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.
Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in humans by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin in 1997. Last year, he also published a paper on getting adult stem cells to act like embryonic stem cells: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120092709.htm
Wisconsin has and licenses most of the original embryonic stem cell lines that are approved for federal funding. Of course the popular press will cling to anything done by "Harvard".
...missing an arm and leg.
Did he need to pay for gas?
Or someone that needs a liver, or heart, or something else. Somehow, they'll find lab animals in this kind of need. But you're right, that's the next step into perfecting the 'grow a new organ' process. Hopefully they get it right soon. I look forward to being able to rely on that in the future.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
Instead we're faced with the new controversy that every skin cell you shed can be considered an embryo that, with the correct application of medical science, can now become a child.
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
Or, perhaps you're trying to create an evil clone army with all those cells?
There's plenty of material and interpretations for anyone who wants to find controversy.
Only if it eventually works in humans. Just because it works for four months in mice doesn't mean much for humans. Great breakthrough, but still years and years from use on humans. Embryonic stem cells might still be a vital part of research in the meantime or in the end.
Is that you, Sam Harris?
Wait... Someone on slashdot not jumping on the "bash conservatives" bandwagon? And you're not AC? The only problem with your argument (though I don't believe this) is that many people believe "Human Life" doesn't begin until after the state that embryo's are harvested.
The little bastard's already dead; it's RECYCLING!!!
its not like recycling....its more like buying a 24-pack of mgd....dumping the beer down the drain, and then putting the cans into the recycle bin..
You have to end a life to be able to 'harvest' the cells that could one-day be used to come up with a cure...potentially!!
keep the life, cures will come.
infanticide will be our greatest downfall
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?
As someone who considers "humane killing" an oxymoron of the first degree, I'm fine with the idea. The person being killed probably doesn't care much whether he's injected with a lethal poison or shot in the head. The person needing a transplant, on the other hand, cares very much about living a normal life.
Similarly, the embryos are already being created and destroyed en masse by fertility clinics. (And yet, for some reason, pro-lifers never complain about that.) Does the embryo care whether it's grown into organ tissue or thrown in the trash? Does a person suffering from a degenerative disease care about a cure?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Instead we're faced with the new controversy that every skin cell you shed can be considered an embryo that, with the correct application of medical science, can now become a child.
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
I already kill half embryos that could become human children quite often, what's wrong with killing whole ones?
Nobody is aborting foetuses simply to get stem cells. They're taking cells from foetuses who are *already* aborted and whose usefulness is otherwise to merely be thrown in the trash.
Your 'main question' is a complete strawman - we don't even harvest organs from executed prisoners even though that would save a lot of lives, because that question was asked and answered year ago.
"Similarly, the embryos are already being created and destroyed en masse by fertility clinics. (And yet, for some reason, pro-lifers never complain about that.) "
You're kidding, right? You're seriously trying to claim the anti-abortion crowd doesn't complain about... abortion! Wow....
The point you so studiously ignored is that many people find it sickening to create a life for the purpose of destroying it.
As far as the orgran transplants in China goes, maybe you're unaware of the moral hazard of having a system where some powerless peasant with healthy organs can be jailed and subsequently executed by an oppressive state to harvest their body for some politician or powerful business figure.
I had the same thought. I've always been taught that adult stem cells can me manipulated to behave like embryonic, but with certain limitations that embryonic cells don't have. What is the major difference here and do they mean by safer?
Hopefully we can end religion in the next 50 years and end these times of humans being transcendent compared to animals. Killing a human is no different than killing an animal, and both are completely without consequence no mater what the reason
Don't you see how this practice encourages the killing to be done in the first place?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
since sliced bread, if I'm not mistaken.
How about an analogy:
There is a story of a man who was very attached to his dog, and brought the dog everywhere. One day he went into an east-asian restaurant- as he sat down he told the waiter to take care of his dog. The waiter asked if he wanted the special, and the man agreed. A while later, the man received and ate a dish he enjoyed more than anything he had ever eaten, and after he was finished, he asked the waiter about his dog. The waiter was confused, as the dog was the special the man just ate.
If the man was told what he was eating as he was served the meal, would it make sense for him to refuse to eat it? If you are offered treatment that involved destroying a human life, would it make sense to be opposed to the treatment? Obviously, since the man's best friend is already dead, the man may as well go ahead and eat and enjoy it guilt free...
The difference is the man knew the dog very well, but the embryo isn't something you can relate to very readily- somehow because the embryo doesn't look human, it becomes justifiable to ignore any meaning of its existence as a living being. I am sure there are children out there who were once embryos frozen in a facility somewhere and then adopted (those embryos are the ones that are used for stem cell lines)- if a heartless scientist killed one of those children in the name of science, then offered to restore your ability to walk by harvesting stem cells from the child, you should be disgusted at the proposition. Same goes for gaining from the destruction of an embryo.
