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."
Everyone knows that 6,000 years ago Australia was created by God as a place where the Hebrews could send "uncooperative" members of the tribe. The fact that this stratergy wasn't follow through with until much later (by a different tribe) doesn't make it any less true. ;-)
"The changes will allow scientists to create and use embryos up to 14 days old for research."
The article failed to mention that after 14 days they will be used to create a Shaky's Pizza for each scientist!
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
believe it or not, some people find *not* doing this more unethical/immoral than doing this.
This can take something that is rather upleasant in the first place, that would not be avoided, and turn it into something that can save millions of lives.
That being said, I hope the bill has a rider in it that says a person cannot recieve compensation for donating the genetic material.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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.
If we begin seeing stem cell harvesting/research being allowed in other industrial countries, what are the repurcussions for the U.S.? I don't think we can hold out forever, at some point I'd expect some researches to start moving to more hospitable countries, and pharmaceutical companies in those countries (such as Australia) taking a definitive lead in stem cell therapy and research. As a nation, can we afford to just let the world pass us, even if there are "moral" concerns regarding the technology by our government?
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
I'm generally surprised by the need people feel to insult the religious, but on Slashdot, I expect it in droves.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
My friend went to visit Australia, but he got into a big hassle with Customs. When he arrived the asked him if he had a criminal record. He said " I didn't realize it was still required"
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
No, they aren't the only ones but almost all fundamentalists Christians are made at least a bit uncomfortable, and they are the group against the use of both stem cells and cloning technology that carries the most political clout, at least in the U.S., where the Conservative movement and, in particular, the Republican Party have set back important and potentially life-saving stem cell research by decades because they wish to impose their religious and moral views on everyone else who may or may not agree with them through legislation.
Go ahead, fundies, mod me down! Join me on the Dark Side!
My blog
Glad some country isn't taking Christian fundamentalist BS.
WOW! I smoke, drink, do drugs and download porn. I had no idea I was a fundamentalist!
What happens when they pass a law that allows for experimentation on people your age?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I think the problem most Christians have with stem cells is not using them, but where they came from. So using stem cells from someone's bone marrow is okay, but using them from an aborted child is not. The big problem is the same that people have with organ donation. Not that what can be done with them is bad, but people become afraid that if someone's life is on the line, a doctor may not be as inclined to save them if their organs can be harvested. It's similar with stem cells, why not just encourage abortion and harvest the cells? It can be a little to close to Soylent Green for most people's taste.
All this stuff about Stem Cell Research, Abortion... Is really about one thing really which no one want to define.
Where is the line between Ethical Science and Unethical Science. This is the issue which needs to be debated not every single thing that falls in the gray area.
We know there are some things that are defenatly beyond the range of ethical science. Like Killing healthy and productive people to examin how a perfectly working body and mind works, or taking identical twins away from their parents at birth and giving one a loving family and putting an other one in a box with no human interaction to see where the limit of Nature vs. Nuture lays. Even though these things if widly experemented could help out greater humanity but it beyond the range of Ethical Science, and should be avoided.
Now things like Stem Cell resheach is falling in a Gray areas. Where people feel both ways about it. For Sciencetist there is no real line for this gray area so it is up to them to realize how far to go. This could be good or bad. But that is where the problem lays.
For those people who are against this type of science, it is not because they are religios extreamest or sciencetificly enept. It is just that when they look into the gray area it seems to dark for them to say yes this is right. As well the people who are for it are not always Unreligious, imoral, who only listen to science as the only source of wisdom. They look at the spot in the gray area and they see it is more light then dark.
We can't allow Scienctist to do whatever they want just because they want to see the results, just as much we can't prevent sciencetist from learning more just because interpration of books written over a thousand years ago say it is not right.
So Stem Cell research is actually a very difficult topic and not something that is compleatly sensible at all. It is a difficult decision.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
People can volunteer for experimentation right now.
Too abd this isn't about people, it's about a ball of about 128 cells.
Or do yo cry for all the 'people' that your body sheds every day?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think there is nothing wrong with stem cells being harvested/used instead of decaying in the ground.
I believe that there is nothing wrong with a fetus being developed used, in a lab (not in a woman) and terminated before there is a chance for any neural tissue (and hence brain activity) to form. No one is being hurt by this, the life that was created wouldn't have been created anyway, and it has less ability to feel pain than the average lab animal used for various experiments.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Since you can't join every religion (many of them won't allow it), and since you cannot know for a certainty in advance which of them is right (out of several thousand), plus you cannot rule out the possibility that the "one true faith" died out thousands of years ago (have you ensured you can get into Valhalla?)... basically you're screwed no matter what you do. The odds are against Christians as much as they are against everyone else.
Pascal's wager is bunk, and always has been.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
True. Throughout the 30's, european scientists often had moral issues with the medical research they were performing, but their work expanded the field of medicine greatly. True, many complained that the test subjects were not being given a choice, or that the experiments were a bit cruel and often resulted in maiming or killing the patient. However, science won out over ethics at that time, and it was science and the extent of human knowledge that benefited. Of course, it also left psychological scars on the world that won't go away for a very long time.
