What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
74 Comments
- Logicexe, on 02/15/2008, -1/+14I'm pro choice and I completely agree with you. If the pleuripotency is as good as a real embryonic stem cell then we might have just found a practically unlimited supply of cheap stem cells to play around with.
Bravo Science, you've done it again! - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -8/+20As a pro-lifer, this is very good news. I'm not against stem cell research per se, but I'd like them to be harvested from something such as this, where there is then little room for debate over its moral implications :)
- drunkenoaf, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6My interpretation of what wbeavis is saying is:
1. This research (in the article) is great, but because of technical issues, it might be that only embryonic stem cells can be used in treating human disease (the whole oncogene/ cancer issues).
2. If IVF embryos are destined to be binned, and there is consent for their use in therapy, where's the harm?
It's not like one gallant person died to save hundreds-- it's some cells that never, ever would live, could help thousands.
If you're religious, what's the greater sin-- condeming many thousands to disease and an early death, or manipulating some cells that would just be binned? - orca94, on 02/15/2008, -5/+10Or... We could just use the embryonic stem cells we already have available and know work and that are literally going to waste and stop pandering to the far right politics and religion should mix group. This is like trying to work on more efficient internal combustion engines after getting 99.99% efficient, dirt cheap solar panels (impossible I know), cheap and effective fusion, and batteries that cost 1000x less, with 1000000x the power density of today's varieties for mobile applications because the oil lobby doesn't want to give up control.
The U.S. needs to start getting ahead, not lagging behind while moral implications for a percentage of the population who doesn't even need to reap the benefits of stem cell technology get their issues settled out. - drunkenoaf, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5Interesting. But life's beginning and end can be debated, is debated, and people have different opinions. Is there a difference between a living cell (cell life) and human life? Calling the person "boy" and spitting out "facts" (which is actually you and some other people's opinion).
One theory is that it's just cells until the development of the neural streak, at which point you could argue there's consciousness, and therefore "human life" or more spiritually, a soul. - TeamWookie, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6The pro-lifers have some serious flaws in their logic. They consider the early stages of an embryo a human life but at the same time they are OK with fertility clinics producing far more embryos then will every be used. Those extras are left in a freezer until they "die". The pro-lifers have no problem with these fertility clinics leaving thousands of embryos in a freezer to die as long as you don't use those embryos for stem cell research. This is why I don't believe most pro-lifers when they tell me an embryo is a human life. If they really thought that, then they would oppose the practices of the fertility clinics and not just abortion and stem cell research.
- drunkenoaf, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4The Brits are worried. Loads of top US scientists came over to the UK to work on ES cells, since Bush pretty much banned it there. A Democrat administration might reverse that, and the US talent might return home.
- dasbush, on 02/15/2008, -4/+6"So how is pro-life any meaning to the situation of stem cells"
Because Pro-Life people (self included) believe that life is from the moment of conception. Therefore using stem-cells from an embryo is unacceptable since an embryo is considered a life. That said, even in the pro-life community it is unknown the moral thing to do with the 'unused' embryos is.
Miscarriages are not murder because the fetus, for some reason, became inviable. On the other hand, if a woman punches herself in the stomach (for example) until she miscarriages, it is akin to abortion. Sperm is also not a life because it was never 'implanted' into an egg, therefore you are not killing millions of people by not have sex constantly. Your comment doesn't even make sense because only only X number (where X is less than 10) number of lives are created from the millions of sperm that are released during sex.
Abstinence is not going against nature because the natural process of procreation is not being abandoned. In other words: you are not having sex, therefore no life is being created. The natural process of procreation is sex, not having sex means not having children. Contraception interrupts this natural process and is therefore immoral.
That is simply the pro-life stance, whether you agree or disagree is up to you. However, it is internally consistent. - warriorscot, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3On the fertilisation front I would be happy to have that done, and I have always intended for my remains to be used in that way, perhaps not diced up but I was thinking of having myself planted somewhere then a nice fruit tree stuck on top.
Life is cheap and of no particular value to anyone other than itself in most cases, and to be honest I don't give a ***** about an egg(neither does the universe) the value I place in life is largely based upon the resources it has consumed be the material or intellectual so embryos have less value than a light bulb. To be honest I would rather worry about the actual born people who are in bother and suffering and my own problems which are significant enough that if anyone has the time and energy to bother about an embryo they must be living in some kind of fairy world.
Quit deluding yourself and worry about something important. - wbeavis, on 02/15/2008, -7/+9It is certainly far better to simply throw waste embryos from the fertility industry into a landfill than actually use them to help people. Yes Virginia, embryos used for their stem sells were created for another purpose, other than to simply harvest stem cells. In fact, they were created in a test tube and had no possible ability to develop further. Somehow, people with lack of knowledge of the field made a huge leap of logic and are trying to tie stem cells to abortions. The truth is, the two topics are unrelated. See, in science you need a controlled environment. Taking random aborted fetuses (oops, not embryos) and harvesting cells from them invalidates any conclusions you come up with.
