boldfaced lie. You know as well as I do that the US government is funding embryonic stem cell research by an executive order by George W. Bush. This is the first funding of such research in US history. The US government is also funding "adult" stem cell research, which strangely enough has shown much more promise than embryonic stem cell research. What the executive order forbids is the harvesting and destruction of human embryos to create new and unnecessary stem cell lines. This is done to prevent a market for human embryos and cloning.
Please, stop lying and tell the truth. (If you didn't know this, please accept my apologies for calling you a liar. Please replace all reference to liar with ingoramous. You should really do some genuine research before posting or even forming an opinion based on sound bites and bumper stickers)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This may stray off topic a bit, but aren't the existing restrictions against federally fundedstem cell research in the US? Under current policy I don't believe private corporations are under any restrictions except those against cloning. One may disagree with the official government policy, but is any privately funded stem cell research going on in the US, and if so is it legal?
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
On the contrary, I think the arguments against stem cell research are mostly being pushed by pro-life people, in order to be consistent with their stated basis, where any fertilized ovum is the moral equivalent of a 'human life.' I think the argument is pretty clear; if you accept that a blastocyst is alive and equivalent to a sentient being, then you must oppose stem cell research. If you're convinced enough of that that so you're willing to limit others' personal choices (as in banning or limiting abortion), then it's not hard to see going from there to being in favor of a ban on research. It's pretty much QED: if you're really pro-life on a religious/moral basis, which the overwhelming number of pro-life people I've met are, then you almost have to take issue with embryonic stem cell research; there's no necessity in the pro-choice position, because it's not driven by any single fundamental theological or moral argument (I know people who are pro-choice for a huge variety of different reasons).
In terms of your specific questions, I think all of them have been answered elsewhere, but I will attempt to respond to them and give references where I can.
A number of things. First of all, many of them are contaminated. Some sources seem to claim that it's mouse cells that have gotten into the lines, others just describe it as "non human." (cite, cite) All or at least many of the approved lines in the U.S. are contaminated.
Cells in lines mutate with increased generations. It's not exactly like duplicating a digital file; it's a little more 'analog' than that. This is pretty basic biology; as you keep replicating an organism over and over, minor (random, environmentally-induced, etc.) variations are going to happen, and build up over time. In order to maintain high quality, new lines need to be periodically introduced. Anything that begins with a hard limit on the number of lines that can be used is inherently flawed -- what if there are problems in those lines? You're possibly compromising research by forcing scientists to use cell specimens that may not be optimal. That's like saying that scientists can only use one species of mouse or rat as specimens for research, even though it's known that some are better for some types of research than others.
Because it's not a waste? Because more cell lines are needed for research. Scientists aren't just coming up with new cell lines for fun, or because they get a huge rush out of destroying blastocysts. Plus, the knowledge gained during the development of the cell lines can be put directly towards other goals. It's not an either/or tradeoff. In order to do the research, a steady supply and wide variety of stem cells are needed; the research can't be done well otherwise. Since the research is in its early stages, a lot of the focus now is on producing a variety of lines that can be worked with. I think this answers your next question as well. It's not as if money for 'research' is being diverted so that evil scientists in their underground la
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."