Skin Cells Turned Embryonic

anik315 writes "Nature is reporting a major breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research. A straightforward procedure using mouse fibroblasts harvested from the skin can be used to produce pluripotent stem cells that can potentially become any other cell in the body. Not only can Yamanaka's method use the most basic cells, it can be accomplished with simple lab techniques. Possible applications of this breakthrough are to check molecular changes in cells as certain conditions develop. Stem cells produced using this procedure, however, can not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant."

Comments

Re:I knew it..

[CaptainPatent]

Actually it is. We have already been using skin grafts to cure minor cosmetic flaws from burns or scars with no moral repercussions. I don't see why it would suddenly become immoral to expand that to much more life-threatening diseases and ailments.

Re:I knew it..

[buswolley]

Seriously, this is not a scientific question, but a moral/ philosophical question. There IS room for debate. However, as a promising source of embryonic stem cells, this discovery may reduce the importance of the debate. I think that the abortion debate in general should be solved in this way. Make the debate less important by solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies directly with good birth control.

Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods

[TheMeuge]

what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder

Frankly, I think we should do it just out of spite... for people who would spout the kind of self-important ignorant garbage that just evacuated itself from the barren environment of your skull.

Re:I knew it..

[xaositects]

the most vocal, and therefore the most influential anti-choice proponents claim that birth control for women is tantamount to abortion as most prevent the egg from adhering to the wall of the uterus, or prevent it from traveling down the fallopian tubes, where it can grow further. Condoms, therefore, can be the only one they can support, but those same supporters tend to be the ones who want to preach abstinence because their head seems firmly implanted in the sand, doomed to pretend people from kids to grandparents do not have sex or sexual urges (This mindset seems to be the biggest barriers against sexual education in youth.)

This is why the argument does not go far. The only ones who speak loudly enough to argue, tend to be the very evangelical of the crowd. That comes from firsthand experience at protests. Those very vocal people are quick to judge. Even at clinics where women who have gone through a non-induced miscarriage that was no fault of their own go to seek treatment afterwards, pro-life people stand and hurl insults at them, not knowing even a part of the story.

I support embryonic stem cell research, as I have Type 1 diabetes and stand to gain from this research. Most of the eggs used were discarded and would never have come to fruition as a human anyway.

Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods

[EMeta]

Without mod points, I must resort to replying to a highly ranked troll. Sigh.

First, if you would RTFS, much less article, much less paper, you would know that one of the fascinating things about this procedure is that it uses skin cells, not embryonic cells as a base. Very few people who believe in any invasive medicine have a problem with this. This is a breakthrough in part because it fixes problems like embryonic harvesting or even The Island-esqe people harvesting because a given sick person could use it on him or herself.

Secondly, a work force that lives productively into their 80's would be a lovely thing for any society's economies. A government should certainly be concerned about its nation's economy, yes?

Thirdly, medical research=good for people. Democratic government=group that uses pooled funds for betterness of group. Are there spending issues? Duh. But still better than most systems. I want to put my money in a pool that can fund science. Hooray that there is an automatic way that this happens for me. I don't even need said science to produce economic results for me to be happy about it. But if it's going to, I won't turn that down.

And for the record, a considerable majority of Americans do want stem cell research, even from embryos. Google news reports around last Nov's Missouri senate elections, & there were several stories about how while most Americans support it, it's a non-issue in the polls.

Re:There's a third way.

[sumdumass]

There are some deep problems with this proposal. First is that it attempts to vacate the idea that the fetus is an unborn child and acts as if it is a living human intruder. Next, it attempts to treat the body as property in the same way land or a house would be considered property. But it doesn't treat the intent and condition in a relative term. It may be because someone is attempting to justify the action or it maybe because they think a strawman argument rearranged makes more sense.

To keep it in the same terms, lets put it into perspective to keep the comparison real.

A woman has the perfect right to evict any intruder from her property, that is, her own body, at any time, for any reason. (Self-ownership is the first principle of liberty.)

But she doesn't have right to kill the trespasser without giving them enough time to leave. In almost any state, with the exception of Texas maybe, if you find a trespasser/intruder and they pose no direct harm to you or anyone there, you tell them to leave and then kill them because they didn't leave fast enough, you will be going to jail. But pregnancy isn't even a trespasser or intruder, it is a welcomed guest. You have to take certain actions to invite a fetus into your home(body). And in every state, if you invite someone into your house and then kill them, it is murder.

I know this is someone else's rationalizing. But we can often make judgments to justify something that other see as wacked. You cannot run over a kid playing ball in the street because thats where cars drive when you have plenty of time to stop. Saying the kid shouldn't be playing in the road is just an attempt to justify it to yourself but doesn't make it just. Leaving out the fact that the intruder is crippled and will take a certain amount of time to leave the property and killing them before they can do so because you ordered them out makes no sense either. And repeating this nonsense make even less sense.

Your positions don't matter... probably.

[Grendel Drago]

Don't make the mistake of grouping all pro lifers all into the same group. This is probably the biggest reason your confused about who would support something or why they are supporting it.

Yeah, but pro-lifers not in the religious group don't really count in a political sense, which means that whatever your nuanced policy measures are which aren't predicated on punishing women for being dirty sluts, nobody's going to bother responding to them.

Then again, your wailing about "encourag[ing] promiscuity" and how those damned sluts deserve to be punished with unwanted pregnancies because, well, they were asking for it, what with the having sex and all, leads me to believe that your motives may not be that different.