Slashdot Mirror
'Plentiful' Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Found
An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest have discovered a 'plentiful' non-embryonic source for stem cells, as well brain, liver, and bone cell types as well. The cells, found in amniotic fluid, can be harvested without harm to the donor or the donor's unborn child. While there's no proof that amniotic stem cells are as potent as embryonic stem cells, scientists are hopeful that this will be a huge step forward for the field of stem-cell research."
As an agnostic and former embryo, I'm very pleased with this news. It's a human rights issue for many - not just Christians.
The objection is not that embryos are potentially people, is that they are people. This is not true about some cells harvested in such a way that it does not destroy a person (whether embryonic or adult).
Whether you agree with the classification of embryos as people is what the debate should be about. See http://www.gerv.net/writings/foetal-personhood/ for some pointers
Why the attack on religion? Some ethic considerations may be not only religious in nature, but also philosophical. This involves the beginning of life itself, so I wouldn't classify the matter in such simply (and I dare say "propagandistic") terms. (A religious scientist who used to work in the stem cell research)
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
Progress has always been hindered by the masses if they feel it is unethical or sacreligious - regardless of the religion or ethics involved.
And so you would advocate giving power to a limited few to make decisions for us all?
With respect, I'd data to verify that number please. I'd argue that much of the world's war is caused by human greed, with religion being the pretext and/or justification for the war. That doesn't make religion responsible, it makes it an excuse for war.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Faith is a scapegoat. Man has a natural propensity to want to destroy each other, if it was not for faith then it would be for something else.
Even if these new stem cells aren't as useful as embryonic stem cells you can be sure that right wing zealots will argue that they are. I just don't get the case against embryonic stem cell research provided that research is carried out on embryos that have been donated with informed consent and would otherwise be destroyed. I could sort of understand the argument if these embryos were going to be implanted and had a real chance to become a baby, but we're talking about embryos that are going to be destroyed. IMHO destroying embryos that could be used in research to try and cure a number of truly horrible diseases is the immoral course of action.
I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have.
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The problem is not with stem cell research, or even the fact that it is possible to manipulate a stem cell into becoming a human being, but how you got the cell in the first place.
I fully support stem cell research. I think it is a sin not to. The only problem people like me have with embryonic stem cell research is not the research at all, but the production of the stem cells to begin with. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells (as my feeble mind understands it), an embryo must be coaxed to divide and start to grow. At a certain point, it has to be destroyed to harvest the stem cells. It's that destruction of a growing embryo that is the problem. People like me equate that to an abortion, but it's no longer about women's choice, but experimentation and profit.
Now we can get into a ton of philosophical debates as to when life begins and when an embryo becomes human and such, but this debate goes into so many different directions. If we agree not to harvest embryos for stem cells because they are human, then they must be human when considering an abortion. If an embryo is not human, then why the rub about abortion? This is another reason why the debate gets so heated. There is more at stake than just stem cells.
Most people want embryonic stem cells for one or a combination of three reasons:
1) Bush said not to and it pisses off fundies (these tend to go together)
2) It legally reaffirms that embryos are not human, and thus abortion remains legal
3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources.
This is why other sources must be found. It's not because anyone is right or wrong, but because neither side will ever give up. Will it get to the point where fundies are blowing up research labs and feminists are performing stem cell harvesting with coat hangers? Doubtful, but why have the debate at all when there are other means of harvesting stem cells than to kill a growing embryo? We really can have our cake and eat it too!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The ethical concerns over stem-cell research are over whether the embryo is sentient, and has a soul. The first is scientific, while the second is religious in nature. We can theorise scientifically that it isn't sentient, since it has not yet developed a brain, and in the absence of evidence showing you can think without a brain we accept this as being as close to true as science get.
Whether it has a soul, however, is a different matter. Religious people can argue that it has a soul from the instant of conception. The idea, however, that something can be non-sentient but still have a soul has a number of ramifications that they don't seem to have fully grasped.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News