Slashdot Mirror
Finnish Patient Gets New Jaw from His Own Stem Cells
An anonymous reader writes with news out of Finland, where a patient's upper jaw was replaced with bone cultivated from stem cells and grown inside the patient himself. We discussed other advances in stem cell research a few months ago. Quoting:
"In this case they identified and pulled out cells called mesenchymal stem cells -- immature cells than can give rise to bone, muscle or blood vessels. When they had enough cells to work with, they attached them to a scaffold made out of a calcium phosphate biomaterial and then put it inside the patient's abdomen to grow for nine months. The cells turned into a variety of tissues and even produced blood vessels, the researchers said."
A jaw growing in his abdomen? I've seen that film before...
I have no doubt that Bill Gates has had himself cloned, or at least all his organs and tissues, for when his own parts wear out. Stashed around the world, as insurance against laws banning cloning.
And if it's not viable yet, they'll just keep cloning him until they get it right.
I know that if I had $100B, that's how I'd spend it.
--
make install -not war
Does this mean I can have a second wee-wee?
Virus alert! I should've remembered NIMP...
Don't click link. Page has nasty javascript and is not related to the article one bit!
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
don't click, nasty javascript
How much did it cost him/her? $500k? $1M?
Which link? First is on-topic reuters page, second links to slashdot article. I think you are just a troll.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Wow, they didn't even kill an unborn baby
Cut it out. Please, just stop it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You fail. The parent referred to the troll post at score 0.
I wonder how much guvment funding this had. Is anyone in the US pursuing this line of work? Why not? All in all it seems that this kind of approach (using various adult steem cells) has far out stripped fetal stem cells in terms of therapeutic value.
Did you idiot even notice that the comment YOU are replying to is in turn a reply to another comment that's been moderated to -1 by now? One that also contains a link? And did it occur to you that THAT may have been the link the GP was warning about, not the links in the summary?
No, of course it didn't: you're just a stupid slashbot, after all.
Well it certainly breaks firefox. Didn't do anything malicious, although I did reboot rather quickly. Perhaps the poster would go and play on the freeway for his next trick!
Sorry, my bad. I didn't noticed it. I'm not slashbot, it was just a mistake.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
I have a mandibular excess and a maxillary deficiency (meaning my jawbone is too big and my upper face area is too small), which leads me to grind my teeth, get some major TMJ pain, and end up with ruined and crooked teeth. I've looked at all the surgeries (major, like taking your jaw OUT of your mouth entirely), and they didn't seem worth the risk. The long term problem is I'll lose all my teeth. I was the freak with the toothbrush in school, who flossed and brushed and rinsed 3 times a day. Today I'm the root canal and filling king, because of the jaw issue.
When stem cells are available to regrow teeth, it will take off. The problem is that I expect the ADA (that's the lobbying group to keep dentists expensive and rare, like the AMA is a lobbying group to reduce the supply of doctors and rape the patients' wallets) will fight it tooth and nail. They'll do it under a mask of "religion" by a group controlled by them, but it will happen.
Here, again, we see a market phenomenon that will either be over-regulated by the government so that it takes too long and is too expensive to bring to market, or we'll see a complete destruction of a huge opportunity to fix problems. I am willing to take a risk to deal with the teeth issue today, and I'm probably going to have to do it in India or China because I know that we won't get any favor here if it competes with the strong lobbying cartels, like the crooked dentists (or the doctors, or the CPAs, or any number of groups who have "associations" to harm consumers with bad legislation).
Do you really think the ADA will be against a procedure that requires much oral surgery, and associated fees? They don't make money off people without teeth, so it is their best interest to encourage you to keep them.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Hopefully this research goes to something useful, like helping me grow multiple prehensile penises that shoot pheromones and aphrodisiacs.
Help fight spam
they attached them to a scaffold made out of a calcium phosphate biomaterial and then put it inside the patient's abdomen to grow for nine months.
...if the guy pulled his head out of his ass.
It's a relevant comment, Alternative stem cell technology does have the potential to intrude upon embryo stem cell research and usurp its importance in the field of medical care. Why should we stop discussing the potential of one technology to replace another, highly controversial one? And why in God's name do we scream "please, stop" at one controvery while we engage in several other equally hot topics (that are nearer and dearer to geeks than fetuses)? "Kuill an unborn baby"? I've seen equally incindiary comments than that over music copying/piracy (there we go, there's one example), etc.
You sound like a hypocrite.
...I expect the ADA ...will fight it tooth and nail.
:)
No pun intended, I'm sure.
