stem cells

those clever koreans today managed to make a dna replciated stem cell. what does this mean? it mean we are very close to having a true useable stem cell. very close doesn't mean 10 years it means 2-3. many people inclusing the us government is very against the idea and banned it.

i am all for it. a cure of heart, liver, kidney, lung, alzimher's, parkinson's, motor neuron disease are all possible from this. the potential of stem cells to cure disease is enormous. a stem cell has the potential to cure every known tissue disease and could be the biggest thing for humanity since vaccination and antibiotics.

so why is the us government and lots of pro-life organisations against this? becasue it requires a human embreyo clone to be created. but to put this into context we are not talking a feutus. we are talking of an embreyo smaller than a pin head. and embreyo which would have been killed off not by an abortion but by the morning after pill. that is how small this thing is. yes it might be the building blocks of human life but if you create to for he specific purpose of saving someone is this not a good thing?

I am rather uninformed when it comes to this issue, so I have yet to take a real stance. Although, the argument against stem cells seems incredibly difficult to uphold in this instance...

It sounds like theres alot more to it than that.

I believe that the advantages and possibilities of this research far outweigh the disadvantages. Isn't it better to be able to save thousands of lives in sacrifice of one? Rather than not researching, and have many people die or suffer needlessly?

Quote:

---

those clever koreans today managed to make a dna replciated stem cell. what does this mean? it mean we are very close to having a true useable stem cell. very close doesn't mean 10 years it means 2-3.

---

That's a rather momentous development--can I see the info on it?

Quote:

---

many people inclusing the us government is very against the idea and banned it.

---

The US government did not ban stem-cell research. What the US government did is refuse to use tax-payers money for a process that involves the mass-production and destruction of human beings. Private companies in America (the same guys who brought the world the vast majority of its life-saving drugs) are still free to do all the research they want on it--just without government funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

The US government did not ban stem-cell research. What the US government did is refuse to use tax-payers money for a process that involves the mass-production and destruction of human beings. Private companies in America (the same guys who brought the world the vast majority of its life-saving drugs) are still free to do all the research they want on it--just without government funding.

---

This is correct.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7904332/

Here is the choice as I see it- Take the excess embryos from fertility clinics ect. and use them to potentially save lives, or destroy them. Seems like a no-brainer, but that's just me.

See, the thing is, some seem to think that the embryos are just people killing them specifically for stem cell research....when that's not the case.

I mean, I personally don't like the thought of that really, to be perfectly honest...but I'm intellegent enough to see that letting so many people die/live in a dead body and using what could of been a person but will not be now...well, it's completely obvious to me which one is for the good of humanity.

Of course, I can see where some people would just be turned off by it, but then, alot of people were turned of by integration too.

Quote:

---

See, the thing is, some seem to think that the embryos are just people killing them specifically for stem cell research....when that's not the case.

---

Quite often, that is the case. As Cloud 9 related in the starting post to this thread, it usually involves cloning or otherwise creating a human embryo.

However, stem-cells can be found in many, many other places--most notably the human spinal cord, and the umbilical cord of newborns. And in the case of these cells, the largest obstacle (stopping the body from rejecting the foreign tissue) is already overcome, because these cells come from the patient's body.

Quote:

---

Of course, I can see where some people would just be turned off by it, but then, alot of people were turned of by integration too.

---

Please. We are talking about stem-cell research, not integration, and trying to link your opponents to racists does absolutely nothing to help your argument.

Quote:

---

Please. We are talking about stem-cell research, not integration, and trying to link your opponents to racists does absolutely nothing to help your argument.

---

He isn't linking them to racists, he is linking them to ignorant idiots. The point he made had nothing to do with integration, and everything to do with stem cell research. His point was valid.

So how about we keep talk of integration out of the conversation altogether? It has nothing to do with this topic and all it does is bring up an entirely unrelated scenario of ignorance. And contrary to what some believe, not all ignorance is equal.

This is another issue I'm personally on the fence about. I would have to do some serious research before I could let myself make a steadfast opinion on this. However, I do believe that the current embryos that are just sitting there and will eventually decay into nothingness could be used for the greater good. I think. Maybe. Gah.

