Slashdot Mirror
Stem-Cell-Like Cells Produced From Skin
MikShapi writes "Skin cells can now be turned into something resembling stem cells. A genetic modification to four genes using a viral vector reverses differentiating, making the cells revert to a stem-cell state, capable for becoming any other cell in the body. The researchers are calling them 'iPS cells' or 'induced pluripotent stem cells.' In their experiments, iPS cells in the lab turned into nerve cells, heart muscle, and other tissues. The research was published in Cell and Nature by teams from the universities of Kyoto and Wisconsin. The article notes that if the new method proves successful, 'we can disconnect the whole stem cell debate from the culture war, from battles over embryo politics and abortion rights.' And, should this technique be adopted, stem cells will henceforth be abundant, easier and cheaper to come by for research and therapeutic purposes."
And of course this discovery can't go without political interference... the White House is already condemning the discovery, calling for a ban.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
then don't fuck them?
Do we preface every cookbook with a discussion about suffering? Somehow, everything about stem cells has to be about ethics. Is there any way to get straight science on the subject? What can it do? How is it done? Cool or not?
I for one welcome our new skin cell based stem-cell overlords.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Now all those people getting abortions in the name of science can finally stop.
include $sig;
1;
Farnsworth: As a man it has become too much of a chore for me to clean out my wrinkles each day. Is it true that stem cells may fight the aging process?
Geneworks Woman: Well yes, in the same way an infant may fight Muhammed Ali! But -
Farnsworth: One pound of stem cells please.
Unemployed thanks to the heartless advance of technology. How sad.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
It is in Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151526
extremely good point. Sex usually isn't forced, unless it is related to some religious belief system you follow. In that case, change your religion.
Here's hoping it works, the less controversial science is the more likely projects will get funded for it. Just look at cloning in the US.
There are a number of reasons why this could be a huge development. The biggest thing on my mind is that this solves the whole question of were to get all the stem cells you need for what you want to do. Now the source can be the very patient you are working on. I'm going to watch this with great interest.
Look, while a small minority of people may attack this research it will not get the kind of condemnation as embryonic stem cell research. I am against Embryonic stem cell research and I am not against this research. I think South Park made the best argument against using unborn baby tissue as research. There is no reason to drag religion through the mud because you don't understand the issue.
That's not entirely fair. As far as I've seen the folks against federally funded stem cell research have always been enthusiastic about any source of stem cells other than embryos.
Just how much skin will we need? Will it be like blood banks? Instead of needles and cookies they'll hand you a loofa and tell you to start scrubbing. That would work if dry skin is what they need. If they need fresh moist skin then maybe each of us will be on the hook to 'donate' a 1 inch by 1 inch square from our buttock of choice.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
If I had billions and wanted to get into this kind of thing what I would do is buy all the gold that I can so that I can have a hard gold standard currency. Then I would buy an island (large), declare it a sovereign state, build the infrastructure to support the science facilities and data centers, and finally a nice place for people to live. After all of that I would invite any scientist that wants to have fewer chains on them to come live and research there. There would be a few basic rules such as no WMD, no full human cloning, no human chimera, and human experimenting. I would also encourage scientists there to sell finished projects to help support the island. Just a little idea for anyone with far vaster amounts of money than I.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
As long as the skin cells are not taken through a form that could be considered a viable human, I think this should end the ethical problems with stem cells nicely.
The issue people have with stem cell research is not stem cells per se, but that the harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of a viable human.
Remember, religious people haven't had issues with adult stem cell research -- which this is. It's only embryonic stem cell research and SCNT processes which result in a viable human that people take ethical issues with.
If this can directly transform a skin cell into heart cells or whatever without moving through an "embryonic" state, then it's really the best of both worlds.
The real debate goes far deeper than merely how to create patient specific stem cells. The real issue is longevity and let's hope we're getting closer to where there's something worth arguing about.
You'd think everybody is in favor of longevity, but one of Bush's early science advisers made it clear that he was opposed to life extension in principle and Bush explicitly backed him up on that. It blew me away, but they clearly were making the case in favor of death. Personally, I was shocked at this and I brought it up with some people in my family and I was even more surprised to find that a lot of the older people were sympathetic to the idea that death was something that shouldn't be messed with.