There is a huge market for artificial teeth. Two of the people I work with have lost teeth recently and have gone in for artificials, its a 6 month long process that costs around 10 grand. Its in a dentists interest to keep the patient with poor teeth.
No smoking sigs indoors.
No biggie. When I first read the article a moderator had modded the post positive without checking the link. I was trying to bring attention to that. Unfortunely they have modded me positive which will probably lead others to the link so I failed :(.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
I hope that ESCR can be made to produce ESC with out killing embryos. ESC are much more flexible than adult stem cells. Try healing a problem in an organ that repairs very slowly, thus does not produce very active adult stem cells.... like the kidney.
There is no such thing as an "upper jaw." We have various bones forming the base of the skull and associated teeth structures (aka maxilla) and a lower jaw (aka mandible).
Dentists have been using stem cells for years. In certain situations when there are not enough bone to place dental implants, dentists would place bonegrafts mixed in with blood drawn from the hip marrow. You get around 5-10 stem cells for every million blood cells but that's all it takes to convert the bonegraft into the patient's own bone (the stem cells become osteoblasts). The only difference in this study versus what we have been doing is that they place the bonegraft with stem cells into the stomach for osteoconduction versus us placing the material into place right off the bat. Typical wait times for us is only 6 months before the bone is deemed solid enough for implant placement.
OK - it happens. (Sorry for calling you an idiot, BTW - I get a bit carried away at times. :/
The pope just shit a brick
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
And I'm going to call bullshit on you. Stem cell research does not, in any way, kill, or support killing, babies. Irresponsible people kill babies.
It's nice that they used this persons own stem cells but I would have supported using embryo stem cells instead of flushing them down the toilet.
I was not screaming "STOP" at the controversy. I was screaming "STOP" at yet another repeated falsehood. I am perfectly willing to discuss the "controversy" but not with such outrageous emotional overtones.
... this is just my own opinion, but if I'd had a mother that didn't want me, had aborted me and left me for dead, I'd rather have ended up in a research program than a medical incinerator. Maybe then someone else who might otherwise have died, or suffered horribly, would have some chance at life.
... and knows it.
I have nothing against working multiple lines of research: one or both will pay off handsomely (or maybe another effort that's not even been thought of yet, but will likely benefit from current progress.) But the "killing babies" argument is getting old and tired, and is not relevant because nobody kills babies for the express purpose of acquiring stem cells. That's just a lie, pure and simple. They're discarded embryos that have no hope of ever being born
Nobody wants to deal with the real issue of why there are so many non-viable embryos available for research purposes in the first place. What? That's a complex psycho-socio-economic problem that has no easy answer and can't be solved by blowing up abortion clinics or passing a few laws? Huh. How about that for controversy. Perhaps we need to rethink some basic aspects of our culture and figure out where we went wrong. This so-called "controversy" over stem cell research is a symptom of some deeper issues. Issues that, I might add, aren't going to disappear just because our President doesn't understand that his moral sense is too simplistic to provide effective guidance in this area (among others.)
I get just as torqued off when people make similar irrational commentary on other equally-hot topics. So calling me a hypocrite is a bit off: I just want people to learn to think. Only then does a reasoned response that might actually improve matters become possible. Otherwise everyone is just stroking their egos and refusing to learn anything.
Look, this same technique is applied to many different issues. Take illegal immigration. As soon as anyone brings up the idea of enforcing the law as written, some asshole immediately starts crying "racism! racism!". At that point, any rational discussion becomes impossible, because anyone who believes we should enforce our own laws has now been labeled a bigot. Doesn't matter what the facts are any longer.
So, if you want to have a decent dialog about the use of discarded embryos in stem cell research, keep the "killing babies" commentary to yourself. It serves little purpose other than to polarize the participants and eliminate any possibility of rational discourse. The people who are performing this research (the ones who originally used embryonic cells) are not baby killers, not abortion doctors, they're researchers with a genuine desire to advance our scientific knowledge and help people. Such deliberate and malicious mischaracterization of others generally means that someone has a fatally flawed perspective that cannot be supported by reality
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What bonehead tagged this "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"? That tag is for describing situations where some kind of decision could easily have unforeseen consequences affecting numerous people. What could possibly go wrong here is that this guy could, at worst, die. This one guy.
Stop overusing that tag! </rant>
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Daddy's little girl can then go into the doctor's office and say: "I want to look like Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/whatever the slutty starlet flavor of the month is!" A vault of casts from different star's bodies is opened, and they stuff the parts into our victi.. err patient's already over sized abdomen. Then they tear off her body parts one by one and replace them with the "improved" versions. Everyone will end up looking like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Wait, is that why... oh crap! Ridiculously impossible ideas aside, this is great news, seriously. No no don't worry, I wouldn't want to look like Tom Cruise either.