My webcomic
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.
just got a root canal last week.. and started reading up on teeth.. did you know that the pulp inside of teeth is filled with stem cells... what a waste of just disposing it while getting a root canal...and why wont the teeth fix itself considering it's filled with stem cells?
many people believe "Human Life" doesn't begin until after the state that embryo's are harvested.
yes, but this new discovery neatly side- steps that problem.
and for those above who say that McCain will find some way to construe it as unethical, the pope has said that adult stem cell research is fine. Pope endorses adult stem-cell research (catholicnews.com) If the pope is good with it, i don't see any elected official having a problem with it.
"The possibilities opened up by this new chapter in research are in themselves fascinating" because adult stem-cell studies have pointed to actual and potential cures of degenerative diseases that would otherwise lead to disabilities or death, the pope said at an audience for participants attending a Vatican-sponsored congress on stem-cell therapy.
>...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.
Sounds like an intro to a new shooter game or another post apocalyptic action B-movie: it all started harlmessly enough with "adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses"... THEN CAME THE ZOMBIES!!!!!!! SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD!!!! SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD!!!!
Exfoliation is MURDER!!!
I don't see why many people wouldn't believe that. The alternative sounds a tad ridiculous on paper - a clump of 100 cells is not going to be equal to an adult human, or an adult mosquito for that matter. There's more to (significant) life than having human DNA, unless you want to consider a vial of your own blood to be a separate person. The only 'problem' with stem cell research is that people are only too happy to outsource their thinking to a guy with a special hat.
Nonono, it's gene-nocide now :).
> What do you think of the Chinese practice of executing prisoners with a bullet to the head, so that no vital organs are damaged, allowing them to be transplanted to faithful Party hacks, or people willing to pony up the money for them? Would you be cool with the US government doing the same thing? After all, the guy's going to be killed anyway; It's RECYCLING!!!111eleventy
I don't live in the US so I really don't care either way, but if a criminal who has been sentenced to death is willing to donate his organs, by all means kill him in a way that does not damage the organs. The problem is that when a criminal admits he is willing to donate organs, a jury might be more willing to say he's guilty, especially if they have friends or family who need a new organ... if you know a suspected murderers organs might save your sick child, your 'reasonable doubt' might be less than impressive.
Best avoid situations where people have something to gain by sentencing people to death.
Nobody is aborting foetuses simply to get stem cells. They're taking cells from foetuses who are *already* aborted and whose usefulness is otherwise to merely be thrown in the trash.
Your 'main question' is a complete strawman - we don't even harvest organs from executed prisoners even though that would save a lot of lives, because that question was asked and answered year ago.
Uh, no. They are taking embryo's from fertility clinics, not abortiong clinics. You see, when a couple goes to a fertility clinic, the clinic will fertilize multiple eggs. This is because it is so expensive, may as well do several per shot. When the couple conceives, divorces or whatever, the remaining embryos are discarded. These are the embryos that are donated for science research.
The problem some have this is that the fertilized eggs are put in a culture and manipulated to divide, thus becoming an embryo and no longer a "zygote". Stem cells are extracted from this embryo, killing it in the process.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
> infanticide will be our greatest downfall
Elaborate.
No, not necessarily. Aborted foetuses, and stem cells from umbilical cords, could easily be harvested and cultured. Cultured stem cells work just fine for implant tests, so far. There is _no_ need to harvest living for the stem cell work, even if the transplants are of physically significant volumes of cells. Cultures of such morally harvested single stem cell lines can easily serve hundreds if not millions of recipients.
Your ignorance of the biology is exactly why stem cell funding is so difficult to obtain: people hear the phrase and tar it with the brush of harvesting children's bodies, which it can be, in fact, mere recycling of discarded tissue samples.
You're going to have to give us a reason why you think they should be destroyed if you want anybody to change their mind, dude.
I wasn't, but now that you mention it....
Two words: "Social Security."
It doesn't matter how much money is in the "trust fund" If there aren't enough people to pay to do the work, anyway.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Is life all about "caring" about something ? Who cares about how you die and if you suffer ? When does this "care" feeling come to you conscience ? These ethical questions shouldn't be resolved that childish way.
--/ TZ
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.
The Pope also says that evolution and the Bible are not at odds. Many politicians claim to disagree. The Pope also says that abortion is wrong. Joe Biden (candidate for the Office of the Vice President of the United States, and a Catholic, even) disagrees.
In my humble opinion, I don't know whether or not a small clump of cells should be considered human life (has to be a "small" clump of cells because humans are just a big clump of walking, talking cells in the first place).
I become concerned when people say that if we don't know if its a life or not, then we should treat it as dead to help the unambiguously alive. I would disagree with that, and I think that's what Bush meant when he said America should be a "culture of life" not a "culture of death" forever ago (don't worry, that's the only thing I actually appreciate about Bush). If we don't know whether or not a clump of cells is a life, we need to save those cells (except in the case of the health of the mother vs. health of clump of cells) until we know whether or not it is a human life or not. We need to play it safe if it might be a human life.