Personally, I say fuck that. Ya'll can be my witnesses, I want to live as long as freakin' possible and if I end up lookin' like Frankenstein carrying my head in the jar in the crook of my sewn on arm then all the better. Sounds good to me.
Some of the arguments in favor of death are kinda lame. I've heard the economic argument over and over. This is a popular one. It's like the economy would get all screwed up if people stopped dying on seventy year clocks because all the old geezer's saving would just accumulate insane interests until the oldest people had all the money. Okay, I can see that but this is not a good reason for people to die. Money aint that big a deal if we all had indefinite life spans. I'm sure we could calmly negotiate something once everyone had matured a few hundred years.
Another pro-death argument is the idea of overpopulation. I think I have a sweet answer to this one and this is what I really wanted to post about. See, the key is that you've got to have an answer that appeals to a really silly level of religious symbolism and I think I got it.
What you do is, you say that anybody who wants to extend their life past a certain age and have children will have to voluntarily exile themselves into orbit or the moon or some other place off the surface of the earth. This is the perfect solution. Why? Because, the result is that the people who accept eternal life can only do so if they . . . wait for it. . . go to heaven.
Is that sweet or what?
As opposed to the other extreme, where science has no sense of morality and is only another function of the wants of the state. Like the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese in WWII experimenting on live humans. Such as testing biolgical warfare on them, the identical twin studies of Mengele, Japanese scientists dissecting Allied prisoners alive, and so on. Or the US for a scientific study letting blacks with syphilis go untreated for decades. And who knows what the USSR and the Chineses did/are doing. Science has to have some moral responsibility for its research and conclusions. The hard part is where to draw the line, and reasonable people can disagree on that.
Wait. So, we killed all those fetuses for nothing?
Quack, quack.
If the religious nuts had issues with cloning (which creates life) they will find something wrong with this. That's just how they are. Whining is their essence.
Also from the site:
# Bush Bans Growing Skin, Baffles Scientists
# UK Donates 15M Private Records to Help Bolster Russian Economy
# The Long Tail of Sexy
# Apple Using IMEI Number to Prolong Your Life
# Rainbow Rights Activists Decry Prism Cruelty
# "Most Dangerous Cities" Go On Attack, Kill 5
This is why I don't like the "mod it informative instead of funny because funny doesn't give karma" bit. It's a humor blog and a damn hilarious one at that.
Before anyone tries to trot out the tired old claim of 'Godwin', just realize that the parent here is not comparing an unrelated action to the Nazis. Sometimes Nazis are an apt comparison.
While I doubt that the parent and I would agree where the line is, he is absolutely correct in pointing out that the question is not right or wrong, but where we draw the line.
Well I for one am glad you don't have the billions to do this. How many insufficiently tested products have killed people under the current research rules? For example, because people and other drugs can respond differently, drug side effects slip through still in our current research and testing rules. I assume you would allow bioengineered foods and animals because you are not specifically prohibiting them. What a serious danger that could be without proper research rules and the moral underpinnings to consider the effects on society. Hey, how about bio-engineered monkeys - made smarter and subservient - that we will end up turning into a race of trained slaves?
people only ever trot out the nazi comparision with that exact agenda.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This is what the intelligent scientists have been saying for years. There's never been any real successful scientific movement based upon Fetal Stem Cell research, but as soon as you point that out, you're branded by the Leftist Zealots.
Damned bigots.
(\(\
(=_=) Bani!
(")")
The flurries wont need costumes anymore.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
Oh for Pete's sake. I also mention the Imperial Japanese, the USA, the USSR, and the Chinese for some scientific crimes against humanity to make the larger point. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the saying goes.
It's not bigoted. Furries are the minority that DESERVES persecution.
This will remain controversial: they just announced the creation of a virus that can result in teratomas.
-- Terry
. . Look at what happened to the Brunnen-G . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunnen-G
.
.