So how is pro-life any meaning to the situation of stem cells? It is not. No more than it is for my finger nails. Again, these embryos were created in a test tube for some other purpose and as a leftover were harvested for stem cells. Some, for example, were created to be implanted into a person, like test tube babies. When they mix up a batch they make more than they need, like when you put seeds in a garden. They have leftovers which they use for other purposes.
Can you kill a person who would never be born? Would a miscarriage also be murder, negligent homocide? I have lots of unused sperm. Think of the millions of people I kill daily by not impregnating women. Some people even argue condoms are no different than abortions. But you could also argue that abstinence is going against nature and prevents a pregnancy. So really abstinence and condoms and abortions are all forms of preventing life. Life has no decernable starting point. It is like a circle. Birth > sperm factory > conception > Birth again, and everything in between. Any point within the circle breaks it. - jgtg32a, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2There are always going to be dups, it doesn't matter.
- elipabst, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2There are still some significant technical issues with it. They're using a virus to insert several genes into the precursor skin cells. The initial way they did this used at least one oncogene which is known to induce cancer, I'm not sure if the second generation methodology is still using them or not. Plus a significant portion of the mice they inserted these stem cells into developed tumors, so while it's extremely promising I certainly wouldn't be the first to sign up for this therapy just yet. I still don't see how letting them incinerate IVF embryos instead of using them for a good purpose is the "moral high ground".
- Logicexe, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a problem with stem cells in general? Don't they all have a fairly significant risk of turning into tumors right now?
- tecdocTi, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3I wish this topic wasn't such a political football. Adult stem cells are really going to be the holy grail in medicine. I am not a pro-lifer, and frankly I don't care about the political debate. The thing is that if I make a kidney from embryonic stem cells and give it to someone, I am still going to have to keep the recepient on anit-rejection meds for the rest of their life, and eventually that kidney is going to fail. The reason they are on the anti-rejection meds is that it would still be someone else's kidney and even with a perfect match there is still an immune response to it.
Now, if I was able to grow a kidney from a person's own stem cells.... now there you have something. It would be their own tissue/; no need for immunosuppression and anti-rejection meds. That kidney is going to last a lot longer without the immune system constantly attacking it over years and years.
So really, whatever steps are needed to get us to growing organs from adult stem cell, I willing to take. If that means starting with embyros... fine. If that means giving more money to research adult stem cells... that's great. But this whole notion that embryos are the "holy grail" is absolutely ridiculous and is contrived for political capital. Adult cells are really where it's at and where medicine will make giant leaps. - TeamWookie, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2correction: last sentence should end with "embryonic stem cell research" not "stem cell research"
- seeyounorth, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Screw all this moral/immoral BS, lets get to the actual treatment of diseases!
- jgtg32a, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2or they'll return home for these new cells, I know Britain is good with medical research but I thought the US was better, could be wrong though.
- orca94, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Federal Funding = Huge ***** Money
Think university research grants, private research grants, NIH, etc... The NSF's budget is huge. - orca94, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1I didn't want to pay for the war in Iraq or tax cuts for the wealthy or increased defense spending or Bush's vacations or etc... It's called living in a society under the control of a democratically regulated government.
Most people in this country support Embryonic Stem Cell research(2-1 in fact), thus the federal government should be funding it.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ ... - Alpione, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2No doubt. The only reason one would think this is bad is if they just want to be able to throw the other method in the face of people that disagree with its morality. Childish..
- orca94, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1That site is not biased at all. /sarcasm
Scientists know more about science than you do. - TeamWookie, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1If there's any bitterness, it directed towards this administrations inane policy on embryonic stem cell research. If scientists decide embryos are not the best source of stem cells then so be it. But that choice should be decided by science and not religion.
- dodgyd55, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1this is major news! but so few diggs
- orca94, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1There aren't any private companies investing in Fusion right now either. Does that mean it's a completely implausible form of generating power efficiently and cheaply? No.
It has more to do with the fact that since it's more theoretical because it hasn't been developed as much because of time and funding as other possible alternative power sources, private companies won't look at it yet. Will it remain that way? Certainly not.
That's why the federal government has to fund things like this. And this is why the federal government's budget for research is based upon scientific merit and not profit. Surely you can't be insinuating that there aren't technologies in use today that at one point were not profitable for private industry to invest in because they were still in their theoretical stages? Universities and other public research institutions are incubators for theoretical science, they turn theory into something just under practice which is where private industry starts to kick in. Theoretical science isn't what industry is usually particularly interested in (with exceptions) industry wants either theory that's been tried and tested and is just under practicable, or nascent technology. The whole lack of private funding argument is weak at best and more like non-existent. The government needs to fund theory, it's where the future lies. - Svengalus, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2If you feel bitter about this development then you need to re-think your position. I am one of those crazy pro-lifers who thinks that abortion is wrong but should still be legal. This is good news.