Just because the media doesn't report that creating stem cells without destroying embryos is possible doesn't mean that it isn't possible, ya know. Sign up for a scientific community membership if you actually care. :p

what we first need to decide is what embroyos are. are they life? well techincally yes in as much as anything else of that size or type is. is it human life? no it is potential human life. is killing it exceptional? no that's what the moring after pill does? is the morning after pill wrong?

you need to remember exactly what is being used here we are not talking about 5 month old feotuses.

and what are the good that comes out of this? a cure for all tissue diseases and damage. we are literally talking about making the blind see and the paralzyed walk. effects from strokes and major head injuries cured in weeks. brain conditions cured at time of diagnosis. and ned to heart disease deaths, lung disease.

it may be possible to take atem cells from human spine and umbilical cord but...... it has major major complications and difficulties which is why it has not became possible yet.

I'd rather save a grown, living human being with friends and family, then to save (or not use) something that is less living than a toe-nail, hair, or a scrap of skin. Simple as that.

There's a distinct difference between embryonic and adult stem cells. The fundamentalist right disapproves of embryonic stem cell research, which I don't agree with, but it's irrevelent when considering that adult stem cells can be found in any adult human. I am personally not updated with Bush's stance on adult stem cell research, but there is no logical reason against it. Many people disagree with it purely because they don't know what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Quote:

---

many people inclusing the us government is very against the idea and banned it.

---

The US government did not ban stem-cell research. What the US government did is refuse to use tax-payers money for a process that involves the mass-production and destruction of human beings. Private companies in America (the same guys who brought the world the vast majority of its life-saving drugs) are still free to do all the research they want on it--just without government funding.

---

Yeah redneck is right the USA never banned stem cell research and I really hope they don't.
And mainly the reason why people mainly conservatives are against stem cell research because they really dont understnad it much.Due to the fact that the media doesn't report it (mainly fox news).Your eally dont need to get stem cells from a fetish.You can get them from an Adult Human without harming the person.The toughest part would be making sure the body accepts those cells.Like when someone gets an organ transplant and a few days alter their new organ is bleeding because their immune system is destroying it.That would be tough but stem cell research is neccessary for our advancement in medical science.

Quote:

---

I am personally not updated with Bush's stance on adult stem cell research, but there is no logical reason against it. Many people disagree with it purely because they don't know what it is.

---

And they never will. The stem cell debate has become polarized. It's turned into black and white nonsense. The conservatives will oppose it just for being conservative, and the liberals will support it just becuase they are liberals. No thought is going to go into it. It's the same with everything these days. People are run by stupidity and anger, and those are the only two reasons people will need to support or oppose anything. What a dismal state this society is in.

this topic wasn't really meant to be political it was about that we have finally made the breakthrough which literally has tha bility to make the blind see and the paralyzed walk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

I am personally not updated with Bush's stance on adult stem cell research, but there is no logical reason against it. Many people disagree with it purely because they don't know what it is.

---

And they never will. The stem cell debate has become polarized. It's turned into black and white nonsense. The conservatives will oppose it just for being conservative, and the liberals will support it just becuase they are liberals. No thought is going to go into it. It's the same with everything these days. People are run by stupidity and anger, and those are the only two reasons people will need to support or oppose anything. What a dismal state this society is in.

---

People avoid the effort of thought whenever they can.

The difference between embryonic and adult stem cells is that adult stem cells are only multipotent (can form multiple cell types), whereas embryonic stem cells are totipotent (can form [b]all[/]b cell types). If adult stem cells could be used, they would be.

Quote:

---

The difference between embryonic and adult stem cells is that adult stem cells are only multipotent (can form multiple cell types), whereas embryonic stem cells are totipotent (can form [b]all[/]b cell types). If adult stem cells could be used, they would be.

---

Exactly. Thats why it has so many supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

The difference between embryonic and adult stem cells is that adult stem cells are only multipotent (can form multiple cell types), whereas embryonic stem cells are totipotent (can form [b]all[/]b cell types). If adult stem cells could be used, they would be.

---

...but they can be used. If you need brain cells, you get the adult stem cell which can form brain cells. Adult stem cell research is the type which should be fully supported - because you can get them from any healthy human.

Quote:

---

...but they can be used. If you need brain cells, you get the adult stem cell which can form brain cells.

---

Not always. Some cells cannot be derived from adult stem cells. Do people just assume that we want to kill babies for the hell of it? 'Cause if so, theres no point in attempting intellegent debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

---

...but they can be used. If you need brain cells, you get the adult stem cell which can form brain cells.

