The endless customizations are awesome and it really is the closest thing to tabletop D&D.
Actually, NWN is about as far away from tabletop D&D you can get. Most of the abilities are only light representations of the real tabletop mechanics, and by far the most glaring difference is the real-time combat, which can be an utter pain for spellcasters.
The Temple of Elemental Evil, released recently by Atari, is in fact MUCH closer to tabletop D&D. It has nearly full representation of the D&D 3.5 rules, and features turn-based combat. It is, IMHO, a much better representation of D&D than NWN. Of course, ToEE has no multiplayer, and is still kinda bug ridden and a bit boring, so NWN is a much better game overall.
But no, it's not the best representation of tabletop D&D.
Typically, virii (or viruses, whatever) manifest their effects realtively quickly, due largely in part to the nature of the virus life cycle.
In addition, if the virus only responds to the receptors found on cancer cells (which is, I imagine, how it works), then there is next to no chance of it ever infecting normal healthy cells.
Though, I agree...this should be studied for a couple of more years, just to be on the safe side. However, I'm nigh positive that this could lead to a definitive cancer cure.
That is, U.S. Stem Cell Researcher. I like that they threw that little bit of political commentary into the mix by highlighting the current abysmal state of stem cell research in the U.S., which was entirely caused by Bush.
Maybe one day someone will wake up and let us use more than one of the 11 existing viable cell lines. I hope so; I wouldn't want to get my Ph.D. to find that I won't be doing anything with it.
No, that's not counter to evolution. If a species as a whole develops methods to compensate for particular weaknesses in individual organsims, they have engaged in a sort of evolution. The problem doens't necessarily have to go away, you just have to be able to deal with it.
However, your point about allergies is valid. Genes are constantly changing; while really big gentic changes happen over huge spans of time, relatively minor changes happen from generation to generation. In this case, the prevalence of anit-allergy medication may have resulted in a higher succeptability to allergies, since the body no longer has to develop a mechanism to compensate for allergies. This is the same reason that steroids can make you impotent; once you have an outside source of testosterone, your body produces less of it.
But as is true in science, we won't know until we get there.
The potential for incredible progress naturally comes with huge risks. That's how science has always been done.
However, I don't think we'll be killing ourselves with genetic engineering any time soon. The human genome may be almost complete, but that doesn't mean we understand how it works. We've got a way to go before any of the potential abuses for genetic technology can become feasible.
And one that most GW games players use already to get stuff cheaper:
eBay.
GW cannot in any way stop someone from selling off their old games stuff. Dealers can buy stuff in bulke and then auction it off on eBay. I don't see GW being able to stop that in any way.
There are two broad categories for gene prediction: "signal sensing" and "content sensing". Signal sensing methods look for the readily identifiable signaling sequences of DNA: start and stop codons, splicing sites, restriction sites, etc. Content sensing, at least in eukaryotes, looks for exons and introns and such. Using a combination of these two methods (done, of course, with computers), gene finding in eukaryotes has been greatly simplified.
Of course, the real issue is the reliability of the software used. Most software is only accurate (for eukaryotes) around 60 - 75% of the time.
...I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate on Slashdot.
I hate the RIAA as much as any Slashdotter, but you have to look at where they're coming from. Sure, file sharing technology can be a wonderful tool for previously unheard-of artists to get attention, and it's an equally useful way to determine what new music DOESN'T suck. It's very useful in guiding your future music purchases...
Which is where the problem comes in. For every legitimate use of file sharing, there are easily 10 people who abuse it. How many people do you know have simply stopped paying for music because they can get it for free? Be honest. The RIAA only sees the negative side of file sharing, and to be quite honest, it can be pretty damn negative.
We need some sort of middle ground. File sharing can't go on unchecked, because that WILL hinder the RIAA's ability to profit. In the end, the RIAA is still a business and has a right to make money. However, if somehow they manage to crush major file sharing technologies, they'll alienate most of their cosumers. In addition, the artist who actually made the song should get at least some say in this matter; Metallica sued Napster over that very issue.