These assholes who are against stem cell research will just find a new angle to attack this research. They will claim we are playing god or some such retarded objection.
i mean after all wtf is wrong with playing god? if we listened to these whacko's we'd still be praying on our needs in a dirt hut.
If i was a rich billionaire i'd pump shit tins of money into stem cell research and have them make me some kind of catdog style animal.
Wow! That's not only a troll, but 100% Grade-A Certified Organic FUD!
Conservatives, or more accurately, Christian Conservatives, have nothing against stem cell research. Hell, Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research. Yes, George Bush authorized funding for stem cell research, as long as the money was not spent on NEW stem cell lines derived from embryos. Existing stem cell lines from embryo's, chord blood stem cells, this type of stem cells, or any other, is fine and government funded. This type of funding is perfectly fine with everyone, including Christian Conservatives.
So your comment only shows that you are either ignorant or the facts or simply a liar. Which one is it?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I myself have no problem with them playing god. the objections against getting stem cells from embryos is just plain, well, stupid. sorry, it is.
do you save a sentient creature by killing a non-sentient creature? that's a no-brainer, of course you do. if we followed the bible-thumpers, none of us would eat meat, fruits, vegetables, well, anything non-sentient. hell, the Christians are eating sentient creatures, so who are they to throw their hands in the air about something like this? oh, it's about humans, sorry, big difference to god.
-Tony
Great, now when I get a sunburn, I'll be accused of killing babies.
I worry that this will be yet another cause for doctors to circumcise babies. They sell the skin to so many other causes, motivating them to push male genital mutilation, already. This will just give them one more reason. I, for one, want my foreskin back.
http://xkcd.com/261/
...looking at this, I think it wasn't so bad that there was a strong opposition to embryonic stem cell research in the first place. If you think about it, this forced scientists to find a new source for stem cells. Now they hit the jackpot, since skin cells are much more available, and can be easily grown in a lab.
Heh - if there's anything will freak the fundies out more than a bunch of gays, it will be a bunch of genetically-modified furry gays (or even hermaphrodites if you want to go way over the top).
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" -- Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Who Modded the parent as flamebait? Since when is stating the facts flamebait? He was calling the Grandparent a Troll and get's modded as Flamebait? What in the world. If this is how you are going to play then I might call it quits on Slashdot. This is insane. The point is that people do not understand the issues surrounding the Governments actions in relation to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. They didn't ban it. They just cut funding on new stem cell lines from embryos.
There's all this talk of drawing lines but the way things work in practice is that it's more of a balancing of benefits versus harms.
Even as we speak, the US military is over in Iraq killing innocent children. Not just zygotes, or embryos or fetuses but actual walking, talking, living children. The idea, of course, is that whatever the US military is accomplishing in Iraq is important enough to just killing these children. Maybe by killing these children the US military is even saving the lives of some other children (or maybe they're just securing some oil for Bush's friends) but, on the other hand, maybe by killing some embryos scientific research could also save the lives of some other children. Either way, the children/embryos don't get a say in the matter of whether they get sacrificed "for the greater good".
Sure, it's aesthetically pleasing and simple and easy to under stand and all that, but this notion that there is a line that should not be crossed under any circumstances is just not how the world works.
I'm glad they're finding ways around having to use embryonic stem cells, but just for those who are still against embryonic stem cells (if it turns out that we still need to use them), we're not destroying a human, we're destoying a pitre dish of cells. See this great visual demo: http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/stemcells_scnt.html I just wanted to clarify for those who still think the embryo we're talking about is a little baby: it's not -- it's literally a mass of cells -- that's all.
Health Insurance Quotes
What fuckwit modded this guy troll? He's only stating the truth. There are people that are against any progress, especially if it involves modification of the human genome. Somebody should convince Mr. Gates that this kind of research would be a worthy investment for some of his billions. Besides ... if it pans out he might live a lot longer.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
with a big stick for making such a stupid argument. I don't think it isn't such a bad thing to do. If you think about it, this will force you to develop an opinion worth posting. Once you've managed that, Karma will be much more available to you and intelligent comments will be seen more often on slashdot.
