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."
amazing the hurdles science can leap when they put their minds to it
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
From what I can gather, the basic issue that most religious folk have to do with stem cell research is that we're mucking around with human lives. Unless you can make this process look as simple as a cheek scraping for human cells (allergy research, for instance) the objections will not abate.
The argument that this cell couldn't have become a baby doesn't quite hold good and has been answered before about harvesting eggs from fertility clinics.
So are these cells are still human, but without a potential human, doomed to die when the aminotic fluid drains. Some facts which might not matter to those who have decided all of this to be Playing God.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
More evidence that God loves scientists: each time a religious nut tries to stop progress, He finds a way around it.
Now they can do all the stem cell research they want with no ethical problems. Can't wait 'till the religious wackos try to stop space exploration. The moment they do, God will drop inertialess drives and FTL engines right onto the physicists' laps.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
As an agnostic and former embryo, I'm very pleased with this news. It's a human rights issue for many - not just Christians.
your right, please don't use any form of the bible as a moral compass, it advocates hate and intolerance.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?
To the anti-stem cell people:
Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?
Sorry, people, but I'm in the 99.9% of people who DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE ON THIS SUBJECT to be able to make an informed judgment yet on what is right and what is wrong here who is also prepared to ADMIT IT.
Nothing to see here...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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
While ethical questions should not be based or caused by religion, there is no reason why they must not concur every once and then.
I can be an atheist and still think abortion is fundamentally wrong (albeit very convenient for the greater good)
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
You are wrong. Ethical systems are individualized first and shared second. One's world view, whether it incorporates a religious viewpoint or not, determines one's ethics. Religion has a huge bearing on individual ethics. The challenge is to communicate and discuss those ethical values across groups of people that may have different world views.
Current statistics give a 1% risk of miscarriage
after amniocentesis. Also, the amount of cells in
the volume of fluid that would normally be collected
is likely to be small.
Sounds like no news to me.
Amniotic fluid is already sampled in those that are high risk of havign a child born with down's syndrome, so this is a non-issue.
Glenn
The Smrt way to trade CFDs on the ASX
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?
embryonic stem cells which have already resulted in _proven therapies that work_
And thoses would be???? Please name two, here I will make it easy name one.
Since the original poster will never be back the list of proven embryonic stem cell therapies is none. The truth about embryonic stem cell was that since it contained a large amount of possibilities venture capitalists invest huge amounts of money and have shown no possible pay back any time soon, so they started pushing to have the government put more money after it. When that failed they started doing a bunch of press releases about the potential capability and got some state governments and other individual to buy in. You are starting to see less about embryonic stem cells because the major venture capitalists have sold out after they did thier pump and have no need to spend the money on PR any more.
That is simply not the case. From TFA which you clearly didn't read:
Nice troll, though. I'll expect to be hearing this kind of ignorant FUD from Pat Robertson Real Soon Now(tm).
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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
For what reason?
Also, just being an atheist doesn't make you an ethicist. Atheists can have wacky beliefs too, I'll grant you that.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I would expect that the rational individuals who are arguing against stem cell research would also argue against abortion based on the value of human life. National abortion laws are established through court cases based on the limitations on the reach of government, not because everyone thinks it's acceptable and voted for it.
No. Just no.
There is no scientific definition of when human life starts. Such an idea will always be religious or philosophical.
In that sense the "secular" definition of when human life starts, are the limits we make for legal abortion. Something like 20 weeks.
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.
And will get tossed in the bin. Oh yes, so much better to toss them away unused.
Unless you just need a cell or two, I would say you need to drain much more that few drops. Not really, there are 10 to 1000 cells per ul (microliter) of amniotic fluid and if you take 100 ul, you have already a significant amount, as they do grow (become more), when you cultivate them under proper conditions
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
1) An embryo is a collection of cells and has life (as much life as a bacterium, which I doubt you would deny).
2) At conception, the genetic structure is uniquely human.