That's the key: a middle ground. I don't know what that middle ground is, but we definitely need it.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating?
on
Goodbye, Dolly
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, it's because your gametes produce "young" DNA.
I'm sure everyone knows that the male and female gametes each produce one half of the genetic material of a single organism. The genetic material produced by the gametes is brand new; it hasn't aged yet, so the telomeres on the individual DNA strands are still intact. They recombine during fertilization and make a fresh, "young" copy of a complete DNA sequence.
At least, not at RIT, anyway. Recently, we had a bit of controversy surrounding grade DEflation. The specific incident revolves around the College of Business and its grading practices; professors were actively encouraged to give "A's" to no more than 15% of the students in any class, regardless of actual performance. As you can imagine, this caused quite a stir.
Now, when it comes to the sciences and engineering, I haven't actually seen any real grade inflation either. True, I've had my fair share of professors that give insane curves (for instance, the Microbiology prof regularly gives tests where the average is around a 40-50, and yet people still pass), but I've also had my fair share of rules sticklers who have a rigid grading scheme. Hell, just today I got back a Physics tests where fully 1/3 of the students received "F's".
All majors are not created equal, and this is something that many universities have lost sight of. Call me biased, but I'd say that a Science or an Engineering major is probably far harder than, say, a Literature major. That's the way it goes; I don't think it's possible to hold every major to the same standard, but that's what this grade inflation practice seems to be doing.
It's always been surmised that genetics does not determine behavior. DNA just makes a slate; something else actually writes on that slate. Why people act the way they do has always been a mystery of science, and now it's obvious that genetics doesn't hold the answer (though I would say it was always obvious).
What interests me the most is that the two cats are different colors. Perhaps pigmentation and coloration also have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. That certainly warrants further investigation. I do recall hearing that the Human Genome project has yet to find a gene that codes for skin pigmentation; it may truly be a superficial thing.
I also have to echo the sentiment that genetics really shouldn't be used to bring back your dead kitty, or your dead grandmother for that matter. Stem cell research and cloning would best be used in treating nasty diseases and degenerative conditions, as well as regrowing of lost tissues and/or organs.
The big reason that the flight system of a butterfly works so well (hummingbird too) is that the wings have a relatively large surface area, and the overall mass of the system, the butterfly, is low compared to the lift force it can generate.
The problem is, a butterfly uses quite a bit of energy (relative to its size) to keep itself aloft. Unless we have a reliable way to generate a proportional amount of energy while keeping the power source light enough, we won't be able to simulate the flight of a butterfly.
Honestly, I think we should stick to planes for a while. We've got enough trouble keeping them in the air and running on time; best not muck it up by throwing butterflies in the mix.
There's a big pressure now for people in the Biological sciences to produce something useful. When you put science under pressure like that, you're bound to see lots of people cutting corners, falsifying data, and generally doing things against the great principles of science.
That's a big side effect of corporate funding for science; if some corporation is giving you money to research, say, some new gene, they want viable results and they want them soon. They don't understand that you can't rush science; if you do that, you get an inferior (and often dangerous) product. Hell, just watch an ad for any new allergy medication; the side effects take up most of the ad time.
The real problem is that there needs to be more funding from different sources (government funding, mehtinks?) so that particular labs won't represent the goals of one lone corporation; if you have to answer to many people, you're bound to take your time.
It's a big nasty mess, and one that really needs to be resolved. We can only go on like this for so long before someone fucks up royally and everyone pays for it.
OK, maybe "excellent piece of coding" is a bit much. It's a good idea, but it's been abused like there's no tomorrow. It's got potential, it just needs to be developed.
I didn't really mean to say that Jon was a saint; but still, like you said, he shouldn't be on trial. There are bigger problems in the world than the abuse of DeCSS.
At least for now, that is. Replicating the functions of biological systems perfectly using hard technology is pretty damn difficult with today's technology. Before this can really become feasible, we need to get really good at simulating biological systems.
