What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
207 Comments
- AmyVernon, on 07/08/2009, -3/+182This is actually rather huge news...
- smashblu, on 07/08/2009, -9/+119At least people can stop bitching about fetuses and what not.
- InfinitySnatch, on 07/08/2009, -4/+101Not likely. While reverted adult cells may now be able to take care of the same medical problems, nothing else has that sweet baby taste.
- BigLou, on 07/08/2009, -22/+86Ugh... my girlfriend's religious, right-winged, nut-job parents will probably still be against this as it's somehow against God or something... I don't know.
- Oinkie, on 07/08/2009, -7/+63Why are we not funding this?!
- hughesj919, on 07/08/2009, -1/+49Well this is a game changer.
- stuffradio, on 07/08/2009, -0/+38Slap them with a glove and say you challenge them to a duel :)
- Yotunii, on 07/08/2009, -0/+31Growing organs FTW.
- thcobbs, on 07/08/2009, -3/+32Now THIS is stem cell research I can believe in. Someone needs some serious grant money NOW. This is going to transform modern medicine like sanitary practices did for civil-war medicine.
- BigLou, on 07/08/2009, -3/+28Why would I leave her because of her parents?
- InMSWeAntitrust, on 07/08/2009, -0/+23What do you think makes "Sweet Baby Ray's" barbecue sauce so good?
- bmcnally, on 07/08/2009, -3/+24Depends. For the majority of Christians, the issue was not that stem cells were being used, but that they were being derived from (possibly) aborted fetuses.
However, the long term implications of stem cells (just like genetic engineering) is an ethical can of worms that will take scientists a while to fully figure out. - hpodity, on 07/08/2009, -1/+20a digger with a girlfriend? Pics or it didn't happen
- goodjobmichael, on 07/08/2009, -4/+22The average digger will now take the opportunity to celebrate scientific breakthrough with anti-religion/right-wing comments
- tas08, on 07/08/2009, -1/+18We are.
- sonofabiscuit, on 07/08/2009, -1/+18This has absolutely nothing to do with artificial intelligence.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/08/2009, -3/+19NO NO! LEFT EAR!
- hpodity, on 07/08/2009, -0/+16Actually I just dugg it for the use of the term "Gonads" /s
Totally agree, this is huge news, if this holds up to be economically feasible we could easily see a limitless source of organs that are 100% compatible with their subject within 5-10 years. Unfortunately politicians will ***** it up with regulation so we probably won't see it for another 20. Big step towards defeating cancer though! - k3rfuffl3, on 07/08/2009, -4/+19No one's dissecting my balls for stem cells, mmk?
- powatom, on 07/08/2009, -5/+19Now nothing can stand in the way of my All-Female Quadraboob Warrior Army!
- stuffradio, on 07/08/2009, -2/+15Christians only had problems with embryonic stem cells. Now if there was a way to change adult stem cells to embryonic stem cells... :O That would be huge! (this is huge too though)
- Auraness, on 07/08/2009, -13/+26Leave her.
- Yotunii, on 07/08/2009, -0/+12Not really, one theory on aging goes that it's dependent on the length of the telomeres on each side of our DNA. When the cells divide, the DNA gets copied and the telomere gets cut a tiny bit off each time. These telomeres themselves have no function other than protecting the real information in the DNA from being cut instead. At a certain age, these telomeres are gone, and the real DNA is cut. Not the best case for surviving.
These cells contain the same amount of telomeres as what they were taken from - or even less after dividing. These new cells won't last as long as our original cells, and will probably not even extend our lives. A new organ will of course extend someones life, but it will be as old as the cells it came from. - MeatMountain, on 07/08/2009, -6/+18At least the rest of the world kept making scientific progress for the last 8 years.
- stuffradio, on 07/08/2009, -1/+12So did I just read that they are able to use these stem cells to do the same things as embryonic stem cells!?
Edit: I did! :) I'm not sure if it can do EVERYTHING embryonic stem cells could, but it said they can do some of the things embryonic stem cells could.
This is huge. - ACiDGRiM, on 07/08/2009, -0/+11They need to grow the Human skin for the Terminators.
- fenderbiz, on 07/08/2009, -3/+13If people weren't such idiots about the funding embryonic stem cell research, then we'd have advanced much further by now.
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -1/+11Excellent! Now we won't be hooked on antirejection drugs!