---

Not always. Some cells cannot be derived from adult stem cells. Do people just assume that we want to kill babies for the hell of it? 'Cause if so, theres no point in attempting intellegent debate.

---

Unless I'm vastly mistaken(it has been well over two years since my last biology class), ALL cells can be derived from adult stem cells(by definition), as long as you have all of the different kinds of adult stem cells.

Arent most of the fetus's that they would be using aborted, and going to be destroyed anyways? Or am i mistaken, i heard that, but not from the most reliable fo sources.

With embryonic stem cell research, the embryos would most likely be manufactured in a lab. They wouldn't have progressed the stage of a fetus. Of course, it's not actually possible to make a baby in a lab, and the embryos would only last for...it's somewhere between 12 and 16 days, I think - it wouldn't actually grow into a baby, so again, I don't see what the big deal is about it. However, it's a moot point when you consider adult stem cell research.

I think adult stem cells are a better way to go, because you never get into the dangerous proposition of creating and destroying human life, and it seems that since what we are talking about is essentially going to be a business in 5-10 years, well, embryonic stem cells imo are kinda skirting the edge of slavery. The reason that it would be like slavery in my mind is that as embryonic stem cells become useful, they'll become valueable and thus be bought and sold on the market, much like in biological catalogues you can buy other living things (mostly bacteria).

Adult stem cells cannot cause this problem, and from what I understand, can actually solve another problem for us. You see, there are adult stem cells in fat, and as most people know, America doesn't exactly have a fat shortage. So we can "donate" our fat to research the adult stem cells. The philanthropist will lose 20-30 pounds of fat. The scientist gets to do research, and potentially people will be healed of deadly diseases.

So why use embryonic stem cells and open up the "human as commodity" can of worms when adult stem cells are roughly equivelent and pose no ethical problems?

Adult stem-cells can't be used for most cell types. I'm not sure HOW, exactly, it works, but each stem cell recieves a combination of signals that tell it what to become. The nature of this combination of signals, when completed, determines the usefulness of the stem cell.

I'll exemplify with words... assume each cell is a 5-letter word of some sort. A "fetal" cell reads like:

P---- (it can become "plays" or "plain" or "prays" or a bunch of other words.)

An "adult" stem cell reads something like

P-a-- (even though it can form all the above words, it is incabable of words like "plums" or "phone")

That's a GROSS simplification, but that's what we deal with. Adult stem cells appear the same, but won't respond the same to some stimuli. So, since we don't know how to reverse the process and "erase letters", we will forever be dependent upon fetal cells for much progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Adult stem-cells can't be used for most cell types. I'm not sure HOW, exactly, it works, but each stem cell recieves a combination of signals that tell it what to become. The nature of this combination of signals, when completed, determines the usefulness of the stem cell.

I'll exemplify with words... assume each cell is a 5-letter word of some sort. A "fetal" cell reads like:

P---- (it can become "plays" or "plain" or "prays" or a bunch of other words.)

An "adult" stem cell reads something like

P-a-- (even though it can form all the above words, it is incabable of words like "plums" or "phone")

That's a GROSS simplification, but that's what we deal with. Adult stem cells appear the same, but won't respond the same to some stimuli. So, since we don't know how to reverse the process and "erase letters", we will forever be dependent upon fetal cells for much progress.

---

This is why we need adult stem cell research. :p

However, if your explanation is somewhat accurate(I don't know for myself), wouldn't it simply be a matter of gathering up a ton of adult stem cells? I mean, isn't having "P" just like having "Pa, Pb, Pc, Pd, etc."

Oh, we ALLOW adult stem-cell research. We pump millions into it per year. It's the fetal stuff... which is the ONLY KIND that has shown any reasonable progress in the last few years... that we limit so thoroughly.

And I was using the letter examples thinking it was understood that your combination must spell a word in order to be a viable cell type found within the body. My fault, should have clarified. But working with stem cells is like trying to spell in a language which we don't know, using characters that we've never seen before. We don't even have the benefit of knowing what those characters are until we stumble across them.