So, then it becomes a question of philosophy, what is a/the logical definition of life? This is, as you correctly identified, the crux of the matter. The problem is that a lot of conservatives like to define life as broadly as possible, so as somebody else stated, a vial of blood becomes a separate life. On the other hand, I've known a minority of liberals to define life as being severed from all other biological human interaction, which would make everything up to partial birth abortion perfectly acceptable.
My take, and as I stated before, I don't know for sure, is that life begins when it starts to incubate, which, imho, is when it implants into the wall of the uterus. This would make almost all contraceptives legal. I also think that the government doesn't need to dictate medical practices to a doctor, so the doctor will simply have to make the best decision he/she can at the time given the available information. Those decisions would be subject to a medical board if somebody second guesses the doctor, much like it is now.
"We need to find a short blond kid missing an arm and leg."
Or make one.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The money wasn't in a bank, but was made via a mint for production but was later decided to not be needed and thus thrown out, so they took that money and gave to charity.(disregard economy difference of more money as this is just a proper look on your analogy. Basically it's GOING to be binned, or saved and put to a decent use. If it's gonna happen why not just let it turn into stem cell lines for research or heal someone.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
Embryos count neither as human life or human beings. They are clumps of undifferentiated stem cells. You don't need to farm them. You can grow one line into a massive number of cells with very little effort. The greater problem is that they are genetically different from you and could be recognized by your body as a foreign invader.
One of the promises of iPC is that if we grow an organ with it, it's a real cure rather than 5-10year stopgap like most of our organ transplants tend to be.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I don't support it, but if ones country insists on using it (mine doesn't) one might as well harvest organs.
The consideration isn't the "potential to become a child". It's a question of unique human lives.
An embryo is a unique human life (with a form of asexual reproduction - twinning).
Then, the question becomes, are our rights intrinsic (inherent in what we are) or extrinsic (applied by others based on our value).
My worry is that human rights are currently extrinsic...
What happens if I'M the evil clone?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Your title is wrong. This was NOT already done by the UW.
Also, your content is wrong. Thomson did NOT use adult stem cells -- his lab reprogrammed adult *skin* cells.
(That fact is even in the title of your linked story!)
Thomson used retroviral infection, as did the Yamanaka lab in Japan that did similar experiments around the same time. The Harvard lab used adenoviruses, a different vector with different outcomes.
The a major difference between retrovirus and adenovirus? Retroviruses can get the target genes inserted into eukaryotic chromosomes, making the changes more stable. But adenoviruses can be less harmful to the cells they infect, and can successfully infect more cells per treatment.
e.g. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v18/n2/full/nbt0200_150.html
Don't you see how this practice encourages the killing to be done in the first place?
It only encourages it if the person authorizing it has something to gain. If your legislators and judges are reaping profits from convictions, your legal system is broken.
To prevent a conflict of interest in stem cell research, require that the fertility clinic not be paid for the embryos, or be reimbursed for the extra handling involved only, and forbid stem cell research companies from operating their own fertility clinics. In other words, if you make the commercial production of embryos unprofitable, the problem solves itself.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Of course, the right wing retort to this strawman assault would be to say
"Your body, you pay."
If you want to have the right to choose, then you ought to pay for your own medical care.
If it is your body, then you are reasonably responsible for your own sexual education and you don't need our tax money to pay for you to learn how to screw.
If you want the public to pay for your well being, then you are by definition a pet of the people at large, and conservatives have as much a right to your body at that point as you do.
Do remember that George Bush has done what he did by essentially using powers the left wing granted to itself in government for right wing ends. If you put the government in charge of health care, just imagine a future Bush deciding what the government should in fact pay for.
This is my sig.
The person being killed probably doesn't care much whether he's injected with a lethal poison or shot in the head
It's not like we could ask Jack Kennedy what he thought in the moments where his heart was still beating as they hauled him off to Parkland.
This is my sig.
Yeah, because adding a dozen or so steps to the front end of a process involving stem cells makes things SOOOOOOOO much easier, simpler, and cheaper than using harvested embryonic stem cells.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
My worry is that human rights are currently extrinsic...
The Socialists need you to believe that to undo the United States of America as conceived in 1776/1789 - that one is based on intrinsic or natural rights.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
without embryonic stem cells the process for making these induced pluripotency cells would never have been discovered.
The genes required for such reprogramming are intimately involved in the mechanisms that embryonic stem cells use to maintain their phenotype. Indeed without the extensive studies that have gone on in both human and mouse ES cells we would be completely ignorant about the roles of these genes.
A little research will make you sound a whole less ignorant.