Well, as an American citizen who is watching his country's slow fall from being the leader in technology and scientific research to a relative backwater, I'd say it's a good thing that other nations are investing more and more in science, so that when the time comes I'll be able to fly somewhere to get state-of-the-art treatment if I should ever need it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Where on earth do you have it from that fluoride weakens teeth? I've never heard anything like that. What I learned from chemistry is that fluoride strengthens the enamel.
Besides, everyone knows the fluoridation of water is a commie plot to impurify our precious bodily fluids.
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
*sigh*
/. anymore. *sigh*
These GNAA-clones have been around a while, and before that the actual GNAA was doing this. GET A CLUE ALREADY, NIMP.ORG IS LAST MEASURE.
Anyone not getting this should not be on
I swear, I'll soon start spamming I'm Feeling Lucky Last Measures.
Grandparent's page tries to open a bunch of little GNAA shithead IRC links on IRC, as well as download that stupid movie the GNAA twits love to quote, as well as having a bunch of Quicktime files up, as well as attempting to open a bunch of homophobic newsgroups.
In short, typical GNAA crap. Hopefully someone bans the grandparent for this.
[citation needed]
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Of the proto-jaw as it's taken out of the abdomen?
How long till this, in some form, is used to increase breast size? It seems growing a jaw would be more difficult than growing new/more breast tissue, and they would be "real". Just inject some "breast stem cells" directly into the breast and watch em grow :). I for one welcome our new larger breast female overlords.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Talk about absurd conversation.. Are you sure you're not replying to yourself?
ah-hA!
Good one!
Mod this one the fuck up. Everyone else replying is a liar.
Yes, the religious right yet again has shown the way claiming the moral high ground. We must embrace the "Sanctity of Life" protecting the unborn from conception to birth, because after that you're on your own.
It is refreshing to see a misunderstanding resolved in a civil manner. Even an AC apologized!
+1 "Admits mistake" to Yetihehe and +1 "Courteous" to cbart387 -- both rare mods these days.
Thanks for raising the level of behaviour on the boards for a moment.
Unfortunately I am on my cell phone PDA (where I browse and post to slashdot from regularly) so I can't do an easy Google search. Please double check my spelling here, but look up the report by Dr. Hardy Limeback regarding skeletal fluorosis. Limeback was a shill for the Canadian Dental Association (Canada's lobbying group) regarding fluoridation support, but has since changed his mind. I believe his changeover happened in the late 90s, but I stay on top of what he has been writing. Since he has "come out of the fluoro-closet," other researchers and scientists are starting to see the problems with fluoride.
Fluoride MAY make enamel in teeth stronger, but it is now seen to make bone structures (hips and limbs, as well as jaws and teeth) much weaker over time. Also, it seems that the toxic level of fluoride may now be actually much lower than what the ADA and AMA have specified since the 50s when the research was "confirmed."
One thing I don't necessarily agree with is the conspiracy advocates against fluoride. Here is their story, which I again don't really think is a correct theory: during WWII, fluoride was an excess waste chemical that was found to protect bones from nuclear pollutants. The idea was the add fluoride to water to protect people from a nuclear war, but also to pad the pockets of the chemical companies. Since then, the profits from adding this waste material to water have been high, so they've continued the conspiracy. Again, I don't think it holds water, but I have not discounted it completely.
As more and more medical experts refine their research into the long term effects of fluoride, it becomes obvious that it is a poison, detrimental to human growth and strength, and a major profit point for large State-enabled industry. I stopped drinking flouridated water 8 years ago (and stopped using fluoride-based toothpaste), and my lifetime problem with my teeth has turned around significantly. In the first 24 years of my life, I had over 30 cavities, including multiple in the same teeth. In the past 8 years, I've had 2. In the past 5 years, I've had zero, and there is are signs that some of my teeth may actually have partially healed themselves (somehow!).
My dentist has, for the past 5 years, been taking some patients off of fluoride consumption and he thinks it has helped more than 80% of those with severe dental problems.
Sidenote: I also stopped consuming sugar and many products which sugarize in the mouth (many wheat products, some corn products, etc). This may have something to do with having a healthier mouth!
And? Instead of artificials you're selling them real teeth, where's the big difference?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The debate is centered on ethics. Most of the facts aren't in dispute, they just get ignored.
The facts simply aren't reasonably in dispute. We all know that a zygote is an immature homo sapien. We know that it doesn't have brain function until considerably later and isn't communicative until well after it's born. So the debate is whether or not that's the same sort of "human" that belongs in the term "human rights." That is, whether it is our intelligence or our humanity that makes us somehow worthy of the rights we all recognize.