- crgnetworks, on 07/08/2009, -0/+9But how does this work with each generation? I mean your DNA is coming from your parents, wouldn't that DNA already be about 20 or 30 years old? Wouldn't each generations lifespan get shorter instead of the longer trend we see?
I'm curious :-) - frequentFlyer, on 07/08/2009, -5/+14Leave her now.
- jake1337, on 07/08/2009, -0/+9A small group of cells is not a person.
- JimmyIkon, on 07/08/2009, -6/+15I doubt this means there will be less focus on embryonic stem cell research. The pro choice camp won't let that happen. The second you deem one option more ethical than the other, you open a Pandora's box.
- reuscel, on 07/08/2009, -2/+10Those two unnecessary wars aren't gonna pay for themselves!
/s - Axeman20, on 07/08/2009, -3/+11Awesome, eternal life here we come!
- spriggig, on 07/08/2009, -2/+10The more medical science progresses, the greater the divide between the haves and have-nots. Were heading toward a world where the rich 20% of the world population can afford to extend their lives to perhaps 200 years and the poor 80% will still struggle to meet daily needs of clean water and food.
Certainly the research should continue, but we must be sensitive to the consequences and demand that justice and human rights be extended to all people and not just those that can afford them. - Maddawg579, on 07/08/2009, -1/+9^^ I guess some people just don't watch Family Guy...
- pinchduck, on 07/08/2009, -4/+11Not only is this ***** speculation, but if your wild claims were true, the treatments would have already been discovered in countries that have no such ban. Any and all medical research is going to be slow and methodical.
- MeatMountain, on 07/08/2009, -2/+9He closed America's wallet on scientific advancement. I know it wasn't an outright ban, but it had a negative effect. Negative enough to stifle our advancement and make us second banana to Europe.
So go eat a bag of rat dicks you ***** piece of garbage. - ICSU, on 07/08/2009, -4/+11Professional Christians stopping bitching?
Surely, you jest. - Moralogic, on 07/08/2009, -1/+8~Slurp~ Yum
- mbelrose, on 07/08/2009, -2/+8Did it ever occur to you that some of the scientists wanted to study both? If you can't count on a country to not ban your research, it creates a whole chain of legal and economic barriers to your science. Just the chance of being banned will cause a lot of charities and investors to pull out.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6And without humans, who is going to make the humans in the lab, retard?
- Yotunii, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6They're actually regenerated by an enzyme, telomerase reverse transcripase :) Either it's not quite clear how this works, or I just don't know it, but it's a lot more complicated than I made it seem in my first reply.
My guess is that the activity of this enzyme somehow declines.
As for every generation, I really don't know. But remember, germline cells only contain half the genome. My point of that is that what it contains is different, and telomeres are a feature of chromosomes, not actually a feature of DNA itself. - bmcnally, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6Let me rephrase: For the majority of Christians who oppose stem cell research . . .
- stuffradio, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6I'm a Christian too, I'm just saying that's what the Christians had an issue with.
- acehorne, on 07/08/2009, -1/+7Hate to be the doubting scientist on here, but there is a HUGE difference between getting adult stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells in in vitro conditions and getting them to behave similarily in vivo. While this is a big step, there is still a very long way to go before anyone is even close to getting adult stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells do right now in vivo.
- mattrmcg, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6Baby, you make me wish I had four hands!
- paidhima, on 07/08/2009, -4/+10"...stem cells from discarded fetuses and aborted fetuses have never been as promising...."
That's actually not true. Fetal stem cells show a lot of promise. The main problem with using them, from a scientific point of view, is that they're less predictable. Further, I don't see why it matters. Fetal stem cells from discarded or aborted fetuses would simply be wasted if not for research. We use human cadavers for scientific research all the time. We study diseased and healthy tissue routinely. What is so sacred about fetal tissue vs adult cadaverous tissue? Understandably, this bumps up against the abortion debate, but the stem cell argument appears mostly to be done out of pure spite than anything else (Oh yeah? Abortion is legal? Well guess what, now you can't do research! So there!).
As for your inane attempt to deride the theory of global warming, If you would like to talk about truth, you should perhaps actually use "truth" to do so. There is a common misconception used quite vociferously by opponents of the theory of global warming that the earth has been on a cooling trend for the last 10-12 years. This is false. They, and you, make this claim using faulty logic not entirely connected with the reality of climatology.