Your title is wrong. This was NOT already done by the UW. Also, your content is wrong. Thomson did NOT use adult stem cells -- his lab reprogrammed adult *skin* cells. (That fact is even in the title of your linked story!) Thomson used retroviral infection, as did the Yamanaka lab in Japan that did similar experiments around the same time. The Harvard lab used adenoviruses, a different vector with different outcomes. The major difference between retrovirus and adenovirus? Retroviruses can get the target genes inserted into eukaryotic chromosomes, making the changes more stable. But adenoviruses can be less harmful to the cells they infect, and can successfully infect more cells per treatment. e.g. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v18/n2/full/nbt0200_150.html [nature.com]
People don't do research on embryos because they are evil sick fucks who eat dead babies (or at least most of them I presume). They do it to advance biochemistry. Once knowledge of subject advances enough, embryos will become unnecessary. Creation of adult stem cells can be seen as at least part of the solution. I don't think we are anywhere near the territory of implanting sea slugs into the brains of little girls. Instead of pulling on a bad tooth why not just yank it out? It has to come out one way or another.
Wait a sec. The abstract for the paper says they're pleuripotent. I would think that would mean any kind of cell regardless of the fact of being adult or fetal. (Well except support tissues.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluripotent
Similarly, the embryos are already being created and destroyed en masse by fertility clinics. (And yet, for some reason, pro-lifers never complain about that.)
That's ignorance, not hypocrisy. The average pro-lifer is simply not aware that these embryos are being destroyed.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
These 'breakthroughs' are interesting to read about. The predictable ethical debate is a bore.
My main question is when the hell is this actually going to help someone? I've heard of a lot of studies 'planning to go to human trial' but never any results, good or bad. Did it ever make it to human trial? We've made rats, mice, chickens and pigs regenerate nerves, walk again etc. Where are human trials? North American doctors and scientists are too coward to step up to the plate. Instead we argue that the idea is somehow invalid because it didn't get published in a medical journal. If it works, I don't give a shit if Dr. so-and-so doesn't think it will.
Here's my ethical debate: if a human (with cognitive function) knows the possible risk of experimental treatments and is willing to take that risk, who do these people think they are by disallowing it?
Yeah, those aren't embryos, they're swimmers.
The timers on cells cannot be reset. These are older cells. You can attempt to use them for repairs, what-not. But they will never be the same as actual stem cells.
Well then you better tell the cells that, because they seem pretty convinced. Not sure which timer you're talking about, but all the ones we can measure have been and they seem to think they're embryonic stem cells.
Telomere length is often described as a cell timer. Those are the ends of chromesomes, they shorten after every cell division in mature cells, and the thinking is that when they get short enough you don't have further divisions because it would be losing actual coding regions of DNA. But these reprogrammed cells are apperantly able to extend their telomeres by the same mechanism that stem cells do: telomerase.
Another common irreversible step from immature stem cells to adult differentiated cells is the modification of the DNA itself. That also seems to be reversed in IPS cells.
So... it seems the timer is reset, you can use them for repairs and for anything that actual stem cells can.
Also, these adenoviruses aren't gene-altering directly, that's the exact point of the newest breakthrough. Things could go spectacularly wrong, but that's true for absolutely every human endeavor. See some of the misguided controversey over the LHC for more on that.
This is exactly like laws requiring seatbelts, prohibiting drug use, and limiting pornography. The idea is, as far as I can tell, that Big Brother is watching out for you, because your cognitive function may be clouded by irrationality. Wouldn't want to let people harm themselves willingly, no sirree.
Politically correct overbearing government-hugging socialists with an obsession with saving people from themselves. That's who they think they are.
Very true. And, this 'breakthrough' isn't all that surprising either. Our honorable leader GW Bush has said all along that we should wait for this better technology to develop instead of burning embryos. Looks like one less thing the liberals can blast him on now.
We need to be making more noise about the fact that these advances only came about via embryonic stem cell research. The genes they expressed weren't random, they started from genes they knew were expressed in embryonic stem cells.
If there is a cure for any condition that comes out of IPS cell treatment, that's benefiting from embryonic stem cell research. If you believe stem cell research is evil, you have to at the very least turn down any treatment from multi-purpose cells like this, say you were wrong, or admit you are a hypocrite.
I say that when we see treatments coming out of this, and we will, that you have to admit you're a hypocrite if you are opposed to stem cell research but get this treatment. Or better yet, pledge that in the future, you will listen to scientists and doctors on matters of science and medicine, not your local pastor.
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
I wasn't scratching, and mind your own damn business. :)
It's okay - you're worth it
which is totally what she said
Intrinsic or natural rights that people believe they have
Nature doesn't seem to recognise these rights, so I highly doubt they're natural.
I think human rights are a good thing, but they are an entirely human concept, just as 'animal rights' or indeed any sort of rights are. In nature, might is right. People, plants and animals are regularly destroyed by natural disasters, or each other.
which is totally what she said
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.
We need to find a short blond kid missing an arm and leg. It's the only way we'll ever get any farther.
Not true, observe: the best way to defeat terrorism is with embryonic stem cell research.
Put that on a bumper sticker, get some people hired as priests to say that, and get a NASCAR with that message on it, and suddenly medicine will have more money for research than it can shake a stick at.