This is the CORE of the debate, not something that can be dispensed with as a side issue. It doesn't matter if that's why someone is destroying embryos, the people who believe it's human life oppose it because they believe it's human life. There simply isn't a way around that! You're asking them to discuss why they oppose it while leaving out the main reason! Sure, there might be some people who oppose it due to other reasons (squeamishness, fear of science, or whatever), but there aren't too many of those. Then you go on to talk about the "waste" embryos as if those who oppose destroying them aren't opposed to the processes which leave them as waste! Did you not read the story yesterday with the Pope of all people condemning those very things?
Worse, you go on to illegal immigration and you again miss the entire point of the opposition's argument! They're against the laws as written, so of course they don't want to enforce them any more than your average Slashdotter thinks the NFL ought to be able to enforce the ban on TV screens over 56 inches which is also written into law. But you've probably never been through immigration, so you don't have much of an idea how byzantine it is. Nor would you know that the agency has been almost completely defunded so that they can't process your case in a reasonable amount of time. And God help you if they screw up at any point. Hell, they've deported American citizens caught in raids, taking months to review the case even when presented with a valid US birth certificate!
So when you say that the opposition's case "isn't based on facts" I'm hearing that you don't really understand the opposition's case. Because that's what you're showing me. Believe it or not, I'm NOT ignorant of what a zygote or blastocyst is. I know the difference between pluripotent and multipotent stem cells, as well as the rationale behind the use of each. I even know a little about immigration law, despite being a US citizen who hasn't had to suffer going through it.
You? You can't even state the opponent's case in a reasonable manner. Believe it or not, I can engage in calm and rational debate. I won't throw out my case as a prerequisite, though, nor will I agree to the stipulation that the facts "aren't" on my side simply because you disagree with my interpretation of them. But I won't yell and scream at you when I ask you to pin down exactly what makes a human "human."
I don't have to. All I have to do is extend your "logic" to its breaking points. Given your display of the ignorance of our arguments, you don't seem to understand that your blind spot is a mile wide.
We'll kick your asses solid. But don't worry, if your jaw disappears in the tussle, we'll grow you a new one on the taxpayer's dime.
How long till this, in some form, is used to increase breast size? It seems growing a jaw would be more difficult than growing new/more breast tissue, and they would be "real".
Women with real breasts larger than a D-cup frequently seek breast reduction surgery, natural breast tissue isn't strong enough to support that much weight in an aesthetically appealing way. When science comes up with a way to make a 40 year old's natural breasts perky again, then plastic surgeons will have to rethink their business model.
We are all just people.
I hate it when religion is used as a front for political/financial agenda...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Careful with including your childhood into that number, the milk teeth are much weaker than regular teeth.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Is that a jawbone in your abdomen, or are you just happy to see me?
First off: I am a Christian, and anti abortion.
Before you cast my comment aside, let me say that in many respects I agree with you.
Crying "killing babies" is a mantra created for influencing the masses. I realize that there is a huge gray area as far as abortion goes. Sometimes it is necessitated because the mothers life is in danger, other times the fetus is dead.
Killing the fetus for the simple expedient of harvesting stem-cells makes me uncomfortable, and I would vote against it if ever given the chance. Using unborn (through natural death - rejection in the womb for instance) fetuses for that purpose makes me less uncomfortable.
I am however all for exploring means that would make it unnecessary to use a fetus for the purpose of harvesting stem-cells, but making blanket uninformed decisions is wrong and trying to get the masses involved by preying on their fears is wrong.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
A woman gets badly burned, and they graft skin from her husband's ass to rebuild her face. After the series of operations, she looks great.
She says, "Honey, how can I ever repay you?"
He says, "I get paid back every time I see your mother kiss you on the cheek."
What?
from the shouldnt-they-have-tried-it-on-andrew-morton-first department
He works together with some ostheopath.. eh.. ist, well, a bone surgeon anyway, who makes these 'scaffolds' out of (dead) coral, cause it has a structure that's perfect for the injection of cells. He lives on Aruba, you see. So that's why. Don't know any more about it though - *mumble*.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The word "unborn" has about as much relevance to reality as the word "undead".
They are not words one uses to have an intelligent discussion with.
>>Take illegal immigration. As soon as anyone brings up the idea of enforcing the law as written, some asshole immediately starts crying "racism! racism!". At that point, any rational discussion becomes impossible, because anyone who believes we should enforce our own laws has now been labeled a bigot. Doesn't matter what the facts are any longer.
Well, as a parallel example, some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the record. If you were to recommend "enforcing those laws as written," don't you think people would be right to decry you as anti-gay?