The ends don't justify the means. Further, you can't even call this an "ends" because economics would have been enough to develop a better source of stem cells.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
It really makes me sad that everyone replying to this thinks that they understand "The universe and everyting".
Science is great, and i don't like the idea of the huts and mud. But you should not be so arrogant when approacing the critics. Science has advanced a lot the last fifty years, but what makes you think that suddenly every scientific proof is perfect? Have you
heard of DDT?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_Box_(television_documentary_series) http://www.archive.org/details/Pandoras_Box_DVD_2_of_3 Some people are against abortion, and against meddeling with nature's recipe for life, without being religous fanatics or "tree huggers".
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" -- Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
"Would you kindly kill me?" -- Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
One problem with these techniques is that they use lentiviruses to deliver these genes. The lentiviral genome integrates into the host which could pose the threat of integration into a tumor suppressor gene or into another critical gene. Additionally, despite measures taken to prevent this, some studies have found that these integrants (proviruses) may be packaged into another virus if you're subsequently infected with a wild lentivirus (ie HIV), creating stem cell inducing viruses (which can't replicate, but can infect other cells).
Having an extra copy of these genes might also pose problems for normal differentiation and differentiated cell function. They need to find a way to excise the provirus after the genes are expressed and reprogram the cell. Or, better yet, activate the endogenous copies of these genes in skin cells, leading to reprogramming without needing to deliver exogenous copies. Still, even if they can't be used in therapies yet, research using them could lead to a lot of useful data.
So you would object to using your organs for transplantation after your death, as that's not dignified?
And you would never accept an organ transplant?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research.
This is really a questionable statement. People had been getting grant money to do embryonic stem research well before Bush became president. He became the first to create a specific category of NIH funding towards stem cell research, but that was with the major caveat that you could only use existing stem cell lines which in effect froze embryonic stem cell research in the US and set it back 5 years. It's akin to setting aside NSF funds for space exploration research but then saying you can only use Legos to do it.
People need something to fight over, it's one of the things that makes us human.
One day (probably in the far distant future) the science-types will work out how to assemble (from scratch, no less) one (1) Hew-Man Being(patent-pending, tm, etc most likely) without the mess involved with "an embryo".
What you gonna do now?
You think this is insanely unlikely? (remember folks, people once thought it insanely unlikely the earth was NOT the center of the universe)
Until it's born, it's "an embryo". Of course essentially the same thing occurring as "just a bunch of separate organs" is (by definition) not "an embryo" although (in theory, so far) you could piece the jigsaw-puzzle together in "an assembl-O-mat" and produce a walking-talking fully-functional human.
And maybe we won't do it that way - maybe we'll just use full nano-assembley and build him (or her) one atom at a time.
At what point do you differentiate between "a human" (or "a person") and something that was literally designed and manufactured by "those geeks in Building C" you see in the cafeteria some days?
Do they deserve any rights? Rights the same as "the rest of us" or not? (anyone seen Blade Runner lately?)
Should "they" be any less worthy simply because we fully understand how they came to be, and can control that process?
Does anyone else in this room find it odd and unsettling that the very same people who are so against killing people before they're born are constantly requisitioning more funds from congress in order to kill people after they've been born? (well, very long after. And "those people" aren't "my people" so that makes it fair and just, doesn't it?)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Hardly. Frankly this is pretty interesting, and certainly would be useful for the getting stem cells for a person to grow a new body part. The question remains are these cells totopotent or pluripotent? Do they have the same range of use as ESC? Or just the range of ASC?
The answer is, we don't have an answer. We haven't done the leg work to find out what the range of use is on embryonic stem cells. This debate has nothing to do with ethics. No medical ethics are violated here, the debate is 100% about religion. The fact is, if one actually worried about the embryo, scientists would be happy to make lines by taking some cells from a developing embryo, then make a stem cell line out of those and implant the embryo and get an infant out of the deal. So rather than some embryo which would otherwise be medical waste, we would have a stem cell line and a child. Who could object? -- Um, religious folks; they still object.