There's also another, broader question, which last I heard nobody quite agrees on, namely "Is an undifferentiated ball of cells a human being?".
This is the big question. At what point between conception and the age of legal majority are we discussing a human being that should be under the protection of the law?
For example, if you were on a jury trying immigrants from Fiji for killing their 2 week old daughter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Oceania ), would you convict them for murder?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
yes, but this new discovery neatly side- steps that problem.
Not really. IPS cell technology is still based off of knowledge from and studies using human embryonic stem cells. This new approach wouldn't exist without the type of research the Vatican and Republicans oppose. Anyone who thinks HES cell research is evil would be a hypocrite to accept IPS-based treatment.
An earlier study did in fact take human fibroblasts and showed they could be reverted back to the deprogrammed state. In mice without immune systems, they behaved as human embryonic stem cells do. But you're right, we can't shut the door on HeS cells yet, it is too premature, we might find problems with IPS cells that aren't the case with HeS cells.
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.
At the risk of turning this into a debate about abortion, two of these are at odds.
Generally speaking, I'm allowed to do what I want with my body until I start harming another human being. That means I can thrust my fist out in front of me all that I want, right up until the point that someone is standing within arms readch in front of me.
Similarly, a woman can also do whatever she wants with her body, until she starts affecting another human being. The obvious question, then, is whether or not the fetus is a human being. It's a question with a high philosophical component. The Catholic Church says that it is a human, and therefore, killing it is murder. As such, I still hold that Biden is an example of a politician whose public policy indicates significant disagreement with statements issued by the Pope.
All that said, I'm well aware that there are other situations where the US government says that taking another human life is acceptable. Self defense is one. As a court-ordered punishment is another. I've always found it quite interesting that ultra right wing conservatives can be simultaneously in favor of the death penalty, but against abortion (because all life is precious, don't you know.)
The obvious question, then, is whether or not the fetus is a human being.
More generally if it has rights that trump the mother's rights. Included in that is whether or not it's a human. The death penalty is also framed in that way.
The larger question than that though is if anyone has the authority to say if the fetus is a human being with rights. It's possible to have an opinion that the fetus does have rights, but the opinion that you, the government, and the church don't have the ability to dictate that.
You have an interesting concept of what it is to "not harvest living embryos". It's a brave new world you propose.
When your stated intention is to harvest abortions then you're just going on with newspeak to talk of "mere recycling of discarded tissue samples". What you are describing is exactly what people are opposed to. Since those same people are also opposed to abortion, cloning and the production and subsequent destruction of embryos in fertility clinics.
It's one thing to disagree, that's expected. But to pretend you're proposing something completely different in order to deceive? Why would you need to do that if your position is just?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Most elected officials are protestants. Most people who elect officials based on religion are protestants. But I'm over your Pope comment.
Much more interesting, who gets to play the hottie red-head when the virus mutates and threatens us all?
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
It's "safer" because they use an adenovirus instead of a retrovirus, so the viral DNA doesn't mingle with the cell's DNA and any trace that it was there vanishes after a few cell divisions.
I actually did a bit of research and explained all of this in my submission (which gave credit to Konrad Hochedlinger and his team, too), but I guess the other guy got there first or something. Why do they only publish the submissions where I screw something up? *sigh* :)
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
You just haven't been paying attention.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=embryos+destroyed+fertility 3 of the first 4 links are religious type sites that discuss this issue.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL10/Embryo_Adoption.htm Right to life page on embryo adoption as a solution to IVF embryo destruction.
http://www.righttolife.com.au/StemCellResearch.aspx Right to Life Australia states their position on IVF on the same page as stem cell research.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Pluripotent != totipotent
Dialysis? What is this, the dark ages?
The doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney!
The problem with this logic is that the primary source for these embryonic stem cells are leftovers from in vitero fertilization. Embryos which are destroyed as bio-waste once the couple has had a successful pregnancy and no longer wants to keep them. Current stem cell legislation bans the use of these cells so that instead of saving lives they are incinerated.
So what was that about killing human beings?
Hang on a few more years, the immortality pill is coming!
As opposed to the rest of the stuff on slashdot, and your little one liner?
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").
ugh, not the baby killing argument.
Protip: No one wants to kill babies, they want to use embros that were going to be thrown out anyway, and that happens a lot.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/souls_on_ice.html
The more you know.
So the argument is either
A: No fertility allowed for couples in these situations. This means all those potential lives aren't given a chance.
B: Give birth to them all, which means they have to deal with 7-12 kids instead of one. Just what we need, a family who wanted 1 kid raising 12. Who else would expect a dozen more ignored children.
C: Throw them out like trash, making their "Lives" if you want to call a few cells that, meaningless. (This is the current standard)
D: Have that set of cells save countless lives, keep familys together, treat illnesses...
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
Really! That's fantastic! That means we can lay another annoying thing to rest now doesn't it...