- Chicken, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2OP sucks at making titles.
- root1657, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Orca, thanks for mixing in the ad hominem with an argument based on authority. It was delightful and refreshing.
I would contend that it is not as if embryonic stem cell research has never been funded, it has, and it nets nothing. Private investors, companies, and who ever else wants to is also still totally free to invest in it if it is the panecea of possibilities that you say these highly expert researchers say it is. If that is the case, then why is the only way to get funding in trying to make the fed look evil for not funding it?
To go back to your airplane analogy, I'd still put the money in the research path that is producing results until is stops producing results that justify return on investment. This is exactly how the airplane guy went too... they put the money where the results were and followed product lines that gave improvements over previous designs and ideas, just as adult stem cell research is producing results. It would be foolish for any researcher to think funding will continue forever on any project that has yet to produce results... and at this point, the embryonic stem cell researchers cant even figure out how to not kill the host when they introduce the cells and the tumors start popping up like well fertilized mushrooms.
In the interests of full disclosure, what is your tie to this research? I have no professional or financial interest in it. To answer your earlier ad hominem, I'm a systems engineer, and spend considerable time testing things in labs and following the scientific method. My work would be that much more difficult without it. - orca94, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Even if we are better now, we won't be for long if we keep passing ***** up like this.
- root1657, on 02/16/2008, -1/+2I second that! and to further, I'll point out that the evidence is clear that the gold standard in actualy treatment is in adult stem cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h ...
and there is no moral/immoral BS to deal with because the adult donors can give informed consent and we all move on with science! - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -3/+4When you die, instead of burial or cremation, can I grind your body and use it to fertilize my yard? It's all about helping people right?
What the hell is wrong with you boy? Technology like this comes about and you want to dismiss it in favor of something that doesn't work as well and that many find abhorrent?
Sounds like you need to sign up for a class on embryonic/fetal development, buddy. When life begins is a medical fact; not an opinion that can be debated. I don't need religious views or any other crutch to back that up. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins when egg meets sperm and the 23 chromosomes in each of them combine to become the 46 that is human life. Life has a VERY discernible starting point, and that is when the sperm and egg (along with their chromosomes) combine. So wearing a rubber is not at all equal to killing something, dumbass. Sperm is not a human life; it's a building block for making it.
Care to read about any of it?
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopmen ... - boatboy, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2"I still don't see how letting them incinerate IVF embryos instead of using them for a good purpose is the "moral high ground"."
That's a straw man. Just because incinerating IVF embryos is not ethical, it doesn't follow that destroying them for other purposes is ethical. The key question remains "when do they become living humans separate from their mother and father, and thus gain basic human rights?" Until that question is settled, it is impossible to field any other related ethical questions. I would argue that is when they develop their own unique DNA, which happens to be at the moment of conception. - orca94, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Right, because that site isn't biased in the least.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/stemce ... - elipabst, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I think it depends on how they're being used. Some of the initial work where they just injected embryonic stem cells into the brain of a Parkinson's patient did cause tumors. I don't believe that's as much of an issue now that we're learning how to direct the differentiation of the stem cells, though I'm not sure if that's been completely eliminated. However, the rate of tumor formation in this procedure was much higher than what was expected which led them to postulate that the oncogene was responsible or that the virus was inserting itself into critical genes like a tumor suppressor (which is what I believe they were looking at it in this paper).
- mbelrose, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1You're assuming that different types of stem cells will all work the same way. We just don't know that yet. Hopefully, we'll get to a point where we can make any cell do anything we want, but it's also possible we'll have several different stem cell technologies, and each one will only work in certain situations.
- ec92009, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Oh by the way, the skin cells would be turned into EMBRYONIC stem cells, so an potential embryo would still be killed. Should not all religious people be against that?
- Logicexe, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I think you're committing a black and white fallacy. Sure, you can consider an embryo life, but is it on the same level as a fully grown human? No it's not and I know you agree with me. If you were in a laboratory that caught on fire and you could only save a test tube full of embryos or a 4 year old child the vast majority of people would save the 4 year old child. That's because, to the vast majority of people, we apply standards of rights to thinking, feeling individuals who have the capacity to suffer. The 4 year old is frightened, he feels the intense heat, when he either burns to death or asphyxiates he will suffer, the embryos will not feel fear, heat or suffer in any way. These two lifeforms are not the same and thus we do not apply the same rules to them.