It could very well be that ASCs are all we need and that we could dedifferentiate them easily with full usability, able to make everything from a new kidney to an embryo and a clone army. The problem however, is we just don't know because the research isn't there. The idea that a clump of 150 cells without any nerves at all is the ethical equivalent to a child, or that that clump of cells is more valued than somebody with a spinal cord injury whose treatments are being prolonged is a joke. A fly has 100,000 nerve cells and is by far the ethical superior of swaths of embryos.
Embryonic stem cells might not be any more useful. And we'll always have that "might" there until we do the research.
There's nothing about medical ethics which suggests some kind of soul thing jumps into a zygote at the moment the gametes join, and nothing to suggest that a couple cells aren't just that, some cells. If you read this story you must realize that there is no more ethics problems with ESCs then there is with scratching my ass. In fact, I'm bound to scratch away swaths more cells with the ass-scratch. Ethics? No. This is about religion and the unevidenced nonsense it advocates for no reason in particular. This research is useful, but it doesn't answer the actual questions we need answered.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
This is really a questionable statement. People had been getting grant money to do embryonic stem research well before Bush became president. He became the first to create a specific category of NIH funding towards stem cell research, but that was with the major caveat that you could only use existing stem cell lines which in effect froze embryonic stem cell research in the US and set it back 5 years. It's akin to setting aside NSF funds for space exploration research but then saying you can only use Legos to do it.
No, it would be like saying you can experiment with all the corn you want, but you can only experiment with the corn that is already in the US. You may not import any more corn. You see, stem cells divide endlessly. There is no point in creating more stem cell lines. Just like you can plant new corn from the old and grow it forever. How did that set back stem cell research 5 years? If anything, it made scientists stop creating new lines for the sake of creating new lines and made them do actual work with the existing lines. If it did set us back 5 years, then why wasn't this discovery made by Kyoto University and the University of France? Shouldn't Europe be 5 years ahead of us now? Evidently, they are not because this discovery was made by Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin, right here in the US and paid for with government funds (at least the WI part of it).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There is no point in creating more stem cell lines
There are a ton of reasons to create new lines. First the technology used to create all of those lines relied on mouse "feeder cells" which the stem cells grew on. This resulted in widespread contamination of these cells with mouse antigens which not only makes them poor models of how natural stem cells function but also means you can't ever transplant them to humans. Second, growing cells in culture almost always eventually causes them to undergo genetic changes and chromosomal abnormalities that make them akin to cancer (by growing in culture you are by definition selecting for cells that grow the fastest and have the least ability to respond to overgrowing conditions). So you can't just grow them forever, though by nature they are less affected by this than other cell types (ie primary cell lines). The fact that there are now many more ES cell lines created by foreign research is clear that there is obviously a point to creating new lines.
If it did set us back 5 years, then why wasn't this discovery made by Kyoto University and the University of France?
This is not embryonic stem cell research. Blocking ES cell research would have zero effect on their ability to do this research. The reason the US is behind in embryonic stem cell research is because the people who have been working on it are leaving the US and foreigners who would normally come to the US are going elsewhere. Granted, places like Harvard and the state of CA have created gov't funding-free dedicated facilities to work on ES research but AFAIK, the CA money has been held up by court battles. So the only place you could even do embryonic research is at Harvard. To get US embryonic stem cell research back up to the point that other countries like Korea are at would take at least several years.
Not only are you an idiot, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I bet you know nothing about the groundbreaking genetic work done by Gregor Mendel. Go ahead and google for him. You'll find out both his profession and where he did his work.
The point that I'm making is that religious people have long taken part in scientific research. Ethics may be influenced by religion, but it does not require it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Where are you going to find Randall Waterhouse, America Shaftoe and a bunch of secret admirers to run the joint?
Yeah, I've heard this story somewhere before.
here would be a few basic rules such as no WMD, no full human cloning, no human chimera, and human experimenting.
If you impose any conditions, what makes you any better than George Bush?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ok, so who owns the patent? So far patent fees have been the biggest stumbing blocks, not the Bush crime family.
If not, how do you ethically justify doing the same thing to that mass of cells?
A mass of cells, even structured as a human being in any of it's development stages, is not necessarily a human being, IMHO.