Have a look at this page to learn more about the history of the church and evolution
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
FTFY
I wonder if these "embryonic-like cells" would develop into a fetus, if put into a womb. That would make many conservatives uneasy and (maybe, one can dream) make them realize that they have to update or narrow their definitions on a few things.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
This may be how it begins. We could all de-evolve starting tonight!
Mainly, because there are too many want-a-be-stupid's out there who constantly decry the ban on stem cell research that doesn't exist.
The only ban is on Federal funding for fetal stem cell research. Which has mainly only succeeded in growing tumors.
Meanwhile, many in the field have said that they do not believe they need fetal tissue. Most successful stem cell treatments have all been derived from the more stable adult stem cells.
But hey, keep on being stupid, it let's you further your hate of Bush and keep chanting and ranting. Makes you feel better. Just know you're being stupid and mis-informed.
Perhaps cause they don't have a problem in 1,000 people die in their research. They'll breed more...
Heck, they even poison their baby formula, petfood and fish. Yes, safe research and China...
Hilarious!!!
As the adult stem cells are more stable and less prone to grow tumors. It's like putting a 16 yr old first time driver (the researchers) in a Chevy or a NASCAR. And seeing which one they have more success driving around town.
"You same types were the ones saying there was no way the earth is round or revolved around the sun."
They weren't telling Columbus the world was round. But that it was 2x-3x bigger than he thought and that he'd never make it.
Oh...guess what...they were right. And if there hadn't happened to be another continent smack in the middle of the ocean. Columbus would have died and not even been remembered.
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.
Yeah, except all the theologians have already combed through this material and have already ruled in obscure little theological journals that it's not a problem. You're late to the party.
How does it feel to be on the trailing edge?
Can we have a -1 ignorant mod? Natural rights are well defined and centuries old. You should have heard about them in school.
You should grow a goatee immediately.
I think I'd rather have the steps up front with adult cells from my own body than anti-rejection medication and chemotherapy on the back end, thank you very much.
It's not only the Pope but all of the pro-life religious leadership that's adopted a similar approach. I don't know of one religious faction that fights against adult stem cell research.
Yes, yes, the Pope is not the leader of all christians. We get that. However, in this case, the Pope is adopting the consensus pro-life position. On this issue the protestant reformation shouldn't be a problem.
So now we've got to have a clean room, reverse engineering process before we're allowed to modify our own cells to treat disease? Do you really want to treat embryonic papers like Nazi science experiments? That's the only modern example of a science embargo like the one you're describing.
Pedantically speaking, preventing pregnancy isn't the same thing as dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Once you're pregnant, it too late to do any preventing.
Really, preventing unwanted pregnancies and dealing with unwanted pregnancies are two entirely different problems which mutually exclusive problem spaces.
Until people understand this distinction, the debate around abortion will always be clouded by people who think that abstinence is the solution, not realizing that it's a solution to AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROBLEM than the one being debated.
*sigh* back to work...
Not necessarily to contradict your point, but your analogy does not paint the picture that I interpreted from your second paragraph. Consider this;
I certainly would not want harm to befall my daughter, but like me, she still chose to be an organ donor. If the worst should happen, our loss might still bring a benefit to others. The pain aside, if she was killed in a say, a car accident, I would be fine allowing her organs to be taken to save someone else. As I'm sure the recipient might feel empathy for our loss, they would be happy to accept the life saving gift. Now say instead, they murdered her to take her organs to help the dying patient. Is it ok then?
Heartless as it may seem, this becomes a grey area. Because of course I'm opposed to the murder of my child, but I'm not opposed to organ donation. As I'm sure the recipient is happy to accept a donated organ, but a stolen via murder organ presents a dim light on it. Obviously if you are opposed to organ donors all together, this becomes a moot point; but if the act is just, then we are really talking about the circumstances involved.
Now I hope to never have to face this choice, but if the latter was true, would I still donate the organs? She is already dead, and any legal (or not) actions I take afterward will still not change that fact. So at what point is it a principle of ill gotten gains and as such ok to refuse the possibility to save someone's life? On the other hand knowing that in a way, I was supporting the "ends" of the horrid means, might not be a point I would be acceptable with. I'm sure the recipient might have to choose the line they are willing to live with as well.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that the issues does not hinge on a didactic set of options. There is of complexity of issues that are involved when considering the morality of ESC. Most people are not going to agree to murder people who are already living their lives (children or not), but the potential for life is the gray area. I'm sure the main contention is at the point of where life begins, as such, it becomes "killing a cell" to "murdering a baby." As a meat eater might be picky as to what types of meat they eat, and what is involved before it's given to them; to a vegetarian, there is only one choice.
"I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
While the Vatican is very big on the fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree stuff (what's original sin if not that?), they don't actually expect people not to use the stuff, just to feel guilty about it.
The "fruit of the poison tree" approach only goes so far. Should we discard research done on injured or killed soldiers because that would be benefiting from the evil of war?