That's the thing with a lot of studies like these; they're only referring to things that MIGHT be possible. It'd be possible assuming advances in our current technology level. The key to science is to take most things with a grain of salt and never just at face value.
DeCSS is, in theory, an excellent piece of coding. The problem, as is true with technologies along its lines, is that there is quite a bit of room for abuse.
I think the key here is rather than trying to put this guy away, DVD manufacturers should work with the DeCSS technology to find a happy medium. Obviously, free OS's will need some way to play DVD's, so it makes sense that the technology should expand to include these users. Just putting people on trial in hopes that all these issues will go away is ludicrous. If DVD manufacturers are worried about their products being pirated, imagine the response when the creator of DeCSS gets jailed. This isn't the way to go about it.
Of course, people who can legitimately play DVD's shouldn't exactly be going around DeCSS'ing every DVD and distributing it on Kazaa or your filesharing program of choice. Abusing the technology is just as big a problem as those trying to shut it down.
I'm glad that Stanford has stepped up and decided to defy Bush's stance on stem-cell research. This is one of the most promising areas of Biology, and it's absolutely ridiculous to cut it off.
I don't quite remember at what point biologists declare a zygote to be an actual embryo; the last time I touched Developmental Biology was 2 years ago. However, if I remember techniques correctly, we can stop division when the zygote is at the 8-cell stage, possibly sooner. I believe the blastula stage (hollow ball of cells) is generally considered to be the real "start" of an embryo, but again, my recollection is a tad hazy.
I think a lot of the misconceptions being tossed around related to cloning are quite interesting. I only hope that people will realize one day that the concept of the "mad scientist" is more than a little ludicrous, and that cloning human beings is quite a ways off, as is the concept of producing genetic "supermen". Of course, the media, being sensationalist to begin with, will continue to misrepresent the facts, and the general populace will continue to be misinformed.
That's not to say that when I'm done with my Biology degree (and probably my Ph.D. too) that I'm not going to attempt to take over the world with an army of cloned gorilla-men, but that's a different story altogether.:)
While it would be nifty to have a very human AI, I somehow doubt that we could truly ever replicate human intelligence.
The major roadblock is that a computer can only respond in ways that it has been programmed to do so. While you can code incredibly complex AI algorithms and simulate an incredibly complex level of intelligence, the fact remains that a computer invariably operates along rigid pathways.
It can be argued that human thought is nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, but there is far less rigid logic involved in human thinking. Indeed, we're still not entirely sure just HOW we think.
Never say never, but I don't think we'll be seeing a truly human AI before any of us is dead.
it's still fairly humbling nonetheless. The experiment goes like this: take a section of plant shoot meristem (the growth section of the above-ground parts of the plant) and place it in a growth medium. The medium contains the auxin IAA, a hormone that is used to induce root growth in meristems. Essentially, we take a tissue that's supposed to become a stem and try to make it become roots.
I've done this at least three times during my time in my major; every single time, we come back, and the stuff has developed into a shoot, with no sign of roots at all.
It just goes to show you...we can't boss nature around.:D
Hmm...I think I worded this a tad poorly. This bears some elaboration.
I know that there is legislation being pushed to put a halt to stem cell research; however, with this potential wellspring of stem cells whose origin AREN'T really easily condemned, I'm just wondering how this legislation will respond. Again, from my experience, most of the big voices against stem cell research attack the usage of embryonic stem cells.
I'm not here to turn this into an abortion debate; we're all entitled to our opinions. It is true that many stem cells come from aborted fetuses, usually extracted from the area around the base of the umbilical cord. This can also be done with live fetuses, though this is nearly unheard of. However, most scientists doing stem cell research don't abort fetuses solely to collect stem cells; I've heard of cases like that, but those people don't deserve to be involved in research of this caliber. It just happens that a lot of stem cells used happen to come from aborted fetuses; the abortion happens (something that the scientists doing the research had no part in), and the stem cells are sometimes collected and used for research, pending permission. This is how it's done in the US; some countries may use less ethical methods, but I'm only referring to current US legislation and such here.