A lump of cells no matter how organized is no Martha, Steve, Jane or Joe. However, a lump of human cells with a fully functional central nervous system and the potential to sustain it's own life given the correct environment, now that's my candidate for the human being tag. A teratoma, for example, is not a human being, not even the ones that develop rudimentary nervous systems (I think I've read that some even respond to stimuli like being pinched with a needle, but don't quote me on that)
The only cogent logical argument for definition of life other than "life begins at conception" that I've heard...
My particular view is: between conception and the time when the different types of tissues are being differentiated it's alive, but not a human being, and I don't think an abortion at this point is unethical (ducks for cover).
Of course, this is just my unwashed opinion, and anyone is entitled to disagree (politely).
The real idiots are the people who see issues in such a black and white fashion and can't seem to grasp the othersides reservations. The whole issue is when to define the start of life, from my non-religiously derived point of view it seems the only logical place it can start is conception, any other starting point seems rather arbitrary to me. So can you define when you consider life to start and explain why? For me, while I can see the reservations against embryonic stem cell research, I cannot see reservations against this kind of research. I would imagine most people with reservations against embryonic stem cell research feel the same and you are just jumping to conclusions because you are just as guilty as the "us" vs "them" mentality.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide? What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
This is an appeal to emotion. Which happens to be a logical fallacy when it comes to argumentation.
It seems to me that sentience should be the test. At some point in the not too distant future we will create sentient beings that are machine based. This is inevitable. They will have no DNA at all. Using the typical arguments that you seem to embrace, such being should not be afforded the same human rights that you and I have even though they may be thousands of times more intelligent than we are.
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, what makes us human? I don't think relying on a purely biological answer is very wise or useful.
Actually, what kind of serious human stem cell research existed before the bush administration? None, so is it really THAT strange that he was the FIRST president to authorize it? The only thing he didn't do was to authorize it fully, that should have been done.
If this was a question on whether to experiment with living embryos or not, it would be an issue regarding the rights to experiment with life. But actually stem cell research is only experimenting with aborted embryos (read dead)- why wouldn't you on earth accept that? Will God be pissed? heck - if that theoretical being had the possibility on getting pissed, he would be that already, a long time ago.
Think of what they can do with a nose!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_(film)
Never. Adults are the subject of research all the time. I know that's not what you really wanted to know, but imprecision in a discussion of this type irritates me.
To answer the question you meant to ask but didn't, at the average age that it is capable of surviving outside the womb.
And to be honest, the "embryo is a viable human" doesn't pass the sniff test. You can come up with all the intractable questions you like, they really don't change anything.
The scientist involved in this research said himself that Bush's ban on stem cell research set the field back four or five years.
Research is not a fluid. Barriers do not cause it to flow faster in a different direction. Research is gaseous -- it expands in all directions, and will get to any breakthrough faster if you do not put barriers in its way.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I agree they have, however they go looking for God in science whereas the typical athiest scientist or engineer just wants to know how it works. Don't even get me started on intelligent design. Besides everyone knows the one true god is the flying spaghetti monster. Long may his noodly appendage flap upon us!
An often-overlooked core issue is that some current reckless methods of IFV are already unethical - creating a surplus of viable humans with that knowledge that a significant population will be destroyed / discarded. These sorts of IFV treatments are already treating human lives as if they were a commodity - just a resource to be bought and sold. The use of "surplus" embryos in stem-cell research just opens up an additional market and creates a supply chain - generating more revenue from the creation and destruction of human lives. It offends the very notion of "human dignity," espoused by religious and non-religious alike.
The path to meet market demands for test-subject embryos should certainly be barred on ethical grounds, and on the same grounds that source of the market supply should be shut down as well. There are plenty of alternative paths that don't require creating so many "surplus" embryos - even if they do cost more time and money to perform.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide?
No, there is no single line we can draw that separates a potential human from an actual human, which is why those opposed to abortion and stem cell research like to bring up. What they don't mention is the obvious solution: draw two lines. Eight and a half months into a pregnancy, the baby is already capable of being delivered by c-section. At conception, it's a single cell with nothing whatsoever resembling thoughts, feelings, or autonomy. "Life begins at conception" is just as valid as "life begins at birth." Oh, and by "valid", I mean "asinine."
