Slashdot Mirror
Biologists Find Stem-Cell-Like Functions In Ordinary Cells
mattrandy123 writes with news that scientists from NYU and Utrecht University have discovered ordinary plant cells can fulfill some of the same regenerative functions previously attributed to stem cells. Quoting:
"In the study, the researchers cut off the plant's root tip, thereby excising the stem cell niche, and examined the return of cell identities by measuring all gene activity. The results suggested that stem cells returned quite late in regeneration after other cells were already replaced. The researchers then used mutant plants in which the stem cell niche no longer functions to confirm their initial observations. Despite the absence of the stem cell niche, the plant's ordinary cells worked to regenerate all the major tissues constituting the root tip — a process that began hours after it had been removed. However, researchers found that plants without functional stem cell niches could not resume normal growth, showing that other cells did not replace all functions of stem cells."
I'm probably just feeding the trolls: it's hard to imagine that anyone actually believes this; but here goes.
At the time Roe v Wade was decided, it was not commonly known that a person's physical characteristics were uniquely determined at conception.
A person's physical characteristics depend on much more than genetics (e.g. nutrition and exercise) but, anyway, classical genetics has been around for over a hundred years. Certainly, there has been progress in the fields of development and genetics since Roe v. Wade but I'm not aware of any fundamental paradigm shifts.
The other point here is that "conception" is actually a fairly complex process. A broad point is that there can actually be quite a few days between when a couple has sex and when the early stage embryo implants in the uterus. That is, pregnancy doesn't happen instantaneously after sex.
A more subtle point is that the egg is actually arrested in metaphase of meiosis II prior to fertilization. That means that, immediately after entry of the sperm, the egg is triploid (three homologous versions of each chromosome). After entry of the sperm, meiosis II completes: the cell division of meiosis II is unequal with one of the two daughter cells, the "polar body", containing mostly just the extra set of chromosomes and the the other daughter cell containing pretty much everything else (including the chromosomes from the sperm). The point of all this being that even fertilization is a messy complex process.
The problem with science - ... - is that it confirmed that, indeed, a person is fully human from the point of conception onward.
If a diploid chromosome number is what determines "fully human" then pretty much all the cells in the human body are "fully human". In fact, even the unfertilized egg is "fully human" (it is after all, diploid - not yet having completed the second cell division of meiosis II). Pretty much only sperm cells are not "fully human".
... the scientific notion that a person's life begins at conception.
The notion that life begins at conception is absolutely and positively not scientific.
There is not a scientific consensus as to what life is. In fact, there is not even a scientific consensus that life is a binary distinction. Life may be like color: some things are more colorful and some things are less colorful. Some things are "very alive" and some things are "not alive at all" but then some things are also "sort of alive".
If you were to ask a cell biologist about life, they might even mention that the scientific consensus is that all cells of all living organisms on the planet are descended via cell division from a common ancestral cell. Basically, if life did have a beginning, then it was almost four bilion years ago.
And *that* is what the ECS debate is really about.
It has nothing to do with finding cures, and everything to do with the influence of science vs. theology in politics.
On that, I would almost agree. If it was just about finding cures then ECS research would certainly be allowed and highly funded. The reason that ECS is a debate at all is because of a certain type of theological objections.
Just as an aside, I look at the world and I see a world where, fundamentally, most people thinks it's OK to kill even living babies as long as you have a sufficiently good reason. In the Iraq war, for example, the USA killed lots of babies but that was OK because "spreading democracy" is a sufficiently good reason for killing babies. Now you'll say "but it wasn't intentional" meaning that killing babies was not the objective of the USA (that if the USA could have spread democracy without killing babies that it would have done so) - but that's exactly my point: it's OK to kill babies if you have a sufficiently good reason (e.g. "spreading democracy").
So, anyway, IMHO this whole debate about what is "alive" and what is "human" is kind of silly because we live in a world where it's perfectly OK to kill living humans (as long as you have a sufficiently good reason).