For one, killing *anything* has consequence. The weight varies greatly, but the consequence is always there.
Furthermore, religion isn't the only source of morals. If you kill a person, you affect the people that knew and cared for that person. Usually adversely though I'm sure there are some people that need to die (Hitler comes to mind as one evil SOB).
Mod this flamebait down for what it is. I know damn well I could kill if I had to, but as pessimistic as I am I' not callous enough to think human lives are worthless.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Studies on human embryonic stem cells, which some people are opposed to, were the basis for knowing how to induce pluripotency. If you're actually opposed to HES research, you should be aware of that if and when you need treatments derived from it.
I'm just saying you can be morally opposed to it and not take the treatment, you can be okay with it and accept the treatment, or you can be a hypocrite and accept the treatment even though you think it's evil.
I'm not sure why you godwin'd yourself, and I'm not saying anyone needs to or even should reverse engineer anything on their own. I personally am not sure where I stand on human embryonic stem cell research, but I know I wouldn't turn down IPS treatment because of that.
Most folks I know who are against abortion are also against these kinds of fertility treatments as well.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
"if you know a suspected murderers organs might save your sick child, your 'reasonable doubt' might be less than impressive."
Then keep the medical records private/sealed under after sentencing.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
The problem some have this is that the fertilized eggs are put in a culture and manipulated to divide, thus becoming an embryo and no longer a "zygote".
And yet, it still doesn't have a functioning brain, so I fail to see where the problem is. An embryo is every bit as braindead as a car-crash victim on a respirator, and yet strangely enough, people have no trouble with the idea of pulling the plug on the latter, while it's somehow "murder" if the same is done to the former.
Of course, one might claim that the former has "potential" to be a living person, while the latter does not. But if that's the case, what difference does it make if the cell divides or not? If you subscribe to this view, the murder was performed when the fertilized egg wasn't allowed to implant in the uterine wall.
Because he's apparently under the impression that women are paid for their aborted fetal tissue. Or something.
'course, many nations simply outlaw the sale of any human tissue (including blood), precisely because of the moral issues surrounding such transactions. Funny how that option doesn't seem to occur to the GP...
The problem some have this is that the fertilized eggs are put in a culture and manipulated to divide, thus becoming an embryo and no longer a "zygote".
And yet, it still doesn't have a functioning brain, so I fail to see where the problem is. An embryo is every bit as braindead as a car-crash victim on a respirator, and yet strangely enough, people have no trouble with the idea of pulling the plug on the latter, while it's somehow "murder" if the same is done to the former.
Of course, one might claim that the former has "potential" to be a living person, while the latter does not. But if that's the case, what difference does it make if the cell divides or not? If you subscribe to this view, the murder was performed when the fertilized egg wasn't allowed to implant in the uterine wall.
If you don't see the difference between a comatose car crash victim and an embryo, you need help.
First, would you be so quick to pull the plug on a comatose car crash victim if there was a good chance he/she would wake up and be fine? If so, that definitely is murder. I certainly wouldn't want you anywhere near the plug if I'm ever in a car wreck!
Next, sure, any zygote (single cell) has the chance to become a human. For that matter, so do your toenail clippings with enough coaxing, but let's get real here! What the main question here is, "when does a human become human and deserve protection?" This gets sticky. The Nazis legally made Jews not human, which opened the door to all kinds of terrible acts. Many felt that blacks were not human, which led to things like slavery and the Tuskegee experiments. Throughout history, every single time men, women and children have been deemed "not human", truly horrible things have happened. Why not err on the side of caution? Why take a chance, play God, and try to guess, based on whatever your opinion is as to when human life begins? Imagine how terrible the consequences if you were to ever find out, no matter how unlikely, that you were wrong and human life began earlier than you thought.
Personally, I believe that once it divides, it's human and it is alive. I would say that a single cell would deserve protection, but you can't exactly have the government forcing fertility clinics to keep millions of fertilized eggs forever. However, I think it should be common sense that they not harvest them for spare parts and experimentation either. Therefor, I feel that once you coax it to divide, it is human life and your responsibility. But that's just my $0.02.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The wiki page on Natural Rights says:
"Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all rights are legal rights"
Now, of course, we all know that Wikipedia doesn't exactly hold the stonecarved truth, but this one seems like a pretty clear case. Since it's "centuries old", it was conceived at a much different point in time than, say, Big Bang, Earth, life on Earth or even the dawn of humanity really, which basically moves it from the realm of "natural" to the realm of "cultural, man-made".
Parent didn't say he don't know what natural rights are about or that he don't respect them, but that he don't consider them natural. Technically speaking, I don't see how anyone could disagree with him really.
The only truly natural right is the right to attempt to secure your own survival.
I'm reasonably sure that pluripotency in embryonic stem cells is natural. You don't need to induce it in embryonic stem cells. In fact, the major problem with embryonic stem cells is that they're too plastic, which is where the cancer problem comes in and why these cells are generally worthless for actual treatments.
