'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."

Comments

Re:amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

As an agnostic and former embryo, I'm very pleased with this news. It's a human rights issue for many - not just Christians.

Re:Still human ... ?

[khanyisa]

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

Re:amazing

[lbbros]

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)

Re:the more important question is....

[Ingolfke]

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?

Re:amazing

[Gryle]

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.

Re:amazing

[saboola]

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.

Re:The spin

[smoker2]

No, it's not a belief, it's a fact. An embryo needs to be fertilised before it even has the chance of becoming a child. But even a fertilised embryo is not a child.

An embryo is a fertilised egg. So by definition, it does not need to be fertilised.

An embryo has the capability to develop into a viable child, but even that is not guaranteed.

Does the average person also believe that a woman is "killing babies" when she menstruates? I don't think so.

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.

You Can Be Sure

[Luscious868]

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.

Re:Still human ... ?

[ArcherB]

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!

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[TheRaven64]

Scientifically, life starts at conception. The embryo is clearly and demonstrably alive. This is not the issue, however, since we have no problem killing things; even vegans kill plants, and while fruitarians don't kill whole plants, the cells in the fruit they eat are alive.

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 donated umbilical cord stem cells

[Jess (geek-chick)]

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?

It's a tenuous balance

[anomaly]

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

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[ElleyKitten]

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.

How do you know that cows aren't wondering that? Sure, they can't say that in English, but how do you know what goes on inside their heads? Or what about other animals, like dolphins, who do have a language they use to communicate with others of their species? How do you know what they talk about? Or how do you know that a cow's life wasn't intended by God to be the comfortable life for reincarnated human souls after living a good life? Just lazily hanging out in the sun all day, no worries, just occasionally being milked, but we had to go fuck that up by cramming them up in little cells and forcing them to milk much more than they were ever meant to until they get sent off to be slaughtered.

You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else.