Morals are a difficult thing. They cannot be measured or quantified very well and they're mostly subjective. What we can do is set up goals and objectively analyze whether our morals are getting us closer to our goals or not. I think some of our goals should be to maximize human happiness and minimize suffering. Sometimes those goals can conflict and it gets tricky, every situation is different and that's fine. However, when it comes to embryos and stem cells, embryos cannot suffer, they cannot think, they cannot feel happiness. Why should they be factored into our goals? - Logicexe, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I made an edit but for some reason Digg didn't let me do it.
Since stem cells have the potential to increase human happiness and decrease human suffering, and embryos do not feel happiness or suffering, in fact, they don't feel anything at all, why should they be factored into our goals? - orca94, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Right, all those SCIENTISTS, BIOLOGISTS and MEDICAL RESEARCHERS with PhDs in such things who claim embryonic stem cells hold the most promise right now really don't know what the ***** they're talking about. They're just trying to start more political conflict, goddamn academic and research communities, they're such bastards always trying to start needless wars and arguments.
Right... - TeamWookie, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1If you a pro-lifer that opposes destroying embryos for research or discarding leftover embryos both equally then I won't question your sincerity. I often hear people from the Republican party talk about human life and why destroying embryos for stem cell research is wrong. But they never make a peep about the leftover embryos from the IVF process that will eventually be discarded. Something is not right there.
- TeamWookie, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1What are you trying to say? Religious voters are the ones that pressured the administration to halt funding for embryonic stem cell research. Since, the focus has shifted away from embryonic stem cell research even againsts many scientists wishes. This is a clear cut case of a religion dictating what science can and can't do. I'm sure those voters are saying they are doing it for moral reasons. But that doesn't exclude the fact that their religion is making decisions for the scientists.
- JRW5061, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1you get the point so who gives a *****
- orca94, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Federally sponsored scientific research is one of cornerstones of this country's research community. The federal government is undoubtedly the single largest supporter of scientific research in dollar terms in the U.S. and possibly even the world given the scope of the U.S.'s economy.
- CPMan, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Do cells need a license to drive on the embryo freeway?
- dasbush, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Counter example: What if in that fire there is a 4 year old child and an 80 year old man? Obviously the right decision is to take the child. Does that mean that the old man has any less dignity as a human being? Just because it is the right choice to take the 4 year old, does not negate an embryo's status as a human being.
The issue at hand is whether or not an embryo is human. Either it is or it is not. I can't see how it "is under X circumstances only, when the circumstances are Y then they are just a collection of cells" (and generally, X is when WE want to have a child and Y is when WE do not). And so we have to decide as a people, are human embryos _really_ human? Do they have an intrinsic worth in and of themselves that is equal to any other human being who has been born? - root1657, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1orca, you are correct, the scientists know all about it. Check all the peer reviewed literature linked to from the site you are busy bashing and maybe you can see what they know.
While we are at it, do you have an 'unbiased' site that would help us learn about your point and see all the good research that is coming out of the other camp? - orca94, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I wish we knew the full extent of what was possible with Embryonic stem cells (which most scientists in the field claim have much greater capability for research from the get go), however with the kind of support the research is getting from the federal government we don't. It's unfair to compare a technology that most scientists claim has more potential on a theoretical basis, negatively, to another technology which has had far more support, based upon applications of either. For instance fission based nuclear power plants have produced far more net power in the past few decades than fusion based ones, thus we should just forget about fusion and focus on fission. That's a dumb ***** argument.
- 5urr3al5am, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2yes this looks very promising
- root1657, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1Actually that isnt the case. As quoted from the article:
"Researchers recently showed that adult human and mouse skin cells could be "reprogrammed" to be capable of generating any type of cell in a manner similar to embryonic stem cells, sidestepping many ethical objections to this work."
The key phrase there is 'in a manner similar to' which is not the same. It's a good way to obfuscate the truth which is that they turn the skin cells into adult stem cells, which are only in a manner similar in that they are also stem cells. Adult stem cells research is still funded and is showing huge results (treatment for 70+ conditions, link available elswhere in these comment threads) while the embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing. - kesma594, on 02/17/2008, -0/+0Its good news but we already have this in its original form of embryonic stem cell research. I think we need to stop being politically correct and catering to religious point of views. The fools that worship a god that hasn't shown his face since the days of the bible slow down the progress of humanity. In my opinion if a God does exist and he did make up, then the faculties he provided to us should be allowed to be used to help our sick and elderly, he obviously won't.
- root1657, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1Apples and oranges. There is nothing that requires that particular funding source else do no research. As I stated earlier, maybe the lack of private funding is telling, because it is clear that there will be no return on the investment, because all the smart money is going to adult cells, which are actually producing results, and embryonic cells as of yet have produced nothing.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is