A science embargo like you mention is extremely rare. In fact, the only one I'm aware of is of the Nazi hypothermia experiments. It's not Godwin if the mention is over a unique event that only happened to with regard to something nazi.
Legal rights, ultimately, are based on force. They have no moral position beyond enforcement by the local government. If you agree that all human rights are legal rights than you have zero basis for an international human rights movement where there is no agreement on sharing any sort of legal polity.
Natural rights theorists do not claim to create natural rights, but rather to observe and categorize them. Such rights then have a different moral status than 'you can turn right on red but only after stopping' which is a legal right in many jurisdictions.
Well, right, there are embryonic stem cells, and then induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent cells would also be too plastic, when they injected immune-deficient mice, they got massive tumors. Of course, some of that may have had to do with the lack of immune system, they only used immuneless mice so they could implant human cells without rejection. IPS cells though could be differentiated to a point prior to injection, we should be able to for example differentiate the cells to a point where they are limited to producing muscle cells upon implantation, which would limit that. This is what's being worked on right now.
But I still don't know why you're talking about "science embargos." I'm not saying embargo it, I never did! I'm saying individual patients need to be aware they might have moral objections to it.
What the main question here is, "when does a human become human and deserve protection?" This gets sticky.
No, it really isn't. If it doesn't have brain activity, it isn't eligable for protection. Period. End of story. Otherwise pulling the plug on someone in a persistent vegetative state would also be murder, and only retarded fundamentalists believe that (and that may include you for all I know).
It's really that simple.
You can't swing a dead cat without hitting bogus objections that the religious are supposed to honor in favor of a theology that they don't actually have based on facts that don't exactly exist. Mau mauing poorly catechized people into endangering their health unnecessarily is not ok.
I was half-jokingly suggesting a way to get them to admit their hypocrisy, but I guess you're probably right, they'd rather die. At any rate I'm not endangering anyone's health, as there isn't any treatments based on IPS cells yet, and those types don't read /. Even if there were and they did, it's their choice to turn down treatment rather than admit using those embryos rather than just throwing them away was a good thing.
It appears I've stumbled on a hotly contested debate similar to the nature/nurture debates that are constantly going on in the fields of psychology. When it comes to those debates I'd usually say the answer lies with neither field, it lies with both.
Yes, I am ignorant as to what you thought a natural right is (though I've just looked it up on wikipedia and apparently its what is referred to as inalienable rights in the US constitution). No, we never covered anything like that in school. Presumably you are American, and I'm not surprised that you'd cover your constitution in school, given the amount of times I've heard people bang on about it. Just because people in my country don't make such a big deal about rights doesn't mean we don't appreciate them, we just don't feel the need to talk about the all the time (while our government takes us up the rear).
Anyway, I think that yes people tend to do what is best for the majority to avoid friction and simply because the majority is stronger. We are naturally inclined to protect our genepool as well so that can come into it. The idea that natural or 'inalienable rights' have to be written down to me seems a little absurd though - if they are so obvious and natural, why bother to write them down? It's because some people (and corporations etc) don't recognise these 'rights' and for the benefit of the majority they have to be made law. That's just my opinion anyway, and clearly the world has wildly varying views on this topic.
which is totally what she said
What the main question here is, "when does a human become human and deserve protection?" This gets sticky.
No, it really isn't. If it doesn't have brain activity, it isn't eligable for protection. Period. End of story. Otherwise pulling the plug on someone in a persistent vegetative state would also be murder, and only retarded fundamentalists believe that (and that may include you for all I know).
It's really that simple.
Amen. Until it's allowed to impregnate, a pregnancy hasn't been terminated. And while drawing a connection between a vegetative coma victim and a zygote is not perfect, it sufficiently illustrates a critical factor: the ability to sense, understand, and react to pain. At some point the nervous system is organized and functional enough that damaging the fetus generates a pain signal.
Support for abortion ranges across a wide spectrum. I find it helpful to think of it in four phases. There's the fertilized, un-implanted egg. As a society, we don't take issue with a fertility clinic flushing unused embryos.
Following impregnation, there is a point in time when the embryo's nervous system has developed enough to properly process pain signals. That would seem to be the point where people start to have an issue with terminating the pregnancy. But to a large segment of the population, because the baby could not possibly live outside the womb, even with our best technology, it is still not a "viable baby". Obviously, as our technology improves, this line will move.
Then there's the point in time when the baby, if removed, could finish developing using technology. It might have serious defects, but it could survive.
And finally, there's the point in time where the fetus can be removed before term and, with little or no intervention, survive. The people who would be okay with terminating the pregnancy at that point are as few as those who think fertility clinics are committing murder by flushing unused embryos.
It's the two middle phases where most of the real argument is occurring. I don't believe that we'll ever see birth control go away, but I do honestly feel that we will see, sooner or later, some formal definition of what constitutes a reasonably developed human being, the point in time after which a mother must allow the pregnancy to finish going to term.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***