So I think that an embryo would count as human life.
Now, as to whether it is a person is a totally different issue.
"If God had intended us to walk he would not have invented roller skates." -- Willy Wonka
1 is the square root of all evil.
An embryo has the capability to develop into a viable child, but even that is not guaranteed.
Mainly because menstruation is the bodys way of expelling unfertilised eggs !It's a good thing you don't have to be a scientist to procreate, otherwise you wouldn't exist.
I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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 would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?
I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?
To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Drawing amniotic fluid is extremely risky to both mother and fetus. That is why amniocentesis is only done if absolutely necessary. My wife had one around 20 weeks gestation. Not only is the procedure extremely painful, she went through two weeks of uterine cramping. She had to take two weeks off work to recover.
Poking a hole in the uterus of a pregnant woman is not something to take lightly. This article makes it seem like a trvial procedure, which is certainly is not.
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
When I was pregnant with my daughter, I knew from the start I wanted to donate the umbilical stem cells. It wasn't an easy search to find somewhere that would take them. All the advertising toward pregnant women are for banking the stem cells. They scare parents into thinking their child's stem cells could be used for a cure on the chance the child develops a disease. I think this is a horrible practice to do on parents, most of whom probably are just throwing their money away in the belief it could save their child.
None of the hospitals in my state accept cord blood donations, nor are their any cord or blood banks here. I found only one cord bank that accepts donations from out of state (their name escapes me), and at no charge to my doctor, the hospital, or me. From what I've read, I know that the cord blood stem cells aren't able to be used like embryonic stem cells, but since they were just going to be destroyed anyway, why not donate them?
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
Well, I am both a religious person, and a philosopher. Both you, and the "religious nutjob" as you put it, have made some philosophical errors.
I don't know if you have heard of Aristotle's Form/Matter distinction, but basically, it is this. Matter is the stuff of a thing, and Form is (more or less) how it is arranged. To put it another way, Matter is the material stuff that makes something what it is, and Form is the immaterial stuff that makes it how it is.
So, why is this important to note? Well, for a human being, the Matter is our body, and the form is our soul. So, as long as we have something that is human material (read, fertilized egg), we have the human form, aka, a soul. Don't believe me? The difference between a living thing and a dead thing is the presence of an animating principle (soul). Still don't believe me, I challenge you to come up with a material way of describing the difference between a living organism and a dead organism.
Now, your friend clearly isn't a philosopher, so I will correct her mistake as well. An animal has an animal body, and as a result, an animal soul. When the cow dies, the cow's soul goes with it. The difference is that a human being has an immaterial and thus immortal soul, and as a result, should be treated differently.
Before you go and deny that humans have an immortal soul, I point to the fact that it is the operation of an immortal soul to come to some notion of God (an immortal being). Every person I know has some notion of God. The Atheist has to have one so that he can deny it, and the agnostic has to come to a notion of God in order to be not sure about it. The cow can't say "I wonder about what there was before I existed" (an action that is uniquely human) but the cow can seek good grass to convert into methane and manure.
I guess thats all I have to say.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that most people are not passionate about stem cell research. It irritates me that when most people talk of stem cell research they are focusing on embryonic stem cell research. As others have noted, it's not helping anyone these days, and adult stem cell research *is* helping MANY MANY people. I'm hopeful that this recent discovery about amniotic stem cells will kill the debate and people will stop trying to do medical research on *all* products of conception.
I'm not sure that I agree with you about people don't want that right taken from them. Recent surveys show that the majority of Americans find abortion unacceptable for themselves but feel that there is some need for it to be available. Most seem to want to protect the right of others to have abortion.
The following numbers come from recollection - frankly I'm too busy this morning to go look up the actual numbers, but this is pretty close to what I've been reading on this issue:
The number of Americans that think abortion is a bad thing is something like 80+% The number that feel it should be illegal is substantially smaller, but the bottom line is about 10% want it legal under every possible circumstance, about 10% want it illegal in every circumstance, and the other 80% of the population is split just about down the middle with varying circumstances determining the legality.