What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
Yawn.
This debate has gotten a lot of people arguing about cells; when they are 'alive' and when they are 'dead'; when are they 'human', when are they not... Frankly, a lot of the opinions provided seem ill-informed and jejune; it is entirely possible that this is merely because the proponents of those opinions have failed to provide their rationale.
Personally, I believe that life has no distinct beginning, and a nebulous-at-best end; there-fore, I tend to lean towards the most mathematically viable option. For instance, this embryo's destruction may lead to a cure for Parkinson's Disease. One embryo is less than several million sufferers of Parkinson's. Death to the embryo, as it were. Also, there is a growing embryo/foetus in a woman; she cannot go through the pregnancy with her health: back problems, possibly pre-natal fatality, etcetera. Again, death to the embryo. Suppose she's fine and healthy, but cannot financially support the child. This one's trickier. I lean towards early-term abortion, but not late term. Once the child starts to develop a nervous system, I get uncomfortable. Even then though, I value the mother's life more; if she can't reasonably go through with the pregnancy and birth, let her choose to abort or not. She can make another one at a later date, when she's healthier.
This kind of thinking also leads me to believe that vegetarianism (and especially veganism) is a silly idea. No type of organism is 'better' than another; a cow has as much right to life as a human. Of course, the opposite is also true. Additionally, humans are designed (whether by God, gods, evolution, or some combination of the above) to eat plants AND meat; there are eight essential amino acids that humans cannot produce. Humans are supposed to consume fats and cholesterol, which are difficult or impossible to find in plants. We are supposed to eat other organisms. Get over it.
It also seems to produce a dichotomy: so you won't eat meat; why will you eat plants? Why is meat 'better' than plants? How do you feel about micro-organisms?
If any-one can tell me, phlegmatically and reasonably, why they believe some-thing counter to what I do, I would be grateful. Oh, and if one of those reasons is a religious doctrine, tell me what it is, and even explain it if you so choose, but no attempts at conversion, please. My religion is my business, not yours.
"What is there in this world that makes living worthwhile?" Death thought about it. "CATS," he said. "CATS ARE NICE."
Be careful calling people ignorant when you yourself are short a few clues to what you're talking about.
I agree they have, however they go looking for God in science whereas the typical athiest scientist or engineer just wants to know how it works.
So what? Why does it matter if faith is someone's inspiration for studying things?
Don't even get me started on intelligent design.
I don't remember bringing that up. It's a separate issue.
Besides everyone knows the one true god is the flying spaghetti monster. Long may his noodly appendage flap upon us!
I can only assume that you think I'm a Christian and are trying to bait me. I'm not and you can't.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"The only thing he didn't do was to authorize it fully, that should have been done."
It's clear from this announcement that had it been fully authorized as you suggest, these researchers wouldn't have gone down this path and made this discovery.
Like it or not, by not authorizing full funding, researchers had to look at the alternatives and came up with a much better and easier to duplicate solution. And that's thanks to President Bush.
Oddly enough, P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula actually had a good write up on this paper. It turns out that they are in fact totopotent. They proved it by transferring the mouse cell nucleus to an oocyte and implanting it, resulting in an entire mouse; everything grew perfectly fine thus we know it can make everything.
They found a reset switch. They trigger it with gene therapy though and the mice produced have a much higher cancer rate and you might hit a useful gene you need. They found this reset switch by looking at actual ESCs. They need a way to trigger the cells without forcing some new genetic material in, leading to cancer and the like. The way to do that is more research. Ten years down the road this is going to be pretty important, and Takahashi et al. are probably going get a Nobel Prize for this.
Three things to remember:
This breakthrough was the result of embryonic stem cell research.
This needs more research to make it viable for any treatment which means more embryonic stem cell research.
This breakthrough was made in Japan where they are allowed to conduct the research.
We fell behind, and though there are breakthroughs coming they aren't ours, nor are they as soon as they could have been.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.