Many stem cells are also collected from artificial fertilizations in the lab; the zygote develops to the 8 or 16 cell stage (or sometimes slightly later) and then cell division is frozen there. The cells are undifferentiated at that point, and those are used for research.
I know that a large portion of cells used come from aborted fetuses, and that's simply the way it is. It's gruesome, but there are a great many abortions performed in this country every minute. That makes for a vast amount of stem cells that COULD be used for research. Science isn't encouraging more abortions or aborting for the sake of research; they're making use of the resources available.
Yeah, that's a pretty inhuman way to put it, but I'm just trying to tell you the reasoning behind this. If you let an aborted fetus be, then it's death is meaningless; take some stem cells and try to, say, work on repairing the central nervous system, and the fetus' death is less wasteful. I can't gloss that over at all; it's the way that science views the situation. Science isn't the enemy here; they're trying to save lives and improve health conditions. An aborted fetus is already dead, and there's no way to change that; the way I see it, we might as well DO something with an otherwise wasted life.
These are just my opinions, but this is pretty much how much of the scientific field views the situation. As for the "religious nuts" comment, I'm just commenting on the absurdity of SOME of the claims I've heard coming from that group. Many of the moral points are quite valid, but some are right out.
I'm a Biology major currently, so I'm right in there with the cloning stuff. I'm rather curious as to how the anti-cloning people are going to react to this; seeing as how the major argument AGAINST stem cell research is the usage of embryos, the use of fat-based stem cells should THEORETICALLY be OK. At least there's a nigh-endless source of fat cells, so we won't have any problem getting raw materials.
Personally, I'm just waiting for some religious nut to condemn this on the grounds that fat cells have souls. I dunno...if my fat were sentient, I think I'd have a lot more to worry about than just stem cell research.
Slashdot Mirror
As if those Zerg weren't fast enough already...
The endless customizations are awesome and it really is the closest thing to tabletop D&D.
Actually, NWN is about as far away from tabletop D&D you can get. Most of the abilities are only light representations of the real tabletop mechanics, and by far the most glaring difference is the real-time combat, which can be an utter pain for spellcasters.
The Temple of Elemental Evil, released recently by Atari, is in fact MUCH closer to tabletop D&D. It has nearly full representation of the D&D 3.5 rules, and features turn-based combat. It is, IMHO, a much better representation of D&D than NWN. Of course, ToEE has no multiplayer, and is still kinda bug ridden and a bit boring, so NWN is a much better game overall.
But no, it's not the best representation of tabletop D&D.
Typically, virii (or viruses, whatever) manifest their effects realtively quickly, due largely in part to the nature of the virus life cycle.
In addition, if the virus only responds to the receptors found on cancer cells (which is, I imagine, how it works), then there is next to no chance of it ever infecting normal healthy cells.
Though, I agree...this should be studied for a couple of more years, just to be on the safe side. However, I'm nigh positive that this could lead to a definitive cancer cure.
Well, that's nifty, viewing 3D without glasses and all...
l ophane.htm
But you could just save $3299 and simply use some cellophane: http://individual.utoronto.ca/iizuka/research/cel
That is, U.S. Stem Cell Researcher. I like that they threw that little bit of political commentary into the mix by highlighting the current abysmal state of stem cell research in the U.S., which was entirely caused by Bush.
Maybe one day someone will wake up and let us use more than one of the 11 existing viable cell lines. I hope so; I wouldn't want to get my Ph.D. to find that I won't be doing anything with it.
No, that's not counter to evolution. If a species as a whole develops methods to compensate for particular weaknesses in individual organsims, they have engaged in a sort of evolution. The problem doens't necessarily have to go away, you just have to be able to deal with it.
However, your point about allergies is valid. Genes are constantly changing; while really big gentic changes happen over huge spans of time, relatively minor changes happen from generation to generation. In this case, the prevalence of anit-allergy medication may have resulted in a higher succeptability to allergies, since the body no longer has to develop a mechanism to compensate for allergies. This is the same reason that steroids can make you impotent; once you have an outside source of testosterone, your body produces less of it.
But as is true in science, we won't know until we get there.
The potential for incredible progress naturally comes with huge risks. That's how science has always been done.
However, I don't think we'll be killing ourselves with genetic engineering any time soon. The human genome may be almost complete, but that doesn't mean we understand how it works. We've got a way to go before any of the potential abuses for genetic technology can become feasible.
And one that most GW games players use already to get stuff cheaper:
eBay.
GW cannot in any way stop someone from selling off their old games stuff. Dealers can buy stuff in bulke and then auction it off on eBay. I don't see GW being able to stop that in any way.
There are two broad categories for gene prediction: "signal sensing" and "content sensing". Signal sensing methods look for the readily identifiable signaling sequences of DNA: start and stop codons, splicing sites, restriction sites, etc. Content sensing, at least in eukaryotes, looks for exons and introns and such. Using a combination of these two methods (done, of course, with computers), gene finding in eukaryotes has been greatly simplified.
Of course, the real issue is the reliability of the software used. Most software is only accurate (for eukaryotes) around 60 - 75% of the time.
...I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate on Slashdot.
I hate the RIAA as much as any Slashdotter, but you have to look at where they're coming from. Sure, file sharing technology can be a wonderful tool for previously unheard-of artists to get attention, and it's an equally useful way to determine what new music DOESN'T suck. It's very useful in guiding your future music purchases...
Which is where the problem comes in. For every legitimate use of file sharing, there are easily 10 people who abuse it. How many people do you know have simply stopped paying for music because they can get it for free? Be honest. The RIAA only sees the negative side of file sharing, and to be quite honest, it can be pretty damn negative.
We need some sort of middle ground. File sharing can't go on unchecked, because that WILL hinder the RIAA's ability to profit. In the end, the RIAA is still a business and has a right to make money. However, if somehow they manage to crush major file sharing technologies, they'll alienate most of their cosumers. In addition, the artist who actually made the song should get at least some say in this matter; Metallica sued Napster over that very issue.
That's the key: a middle ground. I don't know what that middle ground is, but we definitely need it.
Well, it's because your gametes produce "young" DNA.
I'm sure everyone knows that the male and female gametes each produce one half of the genetic material of a single organism. The genetic material produced by the gametes is brand new; it hasn't aged yet, so the telomeres on the individual DNA strands are still intact. They recombine during fertilization and make a fresh, "young" copy of a complete DNA sequence.
At least, not at RIT, anyway. Recently, we had a bit of controversy surrounding grade DEflation. The specific incident revolves around the College of Business and its grading practices; professors were actively encouraged to give "A's" to no more than 15% of the students in any class, regardless of actual performance. As you can imagine, this caused quite a stir.
Now, when it comes to the sciences and engineering, I haven't actually seen any real grade inflation either. True, I've had my fair share of professors that give insane curves (for instance, the Microbiology prof regularly gives tests where the average is around a 40-50, and yet people still pass), but I've also had my fair share of rules sticklers who have a rigid grading scheme. Hell, just today I got back a Physics tests where fully 1/3 of the students received "F's".
All majors are not created equal, and this is something that many universities have lost sight of. Call me biased, but I'd say that a Science or an Engineering major is probably far harder than, say, a Literature major. That's the way it goes; I don't think it's possible to hold every major to the same standard, but that's what this grade inflation practice seems to be doing.
It's always been surmised that genetics does not determine behavior. DNA just makes a slate; something else actually writes on that slate. Why people act the way they do has always been a mystery of science, and now it's obvious that genetics doesn't hold the answer (though I would say it was always obvious).
What interests me the most is that the two cats are different colors. Perhaps pigmentation and coloration also have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. That certainly warrants further investigation. I do recall hearing that the Human Genome project has yet to find a gene that codes for skin pigmentation; it may truly be a superficial thing.
I also have to echo the sentiment that genetics really shouldn't be used to bring back your dead kitty, or your dead grandmother for that matter. Stem cell research and cloning would best be used in treating nasty diseases and degenerative conditions, as well as regrowing of lost tissues and/or organs.
The big reason that the flight system of a butterfly works so well (hummingbird too) is that the wings have a relatively large surface area, and the overall mass of the system, the butterfly, is low compared to the lift force it can generate.
The problem is, a butterfly uses quite a bit of energy (relative to its size) to keep itself aloft. Unless we have a reliable way to generate a proportional amount of energy while keeping the power source light enough, we won't be able to simulate the flight of a butterfly.
Honestly, I think we should stick to planes for a while. We've got enough trouble keeping them in the air and running on time; best not muck it up by throwing butterflies in the mix.
There's a big pressure now for people in the Biological sciences to produce something useful. When you put science under pressure like that, you're bound to see lots of people cutting corners, falsifying data, and generally doing things against the great principles of science.
That's a big side effect of corporate funding for science; if some corporation is giving you money to research, say, some new gene, they want viable results and they want them soon. They don't understand that you can't rush science; if you do that, you get an inferior (and often dangerous) product. Hell, just watch an ad for any new allergy medication; the side effects take up most of the ad time.
The real problem is that there needs to be more funding from different sources (government funding, mehtinks?) so that particular labs won't represent the goals of one lone corporation; if you have to answer to many people, you're bound to take your time.
It's a big nasty mess, and one that really needs to be resolved. We can only go on like this for so long before someone fucks up royally and everyone pays for it.
6 hours? The minute this was announced, the source showed up in sidewalk kiosks in China.
OK, maybe "excellent piece of coding" is a bit much. It's a good idea, but it's been abused like there's no tomorrow. It's got potential, it just needs to be developed.
I didn't really mean to say that Jon was a saint; but still, like you said, he shouldn't be on trial. There are bigger problems in the world than the abuse of DeCSS.
At least for now, that is. Replicating the functions of biological systems perfectly using hard technology is pretty damn difficult with today's technology. Before this can really become feasible, we need to get really good at simulating biological systems.
That's the thing with a lot of studies like these; they're only referring to things that MIGHT be possible. It'd be possible assuming advances in our current technology level. The key to science is to take most things with a grain of salt and never just at face value.
DeCSS is, in theory, an excellent piece of coding. The problem, as is true with technologies along its lines, is that there is quite a bit of room for abuse.
I think the key here is rather than trying to put this guy away, DVD manufacturers should work with the DeCSS technology to find a happy medium. Obviously, free OS's will need some way to play DVD's, so it makes sense that the technology should expand to include these users. Just putting people on trial in hopes that all these issues will go away is ludicrous. If DVD manufacturers are worried about their products being pirated, imagine the response when the creator of DeCSS gets jailed. This isn't the way to go about it.
Of course, people who can legitimately play DVD's shouldn't exactly be going around DeCSS'ing every DVD and distributing it on Kazaa or your filesharing program of choice. Abusing the technology is just as big a problem as those trying to shut it down.
I'm glad that Stanford has stepped up and decided to defy Bush's stance on stem-cell research. This is one of the most promising areas of Biology, and it's absolutely ridiculous to cut it off.
:)
I don't quite remember at what point biologists declare a zygote to be an actual embryo; the last time I touched Developmental Biology was 2 years ago. However, if I remember techniques correctly, we can stop division when the zygote is at the 8-cell stage, possibly sooner. I believe the blastula stage (hollow ball of cells) is generally considered to be the real "start" of an embryo, but again, my recollection is a tad hazy.
I think a lot of the misconceptions being tossed around related to cloning are quite interesting. I only hope that people will realize one day that the concept of the "mad scientist" is more than a little ludicrous, and that cloning human beings is quite a ways off, as is the concept of producing genetic "supermen". Of course, the media, being sensationalist to begin with, will continue to misrepresent the facts, and the general populace will continue to be misinformed.
That's not to say that when I'm done with my Biology degree (and probably my Ph.D. too) that I'm not going to attempt to take over the world with an army of cloned gorilla-men, but that's a different story altogether.
While it would be nifty to have a very human AI, I somehow doubt that we could truly ever replicate human intelligence.
The major roadblock is that a computer can only respond in ways that it has been programmed to do so. While you can code incredibly complex AI algorithms and simulate an incredibly complex level of intelligence, the fact remains that a computer invariably operates along rigid pathways.
It can be argued that human thought is nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, but there is far less rigid logic involved in human thinking. Indeed, we're still not entirely sure just HOW we think.
Never say never, but I don't think we'll be seeing a truly human AI before any of us is dead.
it's still fairly humbling nonetheless. The experiment goes like this: take a section of plant shoot meristem (the growth section of the above-ground parts of the plant) and place it in a growth medium. The medium contains the auxin IAA, a hormone that is used to induce root growth in meristems. Essentially, we take a tissue that's supposed to become a stem and try to make it become roots.
:D
I've done this at least three times during my time in my major; every single time, we come back, and the stuff has developed into a shoot, with no sign of roots at all.
It just goes to show you...we can't boss nature around.
Hmm...I think I worded this a tad poorly. This bears some elaboration.
I know that there is legislation being pushed to put a halt to stem cell research; however, with this potential wellspring of stem cells whose origin AREN'T really easily condemned, I'm just wondering how this legislation will respond. Again, from my experience, most of the big voices against stem cell research attack the usage of embryonic stem cells.
I'm not here to turn this into an abortion debate; we're all entitled to our opinions. It is true that many stem cells come from aborted fetuses, usually extracted from the area around the base of the umbilical cord. This can also be done with live fetuses, though this is nearly unheard of. However, most scientists doing stem cell research don't abort fetuses solely to collect stem cells; I've heard of cases like that, but those people don't deserve to be involved in research of this caliber. It just happens that a lot of stem cells used happen to come from aborted fetuses; the abortion happens (something that the scientists doing the research had no part in), and the stem cells are sometimes collected and used for research, pending permission. This is how it's done in the US; some countries may use less ethical methods, but I'm only referring to current US legislation and such here.
Many stem cells are also collected from artificial fertilizations in the lab; the zygote develops to the 8 or 16 cell stage (or sometimes slightly later) and then cell division is frozen there. The cells are undifferentiated at that point, and those are used for research.
I know that a large portion of cells used come from aborted fetuses, and that's simply the way it is. It's gruesome, but there are a great many abortions performed in this country every minute. That makes for a vast amount of stem cells that COULD be used for research. Science isn't encouraging more abortions or aborting for the sake of research; they're making use of the resources available.
Yeah, that's a pretty inhuman way to put it, but I'm just trying to tell you the reasoning behind this. If you let an aborted fetus be, then it's death is meaningless; take some stem cells and try to, say, work on repairing the central nervous system, and the fetus' death is less wasteful. I can't gloss that over at all; it's the way that science views the situation. Science isn't the enemy here; they're trying to save lives and improve health conditions. An aborted fetus is already dead, and there's no way to change that; the way I see it, we might as well DO something with an otherwise wasted life.
These are just my opinions, but this is pretty much how much of the scientific field views the situation. As for the "religious nuts" comment, I'm just commenting on the absurdity of SOME of the claims I've heard coming from that group. Many of the moral points are quite valid, but some are right out.
I'm a Biology major currently, so I'm right in there with the cloning stuff. I'm rather curious as to how the anti-cloning people are going to react to this; seeing as how the major argument AGAINST stem cell research is the usage of embryos, the use of fat-based stem cells should THEORETICALLY be OK. At least there's a nigh-endless source of fat cells, so we won't have any problem getting raw materials.
Personally, I'm just waiting for some religious nut to condemn this on the grounds that fat cells have souls. I dunno...if my fat were sentient, I think I'd have a lot more to worry about than just stem cell research.