I do not have a significant qualm regarding stem cell research. I have limited issues with cloning ONLY for the purpose of producing more research material. I also do not consider an embryo to be on the same moral level as a fetus, or a fetus to be the same thing as a viable baby. But I do think every major advance in science presents us with a new slippery slope, and that concepts of morality change drastically over time, based primarily on the decisions made by previous generations.
You can rest assured that whatever you consider slightly dubious but warranted or necessary today with either be absolutely shunned by your children's children, or embraced in ways that would horrify you.
Without a clear line being drawn, I guarantee you that some parts of the world will do whatever is possible. Once you loosen the boundries in one area (creating biologically human lives, even if of highly dubious status), the rest can quickly fall like dominoes. Then you end up with debate over how far a test subject should be allowed to gestate before it's consumed, or debate over the legal status of a human created by humans specifically for study. Genetic manipulation only makes the lines blur further.
Progress is the core of modern society. But err on the side of caution, because the last century has shown what happens when you let morality take a back seat to that progress.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
>potential cure for a disease like Parkinson's
Look, I'm as pro-stem cell research as you can be. I think it's great, and I think someone is going to do it no matter what so we might as be the ones who do it.
But I'm tired of the arguement that says, "We must do X, because it could possibly do Y".
It might NOT do Y, also. We do scientific research to gain knowlege. Sometimes there's even a goal in mind behind the search for that knowlege. But this constant shrieking that "We must do stem cell research because it could cure disease (fill in the blank) smacks to much of the the old saw "We must do it FOR THE CHILLLLLLDREEEENNNNN!".
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
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.
Genetic research is not and never has been about "aborted embryos". This is one of the most common misconceptions of genetic research.
By the time an abortion has happened, it's WAY TOO LATE to use for genetic research.
What is used are frozen results from fertility clinics. When a couple has trouble reproducing, they'll sample some eggs and sperm from the couple, and put them together. They usually end up with a number of results, perhaps a dozen or more. They then try them, one by one.
When the woman gets pregnant, they're done - and there's usually a few left over.
So, once again: Genetic researchers do not use aborted fetuses.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm no fundamentalist, but creating embryos for research purposes strikes me as a bit creepy.
As opposed to dying of Parkinson's or various other diseases that cloning research may cure?
I would suppose putting dead viruses into my body is a bit creepy too, but I'd rather do that than die from a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccination.
Rather than looking at just the creepiness factor, you should consider how much human suffering you can cause or alleviate by the choice.
If the choice will save lives and end suffering while not causing suffering to a sentient being, then the choice is clear. Of course this depends on your definition of what a sentient being is...
I for one do no consider human embryos to be sentient nor conscious. Since they were never going to exist anyways in a conscious form seeing these embryos would never be used to create human life.
However, I would more likely to object to research on humans or embryos that was going to be a conscious human unless perhaps they died of natural causes and the next of kin agreed or had some organ donor agreement before hand.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I do love it when people compare taking an embryo to killing a baby. Like saying its the same as putting a bullet to little baby Annie's head. Or something straight out of the bible, egypt first borns etc. Something like that.
I, for one, do see a slight difference between a cell and a full life-size baby, though. And if that makes me a "terrorist, who disregards human life", so be it. I just see it as a baby-could-be, if anything other than a cell. But hey.. I women "kill" a "baby" about once a month too, by failing to get pregnant! They should all fry! That'll teach 'em. But thats no suitable solution, either. And men.. Don't even get me started on how many potential babies we men kill each time we jerk off. Hell, i just done went and convinced my self. We should all die. Eventually.
Anyways, back to killing ba... Jerking off.
And no, I haven't read the article. And I'm no expert on the subject either. He who is may throw the first stone.
AI: When 'Lawyer == Lier' returns true.
the *whoosh* sound was not the toilet.. :)
FRA: STFU GTFO
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Well, they'd better make room so we can see how low they can go.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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?
Don't ban cloning, but don't pay for it with my taxes.
Everyone wins. The fundamentalists don't have to finance something they don't agree with, yet modern science is allowed to continue promising research.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
This will surely anger God. I fully expect it to begin raining frogs very soon. Well, im off to build an ark....word to yo momma
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."
What is used are frozen results from fertility clinics. When a couple has trouble reproducing, they'll sample some eggs and sperm from the couple, and put them together. They usually end up with a number of results, perhaps a dozen or more. They then try them, one by one.
When the woman gets pregnant, they're done - and there's usually a few left over.
What's most amazing is that, as understand it, when these leftover fertilized eggs are not used for scientific research, then they are simply destroyed. I'm not arguing that we should unscrupulously use any leftover human material from medical procedures for experiments, but to describe destruction of the frozen eggs (instead of experimentation) as a "pro-life" position is pretty galling.
I mean, shouldn't a consistent pro-lifer should favour either:
1) gathering up all the frozen eggs for eventual implantation in women with fertility problems
2) stopping those types of fertility treatments that result in lots of extra fertilized eggs
The reason this doesn't happen, I think, is that fertility clinics are seen as value-neutral or pro-family. So the ethical inconsistency persists.
I think that God's real test is whether you are able to hold absolute beliefs with zero positive evidence and mountains of negative evidence. If you can, then you are labelled a dangerously gullible fool and sent to Hell.