One claim that the earth has been cooling for 10-12 years is based on the idea that surface temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been cooling since. This is both partially accurate and completely deceptive at once. Temperatures did, in fact, peak in 1998 - that much is true. Earth's regional surface temperatures are largely a function of heat exchange between oceans and land. This exchange can be magnified by certain natural phenomena, such as El Nino/Nina. In 1998 a particularly strong El Nino lead to an unusual shift in heat exchange, causing relatively high surface temperatures. This phenomena has not been repeated in the last eleven years. As such, some use that to show that the Earth is on a cooling trend. The data does not really support that.
Why do people say that the Earth is warming when surface temperatures appear to be on a decline? One reason is that very few understand (or admit to understanding, anyway) that surface temperature is not the only factor when determining a warming or cooling trend. There is a balance in heat exchange - a budget, if you will. This balance is struck between heat from the core, heat from the sun, heat trapped within the upper and lower atmospheres, surface heat and ocean heat. Sources of heat are the sun and the Earth's core. The atmosphere (upper, lower, surface) and oceans serve as heat exchanges within the climate system. Finally, there is heat leaving the Earth in the form of atmospheric heat radiation. If one or more of these factors change, a warming or cooling trend can be triggered.
One argument against man-made warming is that solar cycles are affecting what's called TSI, or total solar irradiance. Increased solar activity leads to increased incoming solar radiation which leads to warmer temperatures. Studies since the late 1970s, however, reflect no consequential change in total solar irradiance. There is also something called the Milankovitch Cycle (I'm sure I butchered that), which describes the natural cycle by which the earth's angle to and average distance from the sun changes over time, leading to the cycle of ice ages. We are actually at the tail end of an ice age cycle, meaning that the Earth should be cooling. The evidence of surface cooling over the past ten years would support this if surface temperatures were the only measure of warming/cooling, which they are not.
Global warming opponents (or, rather, opponents of the idea that it is man-made) also use gamma radiation to suggest that warming trends are natural. Gamma radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere charges vapor particles in the air, causing them to clump together and form clouds. These clouds reflect solar radiation and keep the earth cooler. However, when the sun's magnetic field becomes stronger it reflects cosmic radiation, causing less of it to reach the earth. Less gamma radiation means less cloud seeding, means fewer clouds, means less cloud cover, means more solar radiation reaching the earth, which makes the earth warm. This theory sounds good, but there is no evidence that gamma rays actually have enough of a seeding effect in reality to change cloud cover. Additionally, there is no evidence for a downward trend in gamma radiation. It also doesn't account for certain other phenomena, like the cooling upper atmosphere.
One argument for man-made global warming is carbon dioxide levels. In climatology, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is generally a trailing indicator of a warming trend. As heat increases the oceans warm. Warm oceans can't hold as much CO2, so they become a net producer of CO2 (they release more than they absorb, though they don't actually "produce" it on their own). This begins a feedback loop, wherein warm oceans release more CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. This extra CO2 serves to further insulate the Earth and causes more warming, which leads to more CO2. Some opponents cite that as an argument against it. After all, if CO2 is a trailing indicator, and we see increased CO2, then how is it humanity's fault? The problem is that what I say "trailing indicator" I mean trailing by almost a thousand years. And once this feedback loop begins, there is a warming trend lasting thousands of years. That's natural warming. What we have now is not natural, as there is no scientific record of increased CO2 levels in the past several centuries that would lead to this feedback loop. We do, however, see increase CO2 levels. It has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is us. Increased CO2 levels mostly caused by human industry imbalances the system of CO2 exchange between oceans, the atmosphere and plants. Some say volcanic activity lead to this increase, but the amount of CO2 released by an eruption, averaged over time, is fairly minuscule compared to human production.
So, really, it's not about zealotry. It's about science. You can argue against it, for sure, but all you're really doing now is putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la I can't hear you!" over and over. - charlie6969, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6This is EXCITING news!
AWESOME! - thcobbs, on 07/08/2009, -7/+13You know... some people just find offensive to destroy human life(even if it is just an embryo) for medical research.
That being said, this completely removes the need to do that. As a side note, if we HAD been funding embryonic research, this likely would have been pushed back MUCH further due to being easier to research on embryos. So in effect, I think by limiting funding for embryonic research lead this technology to be developed much faster and negates the need of destroying human life for research. -
Show 51 - 100 of 209 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is