The laws already on the record aren't automatically morally neutral. They may very well be racist laws. You certainly don't have to try too hard to find laws that WERE explicitly racist in our nation's recent history. If you're going to argue in favor of current immigration policy, you're going to have to come up with a better argument for why the current laws are acceptable than merely that they're the current laws.
Just to make you feel more comfortable, it's called embryonic, not fetal cell stem research. They call them embryos on the earliest stages of growth, generally from the moment of fertilization until the end of the 8th week of gestational age. They call them fetuses thereafter. The embryos used for harvesting human embryonic stem cells are typically four or five days old. They look like a hollow microscopic ball of cells and called the blastocyst.
Well, I'm atheist and I'm anti-abortion, mostly because I see most of them as being the result of irresponsible behavior, and a further unwillingness to take responsibility for one's actions. I would think that most people don't believe abortion is a good idea, it mostly comes down to what criteria get applied for it to be permitted. Some would say when the mother's life is at risk, some would say when a woman is impregnated after a rape, others say it's the mother's choice ... others say never, ever. As usual, there's a middle ground that has to be found and some people will just have to accept that, whether they want to or not.
Obviously, as someone who doesn't believe in a human soul I'm at best only peripherally concerned with that aspect of the abortion controversy, however I do believe that a society such as ours should maintain some self-respect, some respect for each other. The problem is complex, however, and simply outlawing abortion without honestly and openly discussing the underlying cultural and economic concerns that affect abortion rates is pointless. Failure to address those issues will only make matters worse.
Regardless, I agree with you that abortion won't be dealt with in a responsible way unless we stop with the fear-mongering and irrational arguments. That applies to a whole host of other problems that are facing our society right now, from foreign policy to illicit drugs to stem-cell research. Unfortunately, many, many people simply cannot see past their own worldview, won't compromise under any conditions, refuse to accept that the other guy might have a point. Other people are just ignorant and believe whatever they're told by the latest talking head. As a consequence, sometimes very little progress gets made.
And that's too bad.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Sidenote: I also stopped consuming sugar and many products which sugarize in the mouth (many wheat products, some corn products, etc). This may have something to do with having a healthier mouth!
Given that sugar can be directly associated with just about every common disease from which man suffers, lowering your sugar intact will absolutely result in a healthier body and mouth. Most nutritional research indicates low caloric diets result in both healthy bodies and younger looking skin and hair, and a longer, healthy lifespan to boot. Low caloric diets are almost impossible with highly processed, sugary foods.
In nations where high levels or processed sugars have been introduced to the indigenous populations, disease rates rapidly rise and lifespans rapidly shrink; with poor oral health following.
I have absolutely no idea if fluoride harms the body. But without a doubt, reducing ones sugar intact, doubly so for processed sugars, will improve ones overall health.
Ironically, a popular sugar substitute which is labeled as a significant health risk to humans, is drastically safer and extremely well documented to be so, safer to humans than highly processed beat and cane sugars.
To be clear, I'm not declaring any company is evil or that sugar is the work of the devil. I am saying that sugar is extremely well documented to be directly associated with just about every common disease which afflicts mankind. Having said all that, I enjoy a good dessert as much as the next guy.
{sigh} you, like most other posters here, completely missed the point. What I'm trying to get across is that laws will not get changed in any intelligent way unless we stop calling each other names, stop trying to scare each other, and look at what's really going on. I don't care what particular issue you want to talk about: immigration, stem-cells, abortion, foreign policy, War on Drugs, War in Iraq, TSA, Copyright/Patent Reform, you name it.
... do what you can to get them changed! Don't go around saying that it's okay to break them just because you think they might be racist. As a general principle, the Rule of Law is better than no law at all. So far as laws against Sodomy and Suicide, and unenforceable laws is concerned, the answer is that they're unenforceable and consequently irrelevant to this discussion.
... but don't expect me to agree.
So excuse me, but the fact that those immigration laws are on the books means they're on the goddamn books until Congress decides to change them. You sir, are going to have to come up with a better argument as to why those laws should be blatantly ignored other than that certain people happen to disagree with them. Those who disagree, oddly enough, are those who benefit the most economically by breaking them, at considerable cost to the rest of society. The burden is on you to show why that is a good thing, not on those that are simply calling for proper enforcement. Should you feel that the laws are unjust
Furthermore, I don't really understand how you can call a nation that accepts people from literally every country on the planet as being in any way racist. The truth is that some people (for very self-serving reasons) want the flood of illegal Mexican immigrants to continue, and the best way they can find to do that is to shout down any opposition by calling them racist. By doing so, they immediately smear said opposition, forcing them to defend themselves against a charge that in this society is arguably worse than calling them child molesters, and shuts down any possibility of rational discourse. That, of course, is the whole point: to prevent the idea that maybe America doesn't want to give away the candy store from being openly talked about.
Who knows, perhaps we really should just fire all the border guards and just open up completely. Let everyone in that wants to be here, forget about such nonsense as cultural assimilation, and citizenship, forget about our traditions and forget about what it means to be an American. Because, you know, who the hell needs those? Really, we're just a nation of foreigners, right? Being an American is no different from being a Mexican or a Canadian or a German or a Frenchman or anyone else, and besides, they're entitled to pig a share of our goodies, since after all they're people too and have a right to take whatever they want because we Americans just don't deserve it anymore. Does that sound a bit ridiculous to you? It does to me too, but it's seems to be the prevailing attitude nowadays. It's one Hell of a way to run a country, let me tell you.
Regardless, if that's how you think our laws and politics should work, fine
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Nobody wants to deal with the real issue of why there are so many non-viable embryos available for research purposes in the first place. "
This is where your argument is flawed. If it were only discarded embryos used in the process, there might not have been so much fuss. But even scientists that favor embryonic research admit that there just aren't enough discarded embryos for their research. To do it properly, they'd have to have a continuing, and large, supply. The only way to do this viably would be to either harvest them, or produce them en masse, via some kind of factory. I don't know about you, but the prospect of creating massive numbers of human life...even embryonic human life, for the sole purpose of then destroying it to harvest resources just opens up all kinds of pandora's boxes. Add to that the fact that thus far, embryonic research has yet to come up with any of the real world successes that experimentation with adult lines has, and you can see both moral and practical arguments against embryonic research.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Does anybody really give a fuck about unborn babies? No. The only people who care about unborn babies are unborn babies themselves.
>>So far as laws against Sodomy and Suicide, and unenforceable laws is concerned, the answer is that they're unenforceable and consequently irrelevant to this discussion.
Our current immigration laws ARE unenforceable. Our economy is currently dependent upon having a ton of illegal immigrant workers. Moreover, much like those sodomy laws, they've never BEEN enforced.
>>Furthermore, I don't really understand how you can call a nation that accepts people from literally every country on the planet as being in any way racist.
http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html
Granted, this site is hardly unbiased, but it's hard to argue that before 50 years ago our immigration laws were anything but racist. Thus, when people start bringing racism into immigration debates, it might be a good idea to research and consider the history of their argument rather than dismiss it out of hand (even if they don't articulate the issue very well).
>>What I'm trying to get across is that laws will not get changed in any intelligent way unless we stop calling each other names, stop trying to scare each other, and look at what's really going on.
And what I'm trying to get across is that sometimes issues are more subtle than you might initially think, and that what you consider "calling names" might have some actual basis in reality.
To bring this back to stem cells - it's clearly true that right now, nobody is killing fetuses specifically to harvest stem cells. But what if researchers found a miracle cure for, say, cancer that required non-immortalized fetal stem cells? At that point, there's probably a lot more demand for stem cells than can be provided by donated aborted fetuses, and we're stuck with a black market for cloned or (more gruesomely) specifically harvested fetuses. This is the long-term fear when it comes to fetal stem cells, and it's a fear you'd do better to address than to dismiss as hysteria, even when it's expressed in a shorthand manner like "stem cell research kills babies."
The fact that you wrote a joke like this (and that it was given a moderation score of 3 by other readers) indicates confusion amongst the Slashdot populace.
The media have tossed about the word "stem cells" very irresponsibly, making it seem like the religious institutions and others (US President Bush) oppose "stem cell research". What the churches and Bush oppose is embyronic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of the embryo.
This article is talking about Mesenchymal stem cells --- adult stem cells, which are not controversial. In fact, religious groups and Bush and others vigorously support adult stem cell research. Bush in 2001 stated the following:
Here are some examples of confusing headlines that the media have deliberately chosen:
"Bush vetoes stem-cell funds bill" (from the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6224134.stm)
"President Bush's cynical stem-cell policy." (an editorial from Slate at http://www.slate.com/id/2090244/ )
"Bush to stem cell community: drop dead" (an editorial from MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/).
All of these headlines are addressing the vetoing of bills to fund embryonic stem cell research, but the headlines misleadingly make it seem like ALL stem cell research is under attack.
In addition, it should be noted that Bush et al were restricting United States government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Unrestricted private funding (not provided by the federal US government)of embryonic stem cell research has always been allowed in the United States, such as that provided through the (private) Howard Hughes Medical Institute http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040304074237.htm , and now state governments such as California and New Jersey. (That's the same Howard Hughes that Leonardio DiCaprio portrayed in the movie "The Aviator" directed by Martin Scorsese.)
Are the ethics of embryonic stem cell research to be taken lightly? Dr. James Thomson was one of the first two laboratories to successfully extract them from embryos:
Basically, the reason we have 'adult stem cell research' is because 'embryonic cell research' discovered embryonic stem cells, in 1998 at the UW Madison. And yes, the 'tissue' came from local abortion clinics, so they died long before they became medical research material.
true, now we don't need to harvest stem cells from embryos, and for certain practices it's better to harvest from the patient's own fatty tissue. but if laws banning research on aborted fetus had existed pre-1998 there would be no stem cell research at all.
so god only knows what technology we're missing out on now that researchers in most of the us and Europe can't research on discarded embryonic tissues. The discard of said materials was again not for the sake of research, so these laws haven't changed the source of embryos in the least. but now science may be hindered, because some things are easier to observe in unborn tissues than in a living organism that has matured.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Is this the first time you've ever seen or heard of javascript errors or evil intent? Just f-ing turn off f-ing javascript. No javascript = safe browsing.
Opera browser allows you PER SITE settings. I keep javascript OFF for most browsing, and site-specific ON for a very few sites.
Not sure about a url? I "View Source", then think about trying javascript on if I really care, but most times, I don't. Javascript is just too dangerous, and frankly, I do not see any advantage. Any bandwidth saved by doing client browser computation is wasted by the tons of additional javascript code which is downloaded. Plus, some pages take 10x as long (no joke) to load and render with javascript on (Athlon XP-2400). Try it for yourself. My 2 cents...
Simply implant an elastic support mesh anchored to the ribs or breastbone - a kind of an internal bra. You could make it from a net of tendons if you want the "natural" aspect.
"Purpose of grant: to keep large breasts from sagging and remove the need for a bra." I guess that's one way to get funding for stem cell research ;)...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Sidenote? You have got to be fucking kidding me.
I've been drinking fluoride-water and using fluoride-toothpaste my entire life, and I have never had a single cavity. I'm not implying that my anecdote is any less meaningless than yours, but mine doesn't come with any sidenotes that are more significant than the "main" point!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Or should they consider him to be a baby-killer ? After all, anti-sodomy laws forbid a sexual practice which can't possibly result in pregnancy, while most forms of contraception are not 100% certain; consequently, enforcing anti-sodomy laws would lead to an increase in the rate of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn would lead to an increase in the rate of abortions. So, clearly anyone being against sodomy or homosexuality is for killing unborn babies - propably to eat their flesh in cannibalistic orgies to the tune of a black organ with flames coming from the pipes.
Reminds me of that old joke about a greenie going nuts over seeing an endangered animal eating an endangered plant in a preservation area :).
Think of the children - support sodomy, homosexuality and zoophilia ! Or just: Sodomites for Children !
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Both words have well-defined meanings. "Unborn" means something which hasn't been born yet. Not neccessarily a living thing, either; for example, if we don't figure out nuclear fusion soon, our future star empire dies unborn. And "undead", of course, refers to a formerly living thing which lacks metabolism but nevertheless retains animation; while there are no known examples of this phenomenom, the term itself is quite clear.
"Unborn" is usually used in the poetic sense, which may or may not fit your criterion of intelligent discussion. "Undead", on the other hand, can be used when discussing the myths of various cultures as a catch-all term for the dead but still goinnnggg - these myths are at the base of some of the more bizarre burial practices, such as burying the body to the ground and putting a large rock ("headstone") over it to keep it from re-emerging and haunting the living; unless you're arguing that anthropology is by definition unintelligent, I really don't think that you can claim the term unfit for intelligent discussion.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Why put embryos on a pedestal? No one gets mad when someone has liposuction. Won't somebody please think of the poor fat cells being slaughtered? What makes a cell unique enough to get this kind of attention, is it that the cell's DNA differs from that of the host? Then I suppose it's our duty to inform all those oncologists that what they're doing is wrong.
(Really, what do you think would happen to most of the embryos being used for stem cell research? At least they're going to something useful.)
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
I think "nomnomnom" is my favorite tag on /. so far.
"The cells turned into a variety of tissues and even produced blood vessels, the researchers said." It's called cancer. Who knows what will happen to this patient in the future. There just isn't enough research about this matter yet.
