Slashdot Mirror
Safe Stem Cells Produced From Adult Cells
hackingbear writes "Wired, citing a paper published in Science magazine, reports that Harvard scientists may have found a safer way of giving a flake of skin the biologically alchemical powers of embryonic stem cells by turning adult cells into versatile, embryonic-like cells without causing permanent damage. The technique involves 'adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA.' Four-month trials on mice demonstrated that the resulting stem cells are free from unpredictable cancer-inducing mutations. This is definitely a breakthrough in stem cell research."
Additional coverage is available at Yahoo, and Science hosts the research paper, although you'll need a subscription to see more than the abstract.
involves 'adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses
This is obviously a variation of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.
Conservatives have no problem with stem-cell research. The problem is when the stem cells are harvested from a human embryo - during the process we end a human life. The main question about embryonic stem-cells was 'Is it right to kill a human being to potentially save other lives?' With this new breakthrough, it could be possible to save many lives without killing a potential human life.
In case it has escaped your notice, they weren't dead to start with. As in the embryo was alive, before it was killed and as you put it "recycled." I'm sure you'd like to be "recycled" (as in killed) to benefit someone else, perhaps a preacher, perhaps someone from Israel. Or is it that you don't give a hoot about anyone else but yourself?
Don't you see how this practice encourages the killing to be done in the first place?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Adult stem cells can only form certain kinds of other cells, and thus aren't super useful unless you can find just the ones you're looking for, and lots of them. Embryonic stem cells can give rise to a much wider range of cells and, if you have a good way of growing them outside the body, you can make tons of them. The reason this new method is safer is because it doesn't involve inserting new genes *into the genome*, where it could disrupt important functions (this has happened in the past, for instance, with the gene therapy treatment for X-SCID, which lead to several cases of leukemia). In the new method the four introduced genes are on an extrachromosomal cassette which doesn't integrate into the genome (and eventually degrades), so there's not as much worry about disrupting, say, a tumor-suppressor gene. Of course, that's not to say it's completely safe....
It's not too far unlike the the reason why labor laws generally do not allow you to opt-out (minimum wage, lunch, etc). While it is understandable that workers may want to on their own accord, it becomes extremely difficult to prove that they weren't encouraged to by their employer.
Similarly, if we're allowed to harvest organ from people we killed on purpose, how can we be sure that the person was killed for legitimate reasons? So we look to legislation to minimize any positive side effects to a person's death.
And likewise, while embryos might not count as human life, they are human. By allowing people to harvest stem cells from them, you are putting utility in destroying human could-be-life. The end result is not awfully far from _farming_ human could-be-life since, as above, proving things like 'abandoned' is difficult. This doesn't sit well with a lot of people, and especially so with those that view embryos are full fledged human life.
>...With this new breakthrough, it could be possible to save many lives without killing a potential human life.
Yep, all those unneeded fertilized embryos now go straight to the incinerator, no stop for any life-saving harvesting in between.
There's also another, broader question, which last I heard nobody quite agrees on, namely "Is an undifferentiated ball of cells a human being?". If the answer is "no", then it sidesteps your question entirely. It doesn't seem entirely proper to debate that question, in relation to this issue, when there's broad division on whether we even need to answer it.
It's not really a debate between life and death, it's "do we put its remains to good use or do we just throw them in the trash" because the cells are taken from surplus embryos during an artificial insemination which are going to die anyway (in the process lots of embryos are created because it's likely that the injection will fail to some degree and they want to make sure they get a healthy embryo to implant). Kinda like arguing that involuntary organ donations (not the Monty Python kind) kill people when the organs are only taken from bodies that are dead anyway but still have usable parts.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Joe Biden (candidate for the Office of the Vice President of the United States, and a Catholic, even) disagrees.
Abortion being wrong, abortion being a necessary evil to prevent more deaths, and the united states government having a right to dictate to women what they can and can't do to their own bodies are three totally separate issues. Most everyone feels that abortion is a bad thing, but anyone rational sees that there are more issues than than that which aren't so simple of "is it wrong."
Drinking yourself into oblivion every night is bad, but prohibition didn't work and was a stupid move to begin with because the government isn't there to stamp out everything unpleasant.
There's plenty of material and interpretations for anyone who wants to find controversy.
Only if you're being a sophist. The people who are upset at fetal stem cell research aren't just making up clever arguments to dump all over people's hard work and potential medical salvation -- they genuinely believe in the whole "life starts at conception" argument.
You may not agree with pro-lifers, but you're not going to convince them to change their minds or find middle ground with the ones that are on the fence about fetal stem cells with ridiculous straw man arguments. And you're never going to make a difference if you have nothing but contempt for the other side's beliefs and the honesty with which they hold them.
Really, that applies to all of politics, faith, taste, and any other subject with an emotional element that can't be reduced to a simple proof of facts.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The real fight has between the adult stem cell people and the embryonic stem cell people over how to divvy up the stem cell money. All of those "neanderthals" in the pro-life community that got slapped with the anti-stem cell label were always for adult stem cell research. They just didn't like embryonic research.