Essentially about half of the US wants it illegal under some circumstances, and about half of the US wants it legal under some circumstances.
I tire of the meme that a 'religious minority controls the government.' That's crap. If it was true, there are lots of things that would be handled differently.
The fact is that there are a lot of people who disagree with the liberal view that abortion should be legal for all women. Most of those people are not passionate advocates of that position, but when the issue comes up, they stand for what they believe. This is the phenomenon of the "values voters."
The religious minority of which you speak is merely the 'tip of the spear' to speak in military parlance. You see them, the politicians feel them because of their platforms, *and* because of the values voters. Policies are made as a result.
That abortion is still legal in the US shows that there are many near silent people who share your view, and the politicians feel their presence on election day, too.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
You can usually tell when someone has been thoroughly spanked in an argument when they resort to the CAPS LACK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm). The fact of the matter is that precise definitions are not always necessary. Here's a simple analogy. If I'm standing Richmond, VA and you're standing in Sacramento, CA I can say with complete confidence that I know we're in different cities, even if I don't actually have any idea what the precise city limits of either city are.
When you ask for a definition you're asking someone to put exact borders around an idea and say "everything on this side is x, everything on the other side is not x". If you're talking about a case right on the edge, this degree of precision may be a necessary. For example: is a virus alive? Tough question. But no one seriously asks "is bacteria alive" unless they are being philosophical or unnecessarily obtuse.
As far as your rejection of the analogy, I have to wonder if you know what an analogy is. When something can be agreed by analog, it means that two things are similar, but not the same. So, setting aside your questionable characterization of an embryo as "a group of embryonic cells", your point that an embryo is not a bacteria is rather odd. Of course it's not. If it was the same, it wouldn't be an analog, would it?
It's pretty clear that what is going on is that you are playing the part of a good reactionary. You have, for whatever reasons, a strong emotional attachment to the abortion issue. You see the argument that an embryo is a living human being to threaten your position and so you react. Your logic in the reaction has been pretty poor (as indicated by your unapologetic resort to ad hominem and the CAPS LOCK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm)).
1. An embryo is alive. Your response: define life. As I've already shown, this is an unnecessary burden. Your other response: an embryo is not a bacterium. True, but hardly relevant.
2. An embryo is a human being. No response so far. And there can hardly be one. I'm waiting (heart racing, I assure you) for the inevitable my liver/sperm/hair is human response. And this is true, but your hair is not a complete human entity, it's a part of one. Same for liver, blood cells, etc.
In any case, the solution to your apparent philosophical crisis is simply to realize that there is, or can be, a distinction between a human being and a person. That an embryo is technically a human being at the point of conception is pretty much beyond question. It's a living and unique instance of the species homo sapiens. The question is whether human rights should be expanded to all human beings (which is my position) or just to "persons" (yet to be defined). If you read the other Slashdot comments, you can see that there are plenty of people who are happy to have more constrictive definitions of "person" that exclude (for example) the mentally handicapped.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
From the Hippocratic Oath: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
I may twist orthodoxy to partly justify a tyrant. But I can easily make up a German philosophy to justify him entirely.
The article on New Scientist clearly states that the amniotic stem cells can be taken from the placenta after delivery and placed in cryogenic storage and then replicated easily within 36 hours to become a plentiful source of these cells....
So all the comments about the dangers of taking fluid during pregnancy are mis-informed based on the original link apparently... sounds like bias from cnn editors.
This is a great new discovery and should certainly be explored fully before being discounted because it doesn't involved the destruction of embryos to accomplish new science.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Read the article. They got the amniotic fluid during/after delivery. there is about a gallon of it released. There is no danger to the baby. It's already been born. Any hospital could provide liters and liters of the stuff every day. Too bad they still don't know how to really use it.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
they're about as alive as a mini-pizza
It's not delivery. It's Digiorno's
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman