Stem Cells Restore Sight For Corneal Disease Patients

Sean0michael writes "Australian scientists have restored the sight of three human test subjects using stem cells cultured in contact lenses. All the patients were blind in only one eye. Two were legally blind, but can now read the big letters on an eye chart. The third could read the first few lines, but is now able to pass a driver's test. The University of New South Wales reports that these patients all had damaged corneas, and the stem cells came from each person's good eye. The best part: the procedure is inexpensive, raising hopes for being able to push this to the third world sooner than other, more expensive medications."

Comments

!embroyonic

[bensafrickingenius]

Again.

Re:!embroyonic

[EkriirkE]

"The good news is no aborted fetuses were harmed in the course of these tests."

Re:!embroyonic

[arizwebfoot]

Agreed!

In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you murder a baby with such beautiful eyes?

Please let me be born.

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They come from in vitro fertilization. ESC are harvested 5 days after fertilization, abortions aren't performed 5 days after fertilization because you wouldn't know.

Re:!embroyonic

[pavon]

Which is to be expected. Controlling the differentiation of a cell is still not completely understood and difficult to do. It is easier with partially differentiated cells, and hence with stem cells from the tissue that we wish to regrow. Therefore, the first practical treatments and applications of stem cell research will be using adult stem cells.

Where embryonic stem cells come into play is by helping understand this differentiation process better. Increasing our knowledge will enable us to develop treatments that aren't possible using adult stem cells, but it will also likely contribute to having safer more effective adult stem cell treatments treatments. It may even shed some light into the entire aging process and cell life-cycle. They are very important things to be studying.

To put it succinctly, adult stem cells are currently at the R&D stage, embryonic at the pure science stage. Both are important.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.

That's due to your own ignorance not any actual facts. I found one example just in 2 seconds of googling. This FDA approved study was based on a previous trial that was able to successfully restore locomotion to those with spinal cord injuries. It is not even the only example just the first one that I found.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead. The embryonic stem cells are harvested from leftover frozen embryos from people doing invitro-fertilization that would normally just be thrown out.

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.

Plenty of research is going on in embryonic stem cells, right now. Induced pluripotent stem cells were made using lessons learned from embryonic stem cells. That's a huge one right there. And the discovery of ESC itself was a significant advance.

You might not think of biology as being important beyond what diseases it can cure right now. /.ers tend to be annoyed by people who take this approach to computing. Hmm...

Re:!embroyonic

[MillionthMonkey]

Well if you threaten to cut federal funding to any university or hospital that does research on embryonic stem cells, surprise surprise, there are going to be more breakthroughs from other cell types.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

Too bad the public at large doesn't understand this concept.

Fixed that for you. The anti-ESC crowd is running a very successful misinformation campaign. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. It's all the more astounding because so many scientists who work on this are professors, teachers, yet they have so far been totally unable to get across to most people that these are never from aborted fetuses, they never can be.

Even GP got it wrong

Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead.

Not true, plenty of studies are done off of live aborted tissue. For example, studies on human brain development. The reason aborted embryos aren't used is that the ideal time for harvesting ESC is at 5 days, before the embryo implants and before you would know you're pregnant. That, and there are thousands of IVF embryos not being used for anything.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, dude, he said breakthroughs, not research. I also did a google search and didn't find much that was successful, though there are hundreds of breakthroughs using adult stem cells.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

Ah, dude, he said breakthroughs, not research.

I already told you what the breakthrough was. They were able to successfully restore locomotion using embryonic stem cells in people with spinal cord injuries.

I also did a google search and didn't find much that was successful, though there are hundreds of breakthroughs using adult stem cells.

Which are all using as a base the work of those working on embryonic stem cells. Anyone who thinks that none of these breakthroughs were based off of any work done with embryonic stem cells is just plain ignorant.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

There's some people who argue a concept called "respect for the planet". It's almost as if they have some form of problem with reengineering the globe, for example if you mention global geo-engineering they seem to get all upset. As if the globe is anything but a mechanical system that we can rebuild as we see fit.

There's some other people who argue a concept called "respect for life". It's all unscientific and illogical nonsense.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the saddest thing ever, no joke.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh he's so adorable!

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

OR maybe we think that the embryos shouldn't have been created in the first place. Only take what you need for the in vitro fertilization and no more. Then you don't have an ethical dilemma about whether to kill them by throwing them in the garbage or kill them to experiment with ESCs. ESC research could actually induce fertilization clinics to make MORE embryos than they need, knowing they'll be used for research as well.

But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument. You could call it a strawman. Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.

Re:!embroyonic

[djtachyon]

In the words of Peter Griffin: "Why are we not funding this?!" he asks after walking out of the stem cell research facility, completely cured.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

only one planet.

Lots of lives, and even then we kill loads of animals for food each year. Culturing a few cells isn't exactly creating some conscious being and then killing it.

Re:!embroyonic

[citizenr]

"The good news is no aborted fetuses were harmed in the course of these tests."

Why is it a good news? I don't care about fetuses or some occult opinions.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

OR maybe we think that the embryos shouldn't have been created in the first place.

Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.

Only take what you need for the in vitro fertilization and no more.

But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.

Then you don't have an ethical dilemma about whether to kill them by throwing them in the garbage or kill them to experiment with ESCs.

There is nothing to kill. These are just clumps of undifferentiated cells.

ESC research could actually induce fertilization clinics to make MORE embryos than they need, knowing they'll be used for research as well.

And yet they don't need to since the fertilization clinics already had way more than they can use even before embryonic stem cell research started.

But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument.

I didn't put in words into anyone's mouth. I was just describing the ultimate reality of what happens when the frozen embryos aren't allowed to be used for research. They are incinerated or simply thrown away.

You could call it a strawman.

Outlining the consequences of what happens when the embryos aren't allowed to be used isn't a strawman.

Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.

You didn't tear anything down. You just basically repeated the wacko nonsense that comes from the religious right.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

FTA: "To obtain the stem cells, Dr Watson took less than a millimeter of tissue from the side of each patients' cornea. "

Yep, not embryonic. For all the hype of embryonic stem cells, we've yet to see *ANYTHING* good come out of them.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.

And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Plenty of research yes. Plenty of failures yes. Huge amounts of cancer, yes.

Actual cures, no.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
 
I have, hundreds of times. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).
 
  But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.
 
Which is why for Catholics, IVF is as big a sin as abortion (and is in fact the same sin).

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.

I take it you're unfamiliar with embryo adoption?

Re:!embroyonic

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.

They're trying to prevent dead fetuses from developing monetary value. Though I agree that they're not listening to reason, I wouldn't quite phrase it the way you did.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.

Did you read what I posted? This study was being done based off the work of a previous trial. Here is the trial that was done that precedes the FDA-approved study.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cell Transplants Remyelinate and Restore Locomotion after Spinal Cord Injury

Way to fail.

And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. That's a good one.

Re:!embroyonic

[Chris Burke]

But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument. You could call it a strawman. Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.

Yeah, you're right. It was kind of a strawman, largely because it was too specific.

"I have no idea of what I'm talking about, I can't be arsed to find out, and my imagination of what is going on outrages me!"

There. That's not a strawman at all.

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature human being were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

They're trying to prevent dead fetuses from developing monetary value.

No they aren't. If that was what they were doing why do they never say that? It's always about preventing the "murder" of an undifferentiated ball of cells.

Though I agree that they're not listening to reason, I wouldn't quite phrase it the way you did.

The way I phrased it is the ultimate consequences of their actions. Ban their use for research and they get thrown out.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

I have, hundreds of times.

Gee, why wasn't I surprised that some nobody that no one has ever heard of would say this?

The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).

But their objection is over it being the "murder" of the ball of cells not a complaint that "too many are being made".

Which is why for Catholics, IVF is as big a sin as abortion (and is in fact the same sin).

Wow, then you are even more backwards and stupid than I thought.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.

Funny, I know quite a few people that have. Maybe the bias lies in your selection of sources? Your characterization of people that disagree with you as whiners indicates you wouldn't be receptive to the position anyway. Perhaps you've heard of it but dismissed it because it doesn't fit with your "insightful" strawman?

But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.

So keep the egg and sperm separate. No combination = no life. Neither differentiates spontaneously. As is, you have multiple implantations in the hope that at least one will stick. That brings up a further ethical dilemma, create a new Octomon producing 8 kids at once, or abort the other ones that took to benefit the preferred embryo(s).

There is nothing to kill. These are just clumps of undifferentiated cells.

That's your OPINION. You can't back it with science since it is more of a philosophical question. I'm an atheist and yet I maintain that life begins at the moment of conception based on science as well.

nd yet they don't need to since the fertilization clinics already had way more than they can use even before embryonic stem cell research started.

Which proves that they were already overcreating them. What happens, if there is a run on ESC research and clinics begin to run out? Deliberate creation of new embryos for research?

I didn't put in words into anyone's mouth. I was just describing the ultimate reality of what happens when the frozen embryos aren't allowed to be used for research. They are incinerated or simply thrown away.

You were putting words in the mouths of the people that disagree with you. You might not wish to accept it, but you were. You were arguing your view of their position ("they'd rather...") neglecting to state any opinion of your own. Hence, you were putting words into the mouths of others.

Outlining the consequences of what happens when the embryos aren't allowed to be used isn't a strawman.

Pretending that there are only two choices IS creating a strawman. It deliberately ignores other choices to make it seem like they don't exist.

You didn't tear anything down. You just basically repeated the wacko nonsense that comes from the religious right.

No, I didn't tear anything down. YOU created a strawman for yourself to tear down. You seem to have a lot of problems with logic... you might want to take a debate class because you're all over the place. You've given no supporting argument of your own position, and have done nothing but resort to creating strawmen and mocking those that disagree with you. That might win you a political election, but it doesn't make your argument sound.

Re:!embroyonic

[Bryansix]

"This is significant because it's the first clinical trial of a human embryonic-based product."

From that single line in the fucking article YOU posted you can find out that not only is this the FIRST approved research using Embryonic Stem Cells but in addition it is just research and NOT a breakthrough. Way too many people are way the fuck too stuck in their ideology to see the actual reality of the world around them.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.10news.com/health/3919722/detail.html

Re:!embroyonic

[Bryansix]

It was in RATS! And they had to inject them within 7 DAYS of the injury!

Re:!embroyonic

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If that was what they were doing why do they never say that? It's always about preventing the "murder" of an undifferentiated ball of cells.

Because words like 'murder' punctuate the point and make it easier to get their message out. It's sort of like how Palin tried to attach the word 'terrorist' to Obama, and sadly, with some success.

They don't like abortion to begin with. If abortions start saving lives, they fear that it becomes a 'pro', thus making it harder to outlaw.

I'll admit, though, that I am guilty of generalizing.

The way I phrased it is the ultimate consequences of their actions. Ban their use for research and they get thrown out.

It attributed the wrong intention to their actions in order to make them look silly.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just incase you don't bother to click on the article he provided, it was published in 2005. So, it's definitely been done.

Re:!embroyonic

[Bryansix]

I don't know if you forgot but there ARE other countries in the world besides the United States of America. Your explanation makes no sense.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it's just a study. No "break" there. In fact, if you look, you will find that many uses of embryonic stem cells result in cancers or tumors.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

Funny, I know quite a few people that have.

So name these people who have publicly gone out and said this.

Maybe the bias lies in your selection of sources?

My selection of source is are the people who vocally go into public and state their opposition.

Your characterization of people that disagree with you as whiners indicates you wouldn't be receptive to the position anyway. Perhaps you've heard of it but dismissed it because it doesn't fit with your "insightful" strawman?

Again, you use this term strawman but don't seem to know what it means.

So keep the egg and sperm separate.

So you want them to separate each individual egg and sperm? That is an impractical amount of work which is why they just do it en masse. You have fun separating the millions of sperm from each other from a sample of semen and see how practical what you state really is.

That brings up a further ethical dilemma, create a new Octomon producing 8 kids at once, or abort the other ones that took to benefit the preferred embryo(s).

It's her body she can do with it what she will.

That's your OPINION

Which is based on science.

You can't back it with science since it is more of a philosophical question. I'm an atheist and yet I maintain that life begins at the moment of conception based on science as well.

Then please link to this science that shows this.

Which proves that they were already overcreating them.

Please see above. Doing what you claim is just outright impractical.

What happens, if there is a run on ESC research and clinics begin to run out? Deliberate creation of new embryos for research?

If people consent to have their eggs and sperm being used to create more ESCs then sure.

You were putting words in the mouths of the people that disagree with you.

Nope, just describing the ultimate consequences of your position.

You might not wish to accept it, but you were. You were arguing your view of their position ("they'd rather...") neglecting to state any opinion of your own. Hence, you were putting words into the mouths of others.

Well considering that the fertilized eggs are going to be thrown away or incinerated because the clinic doesn't have space to keep them, if you object to the research you are in effect saying you'd rather have them destroyed then put to good use.

Pretending that there are only two choices IS creating a strawman. It deliberately ignores other choices to make it seem like they don't exist.

Nope, that would be a false dichotomy or false dilemma. Get your logical fallacies right please.

No, I didn't tear anything down.

I know you didn't. You failed to do anything at all but repeat more Religious Right bullshit.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yea except of course for the research that led them to this. Embryonic stem cell research has created an adult stem cell program that is now an engineering problem instead of a research problem.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And if you actually READ that study, the study was done on RATS, not on humans.

No wonder you've never heard of Humanae Vitae- you're as illiterate as any science-worshipper I've ever come across.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

I didn't say that study was the breakthrough. The breakthrough was the previous trial on which that study is basing it's work on. Please learn to read. The previous trial can be found here.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cell Transplants Remyelinate and Restore Locomotion after Spinal Cord Injury

I'm pretty sure the fact that that trial was able to restore locomotion after a spinal cord injury would be a breakthrough.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You mean kind of like how you called curing rats a human trial above?

Or maybe how stupid you are not to realize the ethical dilemma of creating another human being for the sole purpose of replacement parts?

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

It was in RATS!

So what?

And they had to inject them within 7 DAYS of the injury!

Which is pretty typical of initial trials. I never said this was a full-blown, ready to use treatment.

Re:!embroyonic

[geekoid]

No fetus has EVER been harmed in ANY stem cell test or experiment. In fact THEY CAN"T BE becasue they weren't fetuses yet. They're not even 200 cells. Hell, more cell dies last time you sneezed.

There have been many, many, many break thoughs from harvested stem cell.

Dumbass.

Re:!embroyonic

[sortius_nod]

I'd give up now, unfortunately the whole embryonic stem cell debate brings out the religious right who ignore studies. They seem use strawman arguments to try to push their own agenda.

The rest of us who do actually read studies and support embryonic stem cells know what you're getting at.

I bet these religious nuts don't even realise how much embryonic material (not just stem cells) are used in science. In fact, one of my friends when working in a neuroscience institution was quite frank with the fact she used aborted human embryos in her research. They keep it low key to stop the religious nuts from protesting or doing something destructive to the labs.

It seems the most ill informed people in the world would prefer to see adults die rather than an aborted embryo be used for research.

Re:!embroyonic

[harryandthehenderson]

And if you actually READ that study, the study was done on RATS, not on humans.

I did read the study and did know that. How does that make it any less of a breakthrough? Was the initial polio vaccine not a breakthrough just because it was only initially only worked on monkeys? I never once claimed this was some ready for human therapy but that doesn't make it any less of a breakthrough. In fact, it's because of that trial that the study I linked was approved and the ones running it admit to building upon the work of that previous trial.

No wonder you've never heard of Humanae Vitae- you're as illiterate as any science-worshipper I've ever come across.

Science-worshiper? Hahaha that's a funny one.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature humans were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.

My brother is an extremely immature human. What you are describing is an embryo. An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development that has no more in common with a human being then an ant. (And before you say it, the fact that the embryo cells may becomepart of a human being doesn't matter. I can eat the ant and it will become a part of a person too.)

Re:!embroyonic

[sexconker]

Now you've done it.

People had the image of evil scientists watching abortions being performed through a hole in the wall, rubbing their hands together and twirling their mustaches in sadistic anticipation of fresh, fetal stem cells. It worked out well. They had a target (that didn't exist) they could all agree to hate.

Now those people will have to imagine evil test tubes and deal with the fact that many of them have used such services.

It's only a matter of time before we hear them cry out that they were raped by these doctors who harvested their children for profit and the evils of science, without having any reason to believe that it actually happened to them.

Re:!embroyonic

[Obfuscant]

I'm pretty sure the fact that that trial was able to restore locomotion after a spinal cord injury would be a breakthrough.

A breakthrough for paraplegic rats.

Using embryonic stem cells that have ALWAYS been approved for research and federal funding.

I know you want to make this look like Barry got into office and suddenly the lame started walking and the blind can see, but Barry had nothing to do with either the vision repair using adult stem cells or the approval of the TESTS to see if embryonic cells can restore nerve tissue in humans.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, this is SUCH BULLSHIT! No one ever threatened to cut funding to universities. You are either incredibly ignorant or are a lying bastard. Which is it? Oh, and another thing (since we know whom you're attempting to smear, here) George W. Bush was the FIRST ever US President to fund ANY embryonic stem cell research EVER! And he got constantly slammed as some fucking obstacle to it!

Re:!embroyonic

[Bryansix]

http://www.embryoadoption.org/about/index.cfm

Re:!embroyonic

[geekoid]

How is it not a break through? becasue the tested using rats?

Science worshiper make no sense at all. IT'a about facts and studies. PROVABLE stuff.
Let me know when you idiots can cook up nay way to verify your religious hypothesis.

All test have shown there is no god. You got one that does?

Take your ritual cannibalism zombie savior belief to church and seek comfort in the other ignorant mean fuckers that think their belief trumpets peoples right, kindness, science and common sense.

Oh yeah, I have read the Church doctrine mother fucker, so bring it on.

I am not suprised you ahve no idea how and where they get Stem Cells.

If you are against this research, then you are also against in vitro fertilization. Funny, I have yet to find one of you righteous assholes who are against in vitro fertilization even though the by product is where they get the Blastocyst from; which isn't a fetus yet.
I am sick of you cock sucker forcing your belief down the throat of others. You don't like it? fine don't take any life saving treatments from it. Do not tell me what to do based on your made up shit.

the number 1 cause of atheism is studying the bible, dip wad.

You don't like science fuck face? get the hell off the interent becasue it is possible from science.
To quote Carl Sagan: "Science delivers the goods"

Re:!embroyonic

[Obfuscant]

Well if you threaten to cut federal funding to any university or hospital that does research on embryonic stem cells, surprise surprise, there are going to be more breakthroughs from other cell types.

You're one of those who claims funding is cut if the amount of funding doesn't get increased as much as you want, aren't you?

Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research goes on, there are just limits on the use of new cell lines. It's an ethics thing. We already have some embryonic lines to work with, we don't need to continue what some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more, but the ones we have can be used and duplicated forever.

It's like, do we use the information that Mengele developed, or do we use the same techniques to get more information? After all, you don't want to be seen as someone who would watch humans die just so that some non-humans don't have to, would you?

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic that you are proof some people should abort.

Re:!embroyonic

[CannonballHead]

Strange usag eof the word "occult." Since Christianity is one of those belief systems that typically includes no-abortion, and since you aren't referring to stem cells specifically here, I'd venture to say you're calling Christianity occult?

The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden"

And, of course, the word is typically used to describe a specific "occult" religion. Which Christianity is not... neither the Latin definition nor the religion.

Unless you're trying to say that the opinion (of not wanting fetuses aborted) comes from "hidden knowledge." As opposed to a purely scientific view, I suppose, which determines when human life begins by ... ?

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, well, Peter Griffin said it. It must be true!

Seriously now.

(You achieve partial redemption for quoting the Doctor.)

Re:!embroyonic

[geekoid]

Don't reply to that guy, he is a cult fanatic. They dno't see reason. I went to his web site, it's full of logical fallacys and what I will kindly call ignorant misunderstandings.
that person thinks RERUM NOVARUM is a good economic model for crying out loud.
Well he claims to, I suspect you you moved into his house or started living on his property he would decide otherwise.

Re:!embroyonic

[geekoid]

True, but any one large country cutting spending on a science will lead to fewer results becasue less people overall will be doing that research.

Re:!embroyonic

[geekoid]

"some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more,"
yeah, well I am tired of 'some people' telling me nonsense becasue of there 'beliefs'. Ignoring the fact that they are the scraps of In Vitro and not specifically harvest for research.

"...used and duplicated forever."

No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.

Who the fuck started spreading that lie?

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

Kind of completely ignored my post, didn't you? Again, not everything in biology is for immediate use. Biology is a science. Cell biology as a scientific inquiry into the workings of the cell, ESC have already proven themselves as valuable research models. Again I'm pointing to IPSC as one of the biggest successes with ESC research.

It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses.

Re:!embroyonic

[anonymousJUGGERNAUT]

I'm not sure how "life begins at the moment of conception" can possibly be "based on science." The whole "when does life begin" question doesn't make sense from a purely biological point of view, or rather it kind of does, but the answer is "billions of years ago." Scientifically speaking, the sperm and the egg are already alive before conception. The whole process is continuous. From a secular point of view, there's a question about when that continuous process has produced something that we would call a human and give rights to--but that's not a scientific question.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Defining embryos as "extremely immature human beings?" Next stop: murdering fertility clinic docs.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

hES research didn't lead to so-called adult stem cell programs, you uneducated troll. It's a totally different avenue of research that comes from the same fundamental theories of cell differentiation. There are things that both camps learn from each other, but saying that "Embryonic stem cell research has created an adult stem cell program" is just brain-rot.

There's enough real controversy here. We don't need more mindless drivel obscuring the issue (from either side). Knock it off!

Re:!embroyonic

[CODiNE]

I'm pretty sure that what he's saying is all religions are equally invalid. It's like calling Christianity an old cult.

Re:!embroyonic

[MillionthMonkey]

You're one of those who claims funding is cut if the amount of funding doesn't get increased as much as you want, aren't you?

Bush did fund research directly on a limited number of cell lines which he specified. But the actual funding to embryonic stem cell research itself isn't the issue.

What Bush did which was new, was to threaten to withdraw all federal funding for a research institution if anyone there touches something that touched something that was in a lab where something might have touched an unsanctioned embryonic stem cell. The funding is cut off for anything else they may be doing however unrelated... viruses, autism, whatever. Most research institutions in this country have traditionally been dependent on federal funding, and know full well they would have to shut down if this were to happen. It isn't a question of funding the damn research, it's about de-facto banning it except at privately funded labs.

Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research goes on, there are just limits on the use of new cell lines. It's an ethics thing.

So you feel that we can ethically use what we obtained unethically. That's certainly a convenient position to take, but it's ethically bankrupt.

It would at least be more consistent if we were to go full-troglodyte and ban all embryonic stem cell research on these sanctioned lines as well. If you seriously think we have murdered a bunch of people whom we are now growing on Petri dishes, I can't understand why you wouldn't.

There is another ethically consistent approach: just rethink whether a clump of cells is a human being or not, and then cut out this nonsense of banning what natural phenomena science is allowed to look at so we can stop embarrassing ourselves before the rest of the world.

We already have some embryonic lines to work with, we don't need to continue what some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more, but the ones we have can be used and duplicated forever.

According to the people who actually use the sanctioned cell lines, they have already deteriorated to the point of uselessness, and there is little more to find out about them at this point that doesn't involve creating additional lines.

It's like, do we use the information that Mengele developed

As soon as I hear German names in these discussions, I usually head for the door. That was a real Holocaust, not merely an arguable one.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Really now, forget proving/disproving, you got ANY test that even kinda tries to show the existence of a higher power?

Re:!embroyonic

[pavon]

I definitely agree that the Catholic Church's stand on this issue is far more self-consistant and respectable than that of other religious groups that oppose stem cell research. Which is true of their stand on most issues involving the intersection of science and religion.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed... and if my male WASP neighbor really pisses me off, I could call him a nigger bitch yes? They're all just curses after all. I apologize for the usage of the racial slur, but I do hope it demonstrated how absurd it is to simply use any bad sounding word to insult something. Even the most uncouth words have rules. :)

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, hold on there, chief. There's a rather large difference between creating another Human being and pulling out a bundle of cells. In some cases, you shed more skin cells during the day. Now, I'm not quite sure when an embryo counts as a Human, perhaps when it achieves sentience?

I seriously doubt a tiny ball of cells has any more capacity for sentience than the average insect.

(Posted as anon because I lack an account.)

Re:!embroyonic

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You want to drive people away from atheism and lend credence to GP's "science worshiper" comment? This is how to do it.

I'm not a fan of religion myself... but posts like this show a level of fanaticism that far outweighs the what average religious folks are willing to do in terms of "forcing ... belief down the throats of others".

This aside from the fact that you read an awful lot into his post. (Then again, reading his web site... I can kinda understand it ;)

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired of idiots who post ad hominems based on spelling errors.

Re:!embroyonic

[Idiomatick]

Wow that was completely out of the blue and way over the top, i'm so adding you to friends.

Re:!embroyonic

[ikono]

Which is why for Catholics, IVF is as big a sin as abortion (and is in fact the same sin).

Which is why I thank God we are not a true Christian nation.

Re:!embroyonic

[Corporate Drone]

In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature humans were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.

My brother is an extremely immature human. What you are describing is an embryo. An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development that has no more in common with a human being then an ant. (And before you say it, the fact that the embryo cells may becomepart of a human being doesn't matter. I can eat the ant and it will become a part of a person too.)

Really? A human embryo can develop into an adult human, not just "become part" of one. Once you're able to take an ant and turn it into a human being, come back into the discussion. Until then, enjoy your diet of ants...

Re:!embroyonic

[RussR42]

Oops! God is the biggest fetus aborter around. I'm too lazy to google it up for you, but some large percentage of fertalized eggs fail to attach in the womb. That's a fairly unintelligent design if it's a sin to kill a couple of cells.

Re:!embroyonic

[RussR42]

My bad, not a fetus yet. Fertalized cell clump thingy... You know what I mean. No doubt this guy will pick apart the details instead of getting the point.

Re:!embroyonic

[Merls the Sneaky]

I dont have a problem creating a human bieng for replcements. My ethical dilemma begins at brain activity but stemm cell harvesting falls far short of that.

Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me where my ethical dilemma's start, or to deny me the god given free will.(I use god as a reference here as its the only law your type will listen to, I will therefore face the consequences upon death.) You don't like it don't use any treatments you don't agree with.

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

It was in RATS!

So what?

And they had to inject them within 7 DAYS of the injury!

Which is pretty typical of initial trials. I never said this was a full-blown, ready to use treatment.

OK, but that's not what I'd call a breakthrough, which is what the GP was asking for.

We've been able to hook up devices to roaches heads and use joysticks to move them around, but that's not exactly what I'd call mind control either.

When a Christopher Reeves type patient gets up and walks from an embryonic stem cell treatment, that can not be done from adult derived stem cells and doesn't contract cancer within five years, get back with us.

Re:!embroyonic

[Merls the Sneaky]

Soylent Red is ants!

AAANNTTTSSS!!!!!!

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

I'd give up now, unfortunately the whole embryonic stem cell debate brings out the religious right who ignore studies. They seem use strawman arguments to try to push their own agenda.

The rest of us who do actually read studies and support embryonic stem cells know what you're getting at.

I bet these religious nuts don't even realise how much embryonic material (not just stem cells) are used in science. In fact, one of my friends when working in a neuroscience institution was quite frank with the fact she used aborted human embryos in her research. They keep it low key to stop the religious nuts from protesting or doing something destructive to the labs.

It seems the most ill informed people in the world would prefer to see adults die rather than an aborted embryo be used for research.

If you informed yourself, you would understand the objection. You see, some people have a problem saying who is human and who is not. I mean, if it has human DNA, brain waves, heart beat, can feel pain and so on, it's human, right? Well, some people say it's human, or at least don't have the gaul to declare who is human and who is "sub-human", and they're not really "crazy" or "ill informed" in that belief. If I gave you an "aborted embryo" at eight months gestation and a one month prematurely born baby that had died during child birth, you would be hard pressed to tell me the difference between the two. Why would one be considered human and the other not? Who TF are we to decide that? How powerful is a government that can deem someone non-human?

OK, either way, so some people think that human embryos are human BECAUSE they are informed. Now, if you believed that dead human beings were being used for scientific research without their prior consent, wouldn't YOU speak up? Wouldn't YOU stand up for the rights of those that can not stand up for themselves? These people would, and they do. For that, they are called "religious nuts", "ill informed" and "religious right who ignore studies". Sadly, it's YOU who are ignorant of them, not the other way around.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so the Christians are up in arms because the egg gets its soul the instant it is fertilized, right? So will embryonic stem cell research allow me to someday make multiple deals with the Devil without having to go to Hell?

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

Kind of completely ignored my post, didn't you? Again, not everything in biology is for immediate use. Biology is a science. Cell biology as a scientific inquiry into the workings of the cell, ESC have already proven themselves as valuable research models. Again I'm pointing to IPSC as one of the biggest successes with ESC research.

It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses.

You are correct, research is a long process. However, at some point, you have to put aside you political ideology and accept that there may be better ways. The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them. So, why on earth would you insist on continuing to research embryonic stem cells? That would be like demanding funding for cold fusion research AFTER another cheap and clean energy source had been found.

Hell, even the founder of stem cell research now objects to using embryonic stem cells now that adult derived stem cells are offering better results. See my sig for the quote.

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.

Citation please. I've heard that some of the "approved" stem cell lines can not be used in actual human trials, but so what? You use government funding and government approved stem cell lines. You get a breakthrough. Use that breakthrough to get private funding and dump all government funding and imposed limitations. Profit!

Who the fuck started spreading that lie?

Um... it looks like you are.

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

So you feel that we can ethically use what we obtained unethically. That's certainly a convenient position to take, but it's ethically bankrupt.

Actually, it was a compromise. Bush did a lot of that early on and every time he reached across the aisle, he drew back a nub. Just look at how YOU are treating him for offering something that the previous president didn't offer. So even though it was more than what you had before, it wasn't everything you wanted, so you bash him like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum when she gets a new car on her 16th birthday in the wrong color.

According to the people who actually use the sanctioned cell lines, they have already deteriorated to the point of uselessness

Citation please.

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

They're not even 200 cells. Hell, more cell dies last time you sneezed.

If you only consisted of 200 cells, you'd really think twice about sneezing. See, it's not the fact that it only uses 200 cells; that's irrelevant. What matters is the percentage. When 200 cells means 100%, it has a lot more meaning. Besides, how many cells are required before a blob of human cells deserves human rights?

But, if you want to play by your rules, fine. How many cells do you have? If I have more, does that mean I can deem you non-human?

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.

Yep, it's amusing that some people would rather have their dead bodies buried under ground or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science. Yet, for some strange reason, people are given the right to decide what happens to their bodies after they die. Who do these people think they are?

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

Oops! God is the biggest fetus aborter around. I'm too lazy to google it up for you, but some large percentage of fertalized eggs fail to attach in the womb. That's a fairly unintelligent design if it's a sin to kill a couple of cells.

First, you would be more correct if you considered mis-carriages "Deity-Induced-Abortions".

Either way, you are so right! Why do we jail all these people for murder when their so called "victims" would have been killed by God, mother nature, or spaghetti monster eventually anyway!

Re:!embroyonic

[bendodge]

A zygote is a single-celled fetus (commonly known as "baby"). Here's a quick test to determine if any given tissue blob is a fetus:

1. Is it's DNA unique to it?
2. Is the DNA human DNA?
3. Is it alive?

I'm sure this simple test will be very useful to your in the future. Maybe I could patent it and sue millions of OB/GYN's!

Re:!embroyonic

[bendodge]

abort: the act of terminating a project or procedure before it is completed; (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=abort)
So what if abortions aren't performed on babies in wombs at 5 days. It's still a human life, and you still aborted (see definition) it. You may think it's OK to do that, but call a spade a spade and stop trying to twist the terminology. You ought to be able to defend your position on its own merits.

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them.

On the cures thing, I'm going to repeat myself (this makes three by the way.)

"It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses."

I was talking about research. Research is ongoing, that should be an indication that we don't know enough. 10 years is not enough time to learn all we can about how cells turn from "lump of clay" cells into their final form, and for that we need embryonic stem cells.

No one seems to care that there is basic science to be done here, so let me point out we don't know what's what as far as treatments go either.

ESC have been around longer, thats true and it's not unreasonable to ask why they haven't yeilded any cures. However, when you consider that penicillin was discovered several decades before it started really saving lives, that most of that time was spent figuring out how to purify it, and that anyone who suggested we give up on it after 10 years now is, in retrospect, very shortsighted, you can get some perspective on it. Penicillin was discovered in 1928, it wasn't until 1944 that it was being produced in quantity. While it did cure people pretty quickly, the next year, we're dealing with a much more complicated problem here than killing bacteria.

And it's not like adult stem cells are at the finish line while ESC are tripping over the starting block. Why aren't adult stem cells being used to cure every spinal cord injury? Hint: it's not because doctors hate IVF embryos and people with spinal cord injuries. How would adult stem cells help in diseases where adult stem cells aren't there? There are studies underway with every aspect I just mentioned and adult stem cells, with a few poster children for each, yes, but no technology has yet been delivered, giving up on any of them, even if you're just interested in cures, is foolish.

But of course, we're missing the boat entirely. What is MUCH more promising than either in terms of medical cures are induced pluripotent stem cells. Those are the ones that sidestep some of the "moral" issues AND the tissue rejection issues while delivering all of the potency of ESC. That's been around only for 2 years now, has some of it's own challenges (the oncogenes for one) and I did say "some" of the moral issues. iPSC were made using information gleaned from ESC.

See? That's why we needed ESC research. And, again, we still have much to learn about how embryonic stem cells turn into mature cells in natural development.

So, why on earth would you insist on continuing to research embryonic stem cells? That would be like demanding funding for cold fusion research AFTER another cheap and clean energy source had been found.

That's a good metaphor. We would keep funding it because there's always more to learn, higher goals, even after certain goals are met. If we figured out how to make solar energy cheap, there are applications that solar can't be used for. There are things we would learn about physics by developing cold fusion. We might make cold fusion cheaper than cheap solar. And, of course, we're curious by nature.

In the case of ESC, even if adult stem cells did all that we needed as far as tissue replacement, we'd still want to figure out certain devlopmental processes and diseases. There's as of yet no way to study cortical development on adult stem cells because adult stem cells don't make the cerebral cortex. What are we supposed to say to parents of children born with lissencephaly? "Sorry, we can't tell you any information, but it's okay, because the rest of us have a good cure using adult stem cell therapy?"

Re:!embroyonic

[MillionthMonkey]

Just look at how YOU are treating him for offering something that the previous president didn't offer. So even though it was more than what you had before, it wasn't everything you wanted, so you bash him like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum when she gets a new car on her 16th birthday in the wrong color.

You should read posts before responding to them.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

They are dead and therefore don't care, Adult or Embryo. Why they are dead is a different discusion

Re:!embroyonic

[mwvdlee]

It was in RATS!

Look, I'm as much for using animal right activists in initial trials as you are. But for some reason none of them has stepped forward to take over the role as guinea pig. So rats are still the best we can do for initial trials.

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

abort: the act of terminating a project or procedure before it is completed

Who is twisting terminology here? It's typical that you went with "abort" rather than "abortion." Abortion of course, to most people, doesn't mean the act of stopping something.

The actual definition of "abortion" from your source
"# S: (n) abortion (termination of pregnancy)
# S: (n) miscarriage, abortion (failure of a plan) "

That first one is the one the anti-stem cell movement is hoping people will think of, since that's the one they're queasy about. But ESC doesn't involve pregnancy or the termination thereof. It's not a miscarriage. This isn't removing an embryo from a woman to kill it. These are embyros that were never on their way to being born, it doesn't even fall into your definition.

The hypocrisy here is so thick I can't help but think you're trolling.

It's still a human life...

I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know what constitutes human life, but I do believe it's more than just having a set of nucleotide instructions on how to make a human, which is all 5 day old embryos have.

Re:!embroyonic

[bogjobber]

It's not twisting the terminology. It's using the terminology.

A baby is not the same thing as a fetus. A fetus is not the same thing as an embryo. You're the one manipulating language.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice logic there, Rusty. If natural abortions means intentional ones are okay, then fatalities in traffic accidents means I can run you down with my car.

Re:!embroyonic

[BananaPeel]

Reading through the comments here I would suggest the following thought experiment.

1.Take an adult stem cell,
2.Regress it to an embryonic state
3.Profit

Or

3.Allow it to differentiate into an egg precursor cell (not sure how this would happen but it must happen because all the eggs in a womanâ(TM)s ovaries come from the same single ball of stem cells)
4.Nurture it into an egg cell
5.Fertilise it
.
7. Profit

So adult stem cells - embryonic stem cells ⦠whatever!

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire abortion debate can be simplified into determining when (what I will call) a "biological life" (meaning anything made of cells, including amoeba, bacteria, and presumably aliens if they exist) is a "human life". But as you seem to have assumed the premise of the debate - "It's still a human life..." - you obviously reach your desired conclusion.

Now, try to reach your desired conclusion without assuming it, and then we will have a meaningful debate about abortion, human life, and stem cells.

If you do not, eventually I (and many other people) will (probably correctly) assume that you cannot, and proceed to ignore your repeated but illogical cries for attention.

The choice is yours and yours alone.

Re:!embroyonic

[Ginger Unicorn]

It's still a human life

says who? it seems to me that it's a precursor to a human life, much like a sperm or an egg. surely the key component of a human is their conciousness. something that neither a sperm or an embryo possess.

if a person doesn't exist yet, then you can't hurt them, kill them, or infringe on their rights. They don't exist. An embryo is not a person, it is a sack of chemicals. Until those chemical attain conciousness, they are not a person. Do you consider using a condom as murdering a baby? because exactly the same thing is happening - you are engaging a process that may result in a concious entity being created, but taking steps to prevent that eventuality from occurring.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

No they aren't. If that was what they were doing why do they never say that? It's always about preventing the "murder" of an undifferentiated ball of cells.

They do, but you choose to ignore it because it's not convenient to you.

Re:!embroyonic

[Rolgar]

FYI, the Catholic Church's position is that in vitro fertilization is immoral, and Catholics that agree with this make up a large percentage of the pro-life movement.

From a Catholic website: IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.

Re:!embroyonic

[Muad'Dave]

...don't have the gaul...

That would be gall, unless you're implying that the French are sub-human.

Re:!embroyonic

[Muad'Dave]

Yet I consider all of those 'alive', regardless of your choice of terminology.

Re:!embroyonic

[Muad'Dave]

I have, hundreds of times.

As have I. Perhaps, harryandthehenderson, you just aren't listening?

Re:!embroyonic

[ArcherB]

You typed a whole bunch of good stuff and deserve a response, even though the thread is dead.

On the cures thing, I'm going to repeat myself (this makes three by the way.)

"It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses."

I was talking about research. Research is ongoing, that should be an indication that we don't know enough. 10 years is not enough time to learn all we can about how cells turn from "lump of clay" cells into their final form, and for that we need embryonic stem cells.

Personally, I'm not against embryonic stem cell research. I am against killing an embryo for the purpose of such research. I am fully aware that ESC's are nothing more than a lump of cells and come from embryo's that are to be discarded anyway. The problem is that while these embryo's fate is already sealed, are they human. Sure, they don't resemble humans in anything other than their DNA, but when does this clump of cells deserve human rights? I don't know the answer, but even if I did, someone would disagree. So the best course of action is to not even guess as to when a human becomes human and start at the very beginning.

That's been around only for 2 years now, has some of it's own challenges (the oncogenes for one) and I did say "some" of the moral issues. iPSC were made using information gleaned from ESC.

See? That's why we needed ESC research. And, again, we still have much to learn about how embryonic stem cells turn into mature cells in natural development.

I agree that the research is important. There are no restrictions on ESC research, just US government funding. Those limits are only on new stem cell lines. "Old" lines started before 2001 are fully funded by the US government. I understand that these cells are not "pure" enough for actual use in humans, they are good enough for the research that we agree is necessary. What I have not heard with any credibility is that new ESC lines will offer any research benefit over existing cell lines, adult derived cell lines or lines derived from other sources such as cord blood. From my understanding, there is simply nothing to learn from new ESC lines that can not be learned from existing ESC lines non ESC lines.

Still, since there are no limits on private or other-government funding, if these lines truly held promise, they would find the funding they need. Remember, we are only talking about limiting funding from a single government. All private and foreign funding is not restricted in any way.

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

Oh, so you're claiming that an embryo isn't a stage of human development? Really? Embryonic cells do not become part of a human being. An embryonic human organism develops into a human adult.

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

Once you're able to take an ant and turn it into a human being, come back into the discussion.

And it's not just that we can turn it into a human being. It's that an embryo naturally develops into an adult, given a friendly, nourishing environment. (Just like a fetus, an infant, or a toddler.)

Deprived of that, it will die. (Just like a fetus, an infant, or a toddler.)

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Just like how defining black people as human beings led to civil rights activists going on murderous rampages.

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

Ignoring the fact that they are the scraps of In Vitro and not specifically harvest for research.

The only way to create a stem cell line is to specifically harvest an embryo for research.

I assume you either meant:
1.) They weren't specifically created for research.
2.) They would have been killed anyway.

(1) is true but irrelevant. (2) is relevant, but is only half-true. Most embryos created for IVF are being killed if they're not implanted in the mother, but that is not the only option.

Embryo adoption robs the "they would be discarded anyway" argument of its force.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I dont have a problem creating a human bieng for replcements. My ethical dilemma begins at brain activity but stemm cell harvesting falls far short of that.
 
We don't know for sure how the brain operates or what suffices for "activity". It *may* be related to the electrochemical signals we can read with EEG machines, it might not.
 
Regardless of whether or not a God exists, it seems foolish to base one's ethical decisions on potentially incorrect information.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Of course, one definition of a god (and in fact, the one that informs the entire Seamless Garment of Life theology) is "that being or species which controls all life and death for a given species".
 
Abortion by man is objectionable in that case for the same reason murder, war, and the death penalty are objectionable- it's taking governmental power away from God and giving it to man.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Woah, hold on there, chief. There's a rather large difference between creating another Human being and pulling out a bundle of cells. In some cases, you shed more skin cells during the day. Now, I'm not quite sure when an embryo counts as a Human, perhaps when it achieves sentience?
 
I'd argue for a more biochemical point- when it achieves different DNA than either of it's parent cells by random mixing of RNA strands.
 
And accounts are free.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The difference between a scientist and an engineer: Engineers actually do something for humanity. Scientists work only for knowledge.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I didn't say it wasn't a breakthrough, I said it wasn't a cure.

Illiterate scientists.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Only ones that admit to the perponderance of anecdotal evidence over 40,000 years of human existence. Eliminate that evidence on purpose, though, and no.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, I started a club last year for the communal use of my property. Haven't had any takers yet, but as capitalism is currently melting down in the United States, I suspect I might in the next 10 years.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You claimed that this was a cure that had already worked on humans, and when I called you on it, you referred to the previous study that didn't even use humans for the test.
 
And that's why I called you an illiterate science-worshiper; you don't even bother to understand the science you refer to.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Oh, though I did have 30 people invest in the club.
Not quite enough to form a corporation with at only $10/share, but I may revive it someday with a larger amount.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You want to drive people away from atheism and lend credence to GP's "science worshiper" comment?
 
Who was this intended for? I think you hit reply on the wrong level.
 
Still, I find large numbers of people only believe the evidence their own beliefs will admit into evidence.

Re:!embroyonic

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It's a reply to geekoid but slashdot nesting breaks it visually. If you hit "Parent" you can see though.

Still, I find large numbers of people only believe the evidence their own beliefs will admit into evidence.

True in all cases, and not limited to religion alone.

Re:!embroyonic

[Golddess]

It's a difficult line to walk, I won't deny it. But I would argue that by disallowing abortion, the government is dictating what is and is not human. I mean, where is the line drawn? No more Morning After pills? No more spermicide, condoms, The Pill? I've heard about cultures in I think Africa that consider it an affront to God if a woman has a period, considering it something akin to an abortion. Naturally, what needs to happen is that the government step out from trying to fulfill the role of parent and let the parents raise their children as they see fit, right?

Of course, this then leads us back to the times when, if the head of the household didn't like the child, he had the option to chuck the child off a cliff. And abusive parents do exist, which children should be protected from.

So what is the answer? That I do not know, but ultimately I usually find myself being reminded of this quote from House, M.D.:

Patient: "It's murder. I'm against it. You for it?"
House: "Not as a general rule."
Patient: "Just for unborn children?"
House: "Yes. The problem with exceptions to rules is the line-drawing. It might make sense for us to kill the ass that did this to you. I mean, where do we draw the line? Which asses do we get to kill and which asses get to keep on being asses. The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge."

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's a reply to geekoid
 
Thanks, I hate the new format......
 
  True in all cases, and not limited to religion alone.
 
Yeah, I love his "All test have shown there is no god. You got one that does?", completely ignoring the Tibetan Book of the Dead (a comprehensive record of over 1200 near death experiences over several centuries showing the existence of a savior), the animistic pre-civilization religions worldwide, hundreds of thousands of pages of "scripture", etc. Believing in science alone is like believing in a single religious orthodoxy: It works fine as a model for living as far as the model extends, but you're ignoring the empirical evidence of 99% of the human beings who have ever lived on this planet.

Re:!embroyonic

[interkin3tic]

Yes, because it was engineers who came up with vaccines.

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

It's not a miscarriage. This isn't removing an embryo from a woman to kill it. These are embyros that were never on their way to being born, it doesn't even fall into your definition.

You're right that it's not a miscarriage or abortion. But I don't understand the reasoning that leads to, they "were never on their way to being born".

It's like saying that an infant left in the woods to die--lacking the necessary nourishing care & environment--was "never on the way to becoming an adult."

Re:!embroyonic

[Obfuscant]

What Bush did which was new, was to threaten to withdraw all federal funding for a research institution if anyone there touches something that touched something that was in a lab where something might have touched an unsanctioned embryonic stem cell.

When I see such hyperbole being used in an argument, I assume the author knows he's lost and is just blowing smoke to try to cover up the fact.

So you feel that we can ethically use what we obtained unethically.

No, I feel that the issue becomes grayer when you are one level away from the actual unethical behaviour, instead of performing the behaviour directly to profit or benefit from it. We already have embryonic stem cell lines -- there is nothing we can do to undo whatever damage was done in getting them. That does not mean that we are free to continue harvest new lines. It's like the fact that slaves built many buildings when slavery was legal, and we aren't going to tear them all down because of how they were built. We just won't make slaves build any more of them.

The ideas of what is ethical change over time. The realization that some things we thought were ethical might result in unethical acts does mean we might want to stop what is, by itself, ethical. The desire to seek new cell lines using existing fertilized embryos can easily result in the production of those embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting them.

and then cut out this nonsense of banning what natural phenomena science is allowed to look at

At what point in time did in-vitro fertilization become "a natural phenomen[on]"? In-vivo, yes. For fish, yes. For humans, I can't recall any point in time when the woman expressed her eggs naturally and then reimplanted them.

As soon as I hear German names in these discussions, I usually head for the door.

Well, it's a similar situation on a larger scale. It's often called "reductio ad absurdum", when you take an argument to a larger scale to study the issues more closely. Do we abandon the information that Mengele obtained in his studies? Gray area. Do we continue his studies because he was getting useful information and since he was already doing it we would be just continuing something already being done?

The reason his name came up is because of a statement made by another poster about "do we watch humans die just to protect non-human life", or words very similar to that. I just mapped the "non-human life" from "embryo" to "Jew", because at the time it was being done, they weren't considered valid human life. Those who call for harvesting embryonic stem cells call the embryos "non-human".

Re:!embroyonic

[sorak]

You don't get it. It's a "breakthrough" if it proves my point. It's "research" if it proves yours.

Re:!embroyonic

[Deosyne]

Yeah, it's just like that, except not like that at all. Maybe you should be working on those political cartoons where everything is conveniently labeled while you're at it.

Re:!embroyonic

[Deosyne]

So since there is zero chance that these cells can become a human being at any point during the process in which the cells are cultivated and harvested since at no point does the environment approach anything remote feasible for developing them into a human being, there's no problem. Glad you cleared that up.

Re:!embroyonic

[Deosyne]

"of or pertaining to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies."

Uh, yeah, Christianity is, by definition, occult.

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

I shed skins cells which are alive and which are human every day. Cry me a river.

Re:!embroyonic

[JeanPaulBob]

Ah, yes. The clever rhetorical response of "Nuh-uh!"

Re:!embroyonic

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you want to make this look like Barry got into office and suddenly the lame started walking and the blind can see...

And you brought up Obama why?

Fucking black-and-white thinkers. Just because someone supports embryonic stem cell research, they're automatically lumped into one political ideology. Jesus fucking christ. Also, Bush killed funding on embryonic stem cell research funding. The only exception being already aborted fetii. Use google sometime.

Re:!embroyonic

[Bryansix]

You use google some time! People are all up in a huff over Bush's policy since over-turned that we should not start new stem cell lines from new embryos. They actually do think it is making the lame walk by now funding the destruction of more embryos. Plus this harryandthehenderson guy obviously thinks embryonic stem cell research is the greatest thing since sliced bread and really he should be shut down because his argument has no basis.

Re:!embroyonic

[bogjobber]

But I don't understand the reasoning that leads to, they "were never on their way to being born".

Let me give you a rundown of that reasoning. In fertility clinics, eggs are taken from the woman and fertilized in vitro. Usually, more eggs are fertilized (becoming embryos) than are needed. These embryos haven't attached to the walls of the uterus, they haven't even been inside the human body. If they are not used for research, they will simply be destroyed. At no point is there even the slightest possibility that these embryos will become humans.

That's a pretty big stretch comparing it to an infant left in the woods to die.

Re:!embroyonic

[ajlisows]

You might not think of biology as being important beyond what diseases it can cure right now. /.ers tend to be annoyed by people who take this approach to computing. Hmm...

If I had moderator points I'd want a +234 insightful to dole out to you for that comment. People from all walks of life expect everything considered to be important from the world of science to be on the level of "We cured Cancer....Yes....All Forms of it...For Good", "We successfully cloned a Grand Army of The Republic", or "The Moon Base is ready for humans to inhabit and the Mars base is 50% complete!"

Most really practical advancement in science these days has been built on top of the knowledge generated by hundreds of Scientists making small, even seemingly inane progress in the field. All of those baby steps are important if you one day expect to see any discoveries with a profound impact on human life. Heck, even well documented failures can be "Breakthroughs" of a sorts.

Re:!embroyonic

[MillionthMonkey]

When I see such hyperbole being used in an argument, I assume the author knows he's lost and is just blowing smoke to try to cover up the fact.

Um, no you don't. I will still sometimes phrase a sentence that way when I feel I might be speaking to people with limited capacity (not you of course; the thread is stale and it's probably just us here now). But I have some friends at work who had to put up with this at a major university, in a lab that was comparing embryological gene expression across various species. While adult stem cells can be included in those studies, they aren't as useful as the embryonic cells. And they can't be compared to embryonic cells in realistic stages of early development either. It's not as if stem cells stop changing over the years once somebody sanctions them.

I just mapped the "non-human life" from "embryo" to "Jew", because at the time it was being done, they weren't considered valid human life. Those who call for harvesting embryonic stem cells call the embryos "non-human".

This strikes me as very sloppy thinking. And it's offensive to Jews (I asked one). I see no basis for a "mapping" between *who* is called "non-human" and *what* is. Even if we restrict ourselves to people (and not "human beings" made of 16 cells), you can make that mapping between many pairs of ethnicities, not just Nazis/Jews. People call each other non-human all the time. Your argument is basically "well we called Jews non-humans and that was wrong, so we'd better not label microscopic clumps of cells as being non-human." There are some pretty compelling reasons to label the microscopic as "non-human" that obviously don't apply to ethnicities at all, and the rationale is practically incomparable.

Re:!embroyonic

[kurzweilfreak]

We don't know for sure how the brain operates or what suffices for "activity". It *may* be related to the electrochemical signals we can read with EEG machines, it might not.

You've got to be fucking kidding me! That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. We can't trust any of our brainscans and EEG readings because the brain might work thanks to a non-material soul or spirit that can't be detected, ever, in principle? How about we base our ethical decisions on what we do know for now rather than someone's bullshit made up ideas from their Holy Books?

Re:!embroyonic

[kurzweilfreak]

You're assuming first that a god exists to have this power taken away from him. You're also assuming there's a single god. You're probably also assuming that it's your god. And that it's actually him/her/it exercising this power. Maybe this god that you posit to exist doesn't have anything to do with death at all. Etc, etc.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

We can't actually trust anything we touch, see, hear, or anything anybody writes down. We don't KNOW anything, not for certain. For all we know, our shared illusion of reality has more to do with our physiology than anything actually resembling reality.
 
A true scientist is humble enough to know this; to know that objective evidence and thus the scientific method itself is impossible. He draws his evidence from as WIDE a variety of sources as possible, and realizes that "Holy Books" are neither truth nor fiction.

Re:!embroyonic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You're assuming first that a god exists to have this power taken away from him.
 
There's 2.9 million years worth of empirical evidence for existence of a god or gods; there's only the worship of objectivity (another myth) against.
 
  You're also assuming there's a single god.
 
Well, yes and no. I assume there is a single god with many incarnations; you might call me a monopolytheist with tendencies towards animism.
 
  You're probably also assuming that it's your god.
 
Also not entirely an accurate assumption, yes, it's my god, but no, it's also your god, even though you don't believe in a god. You can best think of my belief as deterministic anti-randomism with an understanding that my species, in total, is incapable of understanding anything approaching reality and truth.
 
  And that it's actually him/her/it exercising this power.
 
As is every other movement of any given atom in the universe, for the universe cannot be separated from god, but is rather a subset of God.
 
  Maybe this god that you posit to exist doesn't have anything to do with death at all.
 
If death exists, that God has something to do with death; it's human beings who might not exist.

Re:!embroyonic

[Obfuscant]

When I see such hyperbole being used in an argument, I assume the author knows he's lost and is just blowing smoke to try to cover up the fact.

Um, no you don't.

Yes, I do. People who make ridiculous claims about things tend not to know what they are talking about. I have touched something that touched something ... and there has never been any question about federal funding for what our University is doing.

If you want to argue that one lab being de-funded because another lab is doing the research, well, that's a different argument. I work at a University, however, and I know how the money flows. A lot of money is skimmed off the top of every research grant (called "overhead") which pays for infrastructure (lights, computers, etc), and so it is a valid argument that federal money headed to researcher A (who is doing innocuous research) winds up paying for researcher B (who is doing the embryonic stem cell research). Money that does make it to the researcher may go to buying instrumentation that is used by others. (Thank GOD for that mix, because it helps cover slack times and continue valuable programs during gaps in funding.)

It's not much different than those who argue that private organizations funded for public assistance (a church running a soup kitchen for the homeless, e.g.) are using government money to support religion. (Some of the money builds a kitchen at the church, which the church uses for church functions, thus saving the cost to the church of building a kitchen. The church benefits.)

This strikes me as very sloppy thinking. And it's offensive to Jews (I asked one).

Of COURSE it's offensive to Jews. It's offensive to anyone when you claim they are less than human. That's the POINT. People who valued the ends used offensive definitions to justify the means. Someone who wanted to study human physiology to save the lives of people he valued defined people he did not value as "non human" so he could get where he wanted. If you don't see the parallel, well, I don't think I can explain it better.

Your argument is basically "well we called Jews non-humans and that was wrong, so we'd better not label microscopic clumps of cells as being non-human."

No, my argument is "we have in the past made decisions about what is 'non-human' and have changed our mind, so we'd better not be THAT QUICK to dismiss discussions about the possibility of changing our mind again." That says nothing about "right" or "wrong", but it says a lot about thinking about courses of action that we might regret in the future.

A side-argument is that the people who are arguing for open access have a vested interest in the issue. Michael J Fox, certainly, but even a run of the mill researcher is being paid to do this. Now, most scientists find it offensive if you claim their objectivity is clouded by who pays the bills, but those scientists who are paid by big companies and dispute anthropogenic global warming theories face that kind of slander every day, even though the ones painting them as sellouts get paid for their pro opinions, too.

I just hope someday "we" don't realize that there is some difference between "a clump of cells" and "a fertilized embryo" that makes using them for scientific research unethical. Some people already think there is, and it is pretty offensive to THEM for others to dismiss their opinions as nonsense. You can't touch this subject without being offensive.

So, given that we may change our minds in the future about the ethics of the matter, what is the problem with avoiding that question by simply not continuing to do something that doesn't need to be done?

The fact, however, remains, that embryonic stemcell research was NOT prohibited by Bush, funding was NOT cut, and Barry hasn't made the blind man see or the crippled rat crawl.

Re:!embroyonic

[Falconhell]

There is no point in introducing facts to discussions dominated by people so incredibly juvenille they still believe in imaginary friends.

This thread disappoints me, in that I thought most slashdot posters were reasonably intelligent.

Then I find they believe in a god, based of course on evidence that has no credibility at all.

They would rather embryos go in the bin than be used to save lives-and then call themslves pro life.

Geezus people, try to act your age not your shoe size!

Stem Cells are Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet we don't know how to use them very well yet. Right now the most advanced treatment with them is 'stick them in the damaged tissue and hope for the best'.

Re:Help! Help! My iPhone 3G is stuck in my butt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well just set it on vibrate and enjoy.

But the funny part is

[Monkeedude1212]

That wearing Glasses has become a fashion statement. Yes, you can go and buy Glasses with lenses that do nothing so that you look more fashionable.

But seriously - that is cool beans. But if the Stem cells come from the other eye, does that mean I'm producing stem cells right now? Can I harvest it and fix my liver from a night of overdrinking? FRIDAY HERE I COME

Re:But the funny part is

[TheRealMindChild]

does that mean I'm producing stem cells right nowProducing them? I have no idea. Do you have them? Yes you do. However, stem cells like these are different than embryonic stem cells in that they are already have a predisposition of turning into cells of a certain type, where embryonic stem cells can be coerced into turning into any type.

Re:But the funny part is

[idontgno]

Can I harvest it and fix my liver from a night of overdrinking?

Perhaps. I can't address the value or therapeutic effectiveness of stem cells based on your liver, but I can tell you a couple of other factors to consider.

1. Liver biopsies probably don't feel good. Especially that "sticking a long needle into your belly and sucking out a bit of liver." DIY may not be your best approach here.
2. I think it'd work best if you had some stem cells from before you started to degrade your poor liver (i.e., before you started drinking hard). Not just before one specific binge, but before you took up binge drinking entirely. So, I think it's already too late.

Oh, yeah, don't forget to ??? and Profit!!

Re:But the funny part is

[Anonymous Coward]

What is "cool beans"?

Re:But the funny part is

[JoshuaZ]

Wearing glasses as a fashion statement isn't new at all. It occurred at least as early as the early Renaissance when glasses were considered a sign of wealth (because you could afford them) and education (because you presumably needed them to read).

Re:But the funny part is

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold-press coffee.

Re:But the funny part is

[gd2shoe]

does that mean I'm producing stem cells right now?

After a manner of speaking, yes. The thing is, they aren't nearly the same as hES. They're sometimes termed human adult stem cells. This is a misnomer on several levels. (1) They're not unique to adults, or even children. They appear early in fetal development (or sooner?). (2) They're partially differentiated. Each can only become specific types of cells (3) There are many different types depending on what they may become. Those found in the bone marrow are very different from those found in muscle. If you want to cure a liver problem (for example) you must draw cells from a liver, not an eye. (Research is progressing towards reversing the differentiation process.)

Re:But the funny part is

[Muad'Dave]

"Cool beans" is a saying from the 1980's. I find myself still using it long after its expiration date, which tends to attract strange stares.

Re:Help! Help! My iPhone 3G is stuck in my butt!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why he needs it out, so he can set it to vibrate and put it back.

Very Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't see this one coming.

Re:Very Surprised

[Red Flayer]

Wow, I didn't see this one coming.

Didn't predict what was going to happen? That was very short-sighted of you.

It was blindingly obvious, after all.

Yes, yes, I'm an insensitive clod. I understand this, and apologize in advance to my sight-challenged friends who are listening to this via text reader or reading it via braille.

This story reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Stevie Wonder always smiling? He doesn't know he's black!

Now why would you want to use stem cells when all they would do is make Stevie Wonder look in a mirror and never smile again. Are you against smiling, you insensitive clod?!

Types of stem cells

[oneirophrenos]

The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.

Re:Types of stem cells

[harryandthehenderson]

The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced,

They weren't produced. They were somatic stem cells that were in the patients good eyes.

so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells [wikipedia.org])

No, you would be wrong. As the summary and the article state these are adult stem cells or somatic stem cells as they are also called.

Re:Types of stem cells

[ChinggisK]

The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.M

I don't know what most of those words mean, but judging from TFS where it says that the stem cells came from each subject's good eye, I'd say you're right, they aren't embryonic stem cells ;-)

Re:Types of stem cells

[compro01]

1. I would presume they were produced from cells harvested from the good eyes.

2. Adult stem cells are multipotent progenitor cells.

Re:Types of stem cells

[harryandthehenderson]

2. Adult stem cells are multipotent progenitor cells.

Sorry, but no. Progenitor cells are differentiated. Somatic stem cells are undifferentiated.

Re:Types of stem cells

[pavon]

2. Adult stem cells are multipotent progenitor cells

IANAB, but that is not consistant with how I've heard the term used.
From what I understand, and wikipedia agrees is that the difference between progenitor and stem cells is whether they can divide indefinitely. The pecking order of how differentiated a cell is is like so:

Embryonic Stem Cells (pluripotent)
Adult/Somatic Stem Cells (multipotent)
Progenitor Cells (can be multipotent or unipotent)
Fully Differentiated Cells.

I've seen some variation in whether people call both adult stem cells and multipotent progenitor cells "partially differentiated" or draw a bright line between the two and call them undifferentiated and differentiated respectively. But regardless multipotent progenitor cells are considered "more differentiated" than adult stem cells.

I'm THRILLED by this

[Xaedalus]

I had Lasik done when I was 20, back in the late 90s. Six good years of eyesight later, I started to develop an abnormality in my right now. Now, in my early thirties, I've been diagnosed with keratoconus in my right eye, and I might possibly have it in my left. While Lasik doesn't explicitly cause keratoconus, we also didn't know back in the 90's that some people might have corneas with hidden defects that might not take too well to a laser shaving off a couple of layers. So if they can come up with a way to take stem cells and create whole new corneas to replace damaged ones, then I for one will be anxiously awaiting the day when it becomes available in the United States (about ten years from now most likely, given the FDA's restrictions). I'd like to have normal eyes again, and not worry about one day having to undergo a corneal transplant. So this is AWESOME that they can do that. More power to stem cell research!!!!

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Acer500]

Indeed, sounds promising

A bit offtopic, I use glasses right now (myopia, -7 diopters IIRC) and several people have asked me why I haven't had surgery yet.. I don't really think surgery would change my life all that much, do you think your benefits outweighted the (possible, in your case real) dangers?

BTW I do sports with sports glasses - think Kareem, it's annoying at night after I took off my glasses, but not much else.

Good luck with the keratoconus.

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Anonymous Coward]

I also have recently found I have keratoconus (for those that don't know, it means your cornea is wasting away, and when it gets thinner, it looses it's roundness, making the front of your eye more cone-shaped, which normal glasses and contacts cannot correct), from what I have read, if you have in one you, you almost definitely have it in the other, albeit its almost always much less severe. The bad thing is all the treatments at the moment are a case of "It may restore some eyesight, but most likely, it'll slow or stop it getting worse, so get used to nasty Rigid Contact lenses for the rest of your life. As you can imagine, I can't wait for further research in this area! If it's as cheap and simple as they make it seem, and the result can be enhanced with further research, it's a dream come true for Keratoconus sufferers.

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. I'm thirty now and I've still got one good eye but if this technique can be used in ten years to even just reinforce damaged corneas so they won't deteriorate further and need transplants I'll be a happy man !

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[sexconker]

I'd probably kill myself if I went blind.

And I'd probably have a couple of failed attempts since, you know, I'd be fucking blind.

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Xaedalus]

Yes, even now I'd have to say that the benefits outweighed the dangers. Before I got the lasik done, I could only see about four feet in front of me and then everything was a hopeless blur. Afterwards of course, I could see perfectly. The two biggest benefits though were: 1) I was 20 when I had it done, and so that meant for a vast majority of my twenties, I didn't have to wear contacts or lenses. I got to live life as someone who had perfect eyesight and never once had to worry about falling asleep with the lenses in, or breaking glasses; 2) even now with the keratoconus, I still see well enough during the daytime that I can ride a bike or do chores or read or play video games (which I couldn't before the lasik). At night I can't see much compared to when I have visual aids, but that's fine with me. So when I get depressed about the keratoconus issue, all I have to do is go for a run in the early morning as the dawn comes up without my glasses or lenses, and realize that I couldn't have done that before the lasik. My eyesight is STILL better. Hope that helps.

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Xaedalus]

As opposed to fucking sighted? Either way, you're still fucking... I'd keep living for that

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[R3d M3rcury]

Six good years of eyesight later, I started to develop an abnormality in my right now. Now, in my early thirties, I've been diagnosed with keratoconus in my right eye, and I might possibly have it in my left.

"I never should have had that trendy laser surgery. It was great at first but, you know, at the ten-year mark your eyes fall out."
 
Damn, who knew that Ned Flanders was right!

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Xaedalus]

I KNEW I should have listened to that ambiguously gay repressed cartoon fundamentalist!

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[sexconker]

You'd never really know though.

Is she ugly? Deformed? A man?

Re:I'm THRILLED by this

[Anonymous Coward]

I use glasses right now (myopia, -7 diopters IIRC) and several people have asked me why I haven't had surgery yet.

With vision that bad, you'll still need glasses after surgery. What I want to ask is; why aren't you wearing contacts? You don't mention astigmatism, so you could wear soft lenses. The new silicone hydrogell lenses are just amazing. They take me from 20/400 to 20/15. If I get surgery, I'll have to wear glasses, instead of contacts. Some people fear contacts, from day one I hardly noticed them. It took some time to get used to manipulating them, soon it's fast and easy. The best thing about contacts with a high prescription is there's no distortion. I got contacts for vanity reason, but I wear them because they are more comfortable and provide better vision than glasses. It's so nice not seeing two copies of everything in my peripheral vision.

Any numbers?

[gringofrijolero]

Inexpensive? That's a very relative term..

Re:Any numbers?

[Rolgar]

Compared to the lifelong cost of coping with the blindness?

Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[docbrody]

What is the world coming to? Now they are killing dead babies and putting them into peoples eyes! The insanity!!!

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[Monkeedude1212]

Clearly stated !embroyonic (meaning NOT babies)

The Sanity!!!

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[Monkeedude1212]

It dawned on me NOW that you must be joking. "Killing dead babies" haha, how do you kill something thats already dead, zombies excluded.

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[drinkypoo]

I watched them liquefy the dead and make them into eye drops for the living...

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[nog_lorp]

Visine Green is made from PEOPLE!

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[jgtg32a]

This is why we can't have nice things

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[telomerewhythere]

This comment elicited my only laugh all day.

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[docbrody]

uhh, to those who might be wondering about the whole dead babies in the eyes thing... yes it was a joke. A sad attempt at 'the lowest form of wit' - ie. sarcasm. Directed at all those who object to any form of stem cell research, embryonic or not.

Re:Dead babies in peoples eyes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good movie, but the only thing that's important is whether the deady they liquified were killed specifically for the purpose. When you die, you become food. Would you rather feed people or yeast?

reason

[Gary W. Longsine]

"Most people are not very susceptible to reason." -- Leonard Silk

Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Draconian patents will slow down the development of this method and the blind ones will remain blind.

Why aren't stem cells the normal repair mechanism?

[Adammil2000]

Since stem cells are so good at regrowing things that normally don't regrow on their own, I wonder why evolution hasn't created adult organisms that use stem cells as their normal body repair system. Clearly such a capability would provide a huge survival advantage, so why don't we see it happening in nature on its own?

Wait...

[PortHaven]

So what number "stem cell" treatment discovery is this. And once again it's based upon adult stem cell. :P

I'd rather be a troll, than an ogre!

WTF?

[MillionthMonkey]

Yes, I see... other countries exist on the planet, so if a country like say the United States were to divert its resources away from embryonic to adult stem cell research, it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the pace of development in either. :P

Put your funny hat on...

[Anonymous Coward]

BABY KILLER!!!!

Legally Blind ???

[icebike]

Quote:

" Two were legally blind, but can now read the big letters on an eye chart. "

So they are STILL Legally blind.

Legally blind is 20/200. http://ask.yahoo.com/20021031.html

The big letters are 20/200, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_chart

So if that's the best they can do, they are STILL legally blind, and I'm Still and insensitive clod.

EVAH!

[MillionthMonkey]

George W. Bush was the FIRST ever US President to fund ANY embryonic stem cell research EVER!

Lots of former presidents have funded embryonic stem cell research over the past century. Teddy Roosevelt funded embryonic stem cell research, and Thomas Jefferson wrote several treatises on the subject. "Woe be to the Republic that advocates ignorance of our most embryonic of cells, for therein lies madness."

Please Tag Article MiracleCells

[jgtg32a]

I'm getting really tired of all of these Stem Cell articles. SC are doing some rather nice things for medical science and when it comes down to it there shouldn't really be any controversy. Embryonic SC are the controversial ones and they haven't been used in any treatments to date (there is one scheduled for next year though).
I think that we need to stop calling SC SC unless they are of the embryonic SC. This will clear out all of the controversy and will allow the funding to be freed up without any trouble. Instead of calling them SC we need to call them Miracle Cells because they do miraculous things. Now if you are thinking to yourself why don't we educate the people, well the people who still raise a stink about it aren't likely the type to listen.

I was against SC for a while until I learned that there were "two types" of SC.

I'm still against SC but I'm for Miracle Cells

Re:Why aren't stem cells the normal repair mechani

[jgtg32a]

Because mutation between generations was determined to be better for survival well before stem cells

I like to see some of you turn treatment down

[Anonymous Coward]

For all those who oppose stem cell research and all the wonderful things that can come of it like restoring vision. I wonder how many of you will stick to your guns when stem cell treatment become standards of care in medical treatment.

I like to see you stem cell opponents turn down life restoring treatment. I wonder how many of you can honestly turn down a stem cell cloned kidney if you're on dialysis or nerve regeneration you're quadraplegic, or stem cell cornea if you're legally blind? Not many I'd bet.

Those of you who think you can stick you guns and turn em down, I applaud you for sticking with your believes but don't stand in the way of others who would like these life saving altering treatment one day.

Re:I like to see some of you turn treatment down

[icebike]

No one opposes stem cell research.

Many oppose terminating fetal lives to harvest stem cells.

How is this germane to the case at hand, or were you just practicing your straw mans skills?

"killing dead babies"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does one kill something that is already dead?

Re:"killing dead babies"?

[Snarf You]

How exactly does one kill something that is already dead?

With a wooden stake, garlic, and holy water, under the light of a full moon.

Re:"killing dead babies"?

[docbrody]

I stand corrected. I shall endeavor to more thoroughly proof-read my posts regarding dead babies, the killing of living babies, or both.

Re:Help! Help! My iPhone 3G is stuck in my butt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma Shave.

OK, so a pun

[annisette]

This story caught my eys, I am Keratoconic in both eyes, a degeneration ot the cornea(s). Rigid contact lens can correct vision however there is no cure and further loss of vision can lead to a surgical treatment, cornea transplants. Then what is interesting even the replaced corneas can go keratoconic. I was in a years long study and they may find out more, it seems to be a mechanical degeneration, no virus or anything that can be mapped, equal effecting men/women, all ages. One small cluster of happening to 5% with downs syndrom. I am fortunate I wear hard contacts with bi-focal glasses and have rather good vision 20/25, I can tell I need a check up though, the contact lenses start to slip more. This sounds like a possible for Keratoconus, it is not too rare 1 in 19,000 people have it. However I tend to think they would of used a Keratoconic patient if they felt confident, perhaps there will be an attempt with further study.

replace stem cells

[papasui]

with ADAM and I think you got yourself a plot line to a popular video game.

You didn't listen, then, did you?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.

Humane vitae, in 1968 argued against it. It's not our fault if you can't be bothered to read it. Catholic doctrine argues against any "production" of children outside of natural conception. This has been preached and written about worldwide. You would know that, had you had bothered to learn about the beliefs of those you argue against.

I mean, shouldn't you know better than to argue against things you don't understand at all? What you are arguing is sort of like someone arguing that this winter was the coldest ever, so there's no such thing as global warming and wondering why all those scientists were so "stupid" that they didn't think of that.

> Outlining the consequences of what happens when the embryos aren't allowed to be used isn't a strawman.

No, but claiming that people have ridiculous motives when they don't is a strawman. As is claiming that your opponent is arguing one thing when they're arguing another. The religious folks don't want the extra embryos destroyed. They DO care if they're destroyed. They don't want them made in the first place (or others want them used). This leads to some wanting embryo adoption and others wanting to forgo the practice of in vitro fertilization entirely.

It's ridiculous and disrespectful to make up someone's argument for them, especially when you're putting words in their mouths that they've never said and do not, in fact, believe. That's why I compared you to the people who do exactly that with global warming (and a great many other things).

Your debate tactics are dishonest, the motives you ascribe to the people you debate are false, and you're too tenacious to admit wrongdoing in any of the replies I've seen in this thread. In short, you're everything I have come to expect from an internet skeptic.

(Please note that there are, in fact, a more normal and reasonable breed of skeptics out there. They're simply less prevalent, or perhaps significantly less vocal, online.)

That is fetus you dumbo.

[jotaeleemeese]

I kind of see your point, but please....

Five years?

[GameboyRMH]

When a Christopher Reeves type patient gets up and walks from an embryonic stem cell treatment, that can not be done from adult derived stem cells and doesn't contract cancer within five years, get back with us.

The subject wouldn't need to live five years. Only long enough to bite a few humans. Zombie reproductive cycles are nothing like ours.

A zygote is POTENTIALLY to become a baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, how many zygotes come to term? Not 100%, and I think it is actually the majority of fertilised egg cells.

That's GOD killing those babies.

If you consider a zygote to be a baby, that is.

_GOD_ killing them.

Nice test...

[GameboyRMH]

No requirement for any record of consciousness/sentience, as usual, but moving on...

If any embryo divides it will no longer have unique DNA, failing #1. Also any sperm cells or unfertilized eggs will pass your test with flying colors, given your vague #3 (and assuming a zygote can pass the test). I'd tell you to think about that next time you jack off, but even if you blew every load into a fertile woman with a 100% impregnation rate, the vast majority of your sperm cells would still be "murdered."

Re:Nice test...

[JeanPaulBob]

If any embryo divides it will no longer have unique DNA, failing #1.

Assuming you're interacting seriously:

Yeah, #1 wasn't state well at all. As he stated, adult twins aren't even people.

The usual point with "unique DNA" has to do with distinguishing an embryo from its parents.

Either way, your next statement makes no sense:

Also any sperm cells or unfertilized eggs will pass your test with flying colors, given your vague #3 (and assuming a zygote can pass the test).

They fail #1, so what are you talking about?

Re:Nice test...

[GameboyRMH]

IIRC they'll pass #1, the DNA isn't identical across all sperm cells or eggs. Despite lots of searching of the interwebs and a heaping pile of old biology course notes I happen to have on my PDA, I can't turn up a good source for detailed information on the DNA inside sperm cells or eggs.

Here's the best I can find on this topic.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_all_the_sperm_cells_made_by_one_man_not_identical

Anyone with more knowledge want to clarify?

Re:Nice test...

[JeanPaulBob]

Oh, I see. That's pretty interesting... I'd like to get that figured out--it's definitely relevant to the ethical arguments.

It's making me wonder how to classify sperm. I've been thinking of it as a part of the father's body, akin to blood. (Yeah, sperm leaves the body, but so can blood.)

Is it a separate organism from the father? An intermediate organism, destroyed to form a new organism when it combines with an egg? Is it part of the father, just with different DNA? Hmm...

Mind you, there's still an important difference between sperm and embryos. Namely, an embryo is an organism that develops into an adult, given only a friendly, nourishing environment. A sperm (or an unfertilized) egg is not.

Idea

[BlargIAmDead]

I've got a solution for both sides. We have IVF clinics making lots of little babies/not-babies. Now this isn't going to change unless you can find a cure for sterilization because if you even thought about trying to deny the biological ticking time bomb that is a middle aged lady with no bun in the oven.....well I'm gonna get popcorn and sell tickets to be quite honest.

So here's my solution/idea: IVF clinics stop ALL work on ESC, if and only if every woman who opposes ESC opens her vag to accept these little squirts of God's love. Cause if I see one more horse-faced, wrinkly, angry, Bible/Qu'ran/Talmud/Whatever-Scientoligists-thump-thumping, screaming bag-woman holding a sign proclaiming some omnipotent being's wrath upon those who dare go against her religion and she's not about to pop out one more drain on the economy then I say you have no foot, leg or even soap box to stand on and gtfo.

Re:Idea

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"Now this isn't going to change unless you can find a cure for sterilization because if you even thought about trying to deny the biological ticking time bomb that is a middle aged lady with no bun in the oven.....well I'm gonna get popcorn and sell tickets to be quite honest. "
 
They did fine for the first 2.9 million years without this technology. Of course, back then a grade school dropout could still get a job that paid enough to support a family- including a stay-at-home-wife. Adoption worked for the rest. The real cure for most sterilization? Have kids before you're 30!

Re:Idea

[kurzweilfreak]

You could say the same thing about all technology. I don't see you living in a cave. I mean, we did fine there for 2.9 million years didn't we? I guess we should just halt all progress but where we are now is just good enough isn't it?

Re:Idea

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You could say the same thing about all technology. I don't see you living in a cave.
 
You have no idea where I live- and in fact, have no evidence THAT I live.
 
  I mean, we did fine there for 2.9 million years didn't we?
 
Yes, we did. In fact, if anything, progress has largely caused more problems than it has solved.
 
  I guess we should just halt all progress but where we are now is just good enough isn't it?
 
Actually, in the last 140 years or so, we've progress past the point where it was "good enough" into "causing harm to our own species".

Jess

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a really exciting discovery. It's amazing how much science progresses...this is something that nobody would ever dream to be possible even ten years ago.
"New hope" http://www.newsy.com/videos/new_hope_for_saving_eyesight