Women with real breasts larger than a D-cup frequently seek breast reduction surgery
Thats fine, I didn't say E to GG, I meant instead of implants.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
On further reflection, I realized that a better comparison with the word "unborn" would be with the word "pre-dead" (that which exists between birth and death). "Unborn" is almost always used by people on the anti-abortion (or Pro-Life) side of an abortion debate (thus prejudicing any discussion from the beginning). A more neutral term would be "fetus" or "embryo".
I won't belabor the point; use what you will. It would simply mean that your comments have far less meaning to a much wider population.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
The original studies on sacrin were sponcered by sugar growers who then lobbied, using their own "independent" study to prove the dangers to humans. I've certainly slept since I last read the study but IIRC, they fed something like 30x a rodent's body weight of sacrin every 30-days and documented how it caused cancer after many months. Once the FDA labels a product as a health risk, it requires an act of God to get the label removed.
I'm likely not correctly remembering the numbers but you get the idea. If you are 30x your body weight of almost any food additive, it's likely to have serious health implications. Studies done years later not only invalidate the original research but indicate Sacrin is actually one of the safer food additives.
To be clear, I am not advocate one start shooting up sacrin. I am saying the cause of the FDA labeling is well understood and well documented to not be reasonable and well outside of reasonable testing protocols. Of course, one should also seek to limit the numbers of additives in their diet. And to be clear, all artificial sweeteners can have negative effects on the body.
Also, super sweet sweeteners are also believed to be the cause of higher sugar consumption. After a while, your body gets used to certain levels of sweetness and what would once blow the top of your head off as super sweet, is later consumed as "normal". This directly drives higher sugar consumption to satisfy one's sweet tooth. Some studies also suggest this is the cause of lower fruit consumption as the natural sugars no longer taste very sweet, causing fruits to taste bland. These studies also strongly recommend that all dieters remove *all* artificial sweeteners from their diets, **especially** diet colas and sodas from their diet. Those that do, find their sugar cravings are drastically reduced and when they do break from their diet, the "binge effect" is also drastically reduced.
Thats like saying the only people who care about corpses are corpses. Idiotic.
This post doesn't have anything further to do with stem cells other then to try to cut through some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Well it would be awesome if they could seed the root area with a starter cell (there's probably some more scientific name for it.) And instead of having to do a major surgery, the seed would secrete a horomone that makes the defective adult tooth behave like a baby tooth. So after some period of time it disconnects from the bone and blood supply and falls out. After which a newer adult tooth would grow in it's place. (At least that's how I'd envision it working if they did it right.)
Bonus points if they could reprogram the starter cell DNA to grow a smaller and better fitting replacement tooth. I know the four in my upper back are probably duds right now, being that they're hard to clean and I'm short on money for more hi-level upkeep. And this is after having all the wisdom teeth removed.
Maybe because you will never be a parent laying on a couch, eating tons of chips, though you'll certanly raise a huge butt to be proud of.
And they could put you on a pedestal too, after a while...
If your name is Anonymous Coward, don't bother replying. I already guess how smart you are.
But the "killing babies" argument is getting old and tired, and is not relevant because nobody kills babies for the express purpose of acquiring stem cells. That's just a lie, pure and simple. They're discarded embryos that have no hope of ever being born ...
You're to be forgiven, since this is not something that is generally known. The abortion industry fuels trafficking in human organs. There are many sites that document this, but here's one http://www.lifedrum.org/abortion_industry_and_planned.htm You might desire a link from a "non-biased" source, but if you found something in the general press, then the information wouldn't be "little known." An industry that uses aborted fetuses as sources of organs will have absolutely no compunction against using that same source for stem cells. And this is not from "discarded embryos." This is from abortions.
Now, I understand that my addition here is somewhat tangental to your main point, which is that we should be engaging in rational discourse, not attempting to inflame the debaters. I do realize that the information above is likely to inflame. However, it's not really rational discourse unless the full extent of the information is clear to all participants.
And this gets to some of your other repliers. They suggest that you are not addressing the same argument that people who argue the pro-life stance. I'll be the first person on the pro-life side to entirely agree with you that this is a "complex psycho-socio-economic problem that has no easy answer." Some of the solutions have to do with societal norms and changes that won't be enacted by laws or other edicts.
As an offer to the entrance to rational debate, I offer a very thoughtful essay written by Carl Sagan, one of the strongest scientific minds in our lifetimes and someone who was in neither the pro-life nor pro-choice camp: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Bodytweaking in the future - it doesn't matter what body part you lose, you can regrow it. New disease: uncontrolled teratomatic hypergenesis. Join the Akira club!
Not really. Corpses have more on unborn babies. See, while neither a corpse nor an unborn baby can object, a corpse could object at one time. Therefore, a corpse is worth more regard than an unborn baby (which is worth about as much regard as the average goldfish).