Fetal stem cells, on the other hand, seem to program themselves. They do all the work FOR us... personally, I'm still against killing fetuses to acquire them. Even if the fetuses are going to be destroyed, anyways, because then people will use it for a "well, we're using these, why can't we go to the next step?". With some types of people, you give them an inch, and they'll take the whole damned country.

if we did use adult stem cells then it would require a greater amount to get just one cell while embryotic stem cells need quite few the embryo's could be cloned if it wasnt banned or the human with the condition could be cloned and in the embryo process do whats needed doesnt that seem logical? i dont know much about it but its a theory

embryonic stem cells do not come from fetus. they come from an embreyo the size of a pin head. we are not talking something with human form at all. it is something to the untrained eye would appear the same as any other cell life form. it really should be a question of what is life? is life bigger than a pin head? is it in a human hair?

it's also appauling to think that here we are discussing the deaths of an organism no bigger than a pin head. while so many people die on this earth.

Why does one human life, existing already, matter more or less than one that has yet to come into being? You call it appalling to value the fetus... I call it appalling to do anything ELSE... and thus, the debate on life continues. But that's for a different thread. This one's about the stem cells, themselves... not the other stuff.

And adult stem cells usually CAN'T turn into anything else. Not with our technology. The ones that make it through the body's process of turning them into normal cells, usually cannot transform at all. And the rest are probably not the pick of the primordial litter, either. Which is why they're such a pain in the backside to work with.

But the embryo could not progress. It would only "survive" roughly two weeks, and then it would terminate, because we can't produce a baby in a lab(yet, at least). It's not like in abortion, where the fetus would at least have the possibility of growing into a human baby; embryos in embryonic stem cell research don't even have that chance.

please people. we are not talking fetus's. this is not a qustion of terminating or aborting fetus's. we are not ripping them out of a mother's womb. it's the smallest thing that can be called human life. and it's vague at that. essentially it is a mircobe. so please rationalise this all down a little from the idea of a fetus.

It's still a human being created for the express purpose of making body parts for other people too. This is a road I'd rather not go down.

But it's not a human being, nor does it have even the slightest chance of ever becoming one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

It's still a human being created for the express purpose of making body parts for other people too. This is a road I'd rather not go down.

---

Actually, this is not the case at all. It's not like there are labs pumping out widdle human beings solely so that the scientists can rub their hands together and laugh evilly at the level of death they're causing. In fact the embryos used are those created - but not used - during IVF treatment.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-1.html

So really, everyone who gets all angry over embryonic stem cells should actually be out campaigning to get their local IVF treatment centres shut down. That's where the true evil is, people :rolleyes2

Hey, being voluntarily disassembled for science or medicine is one's own choice. And, like I said before, "give an inch, and they'll take everything"... compare it to the anti-smoking laws, etc. Only, in this case, it's the opposite direction. Creating a lifeform (a HUMAN life) for the express and solitary purpose of using it for spare parts, that's what it is, no matter how you look at it. That is the truth, no question, the ethical issue is whether such a thing is *wrong* or not.

We have a failure to communicate. I have just explained how these human DNA containers are NOT created for the express purpose of being used for spare parts (We're not discussing organ harvesting, but anyway), but are a by-product of a process that occurs hundreds of times a day.

If all stem cell research were banned by Bush tomorrow, the exact same number of human embryos would still be created- the only difference is they'd basically be flushed down the toilet, whereas now they're being ujsed to help further our understanding of disease and so on. What a crime.

The ethical issue of whether it's okay to create embryos for this reason still stands, I guess, even if it isn't happening now. I guess everyone should just ask themselves if they'd have minded being used for this research when they were just a few days instead of becoming the person they are now. I wouldn't have cared, personally.

Quote:

---

If all stem cell research were banned by Bush tomorrow, the exact same number of human embryos would still be created- the only difference is they'd basically be flushed down the toilet, whereas now they're being ujsed to help further our understanding of disease and so on. What a crime.

---

Exactly. It just doesn't make any sense - like people against being organ donors. What use do those people have for them once they're dead?

Yes, there's a matter of choice in organ donations, but the same logic stands - that otherwise they'd just go to waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Exactly. It just doesn't make any sense - like people against being organ donors. What use do those people have for them once they're dead?

Yes, there's a matter of choice in organ donations, but the same logic stands - that otherwise they'd just go to waste.

---

The problem is, an organ donor would die anyway. Nobody says "Well, this guy's got a good chance, but he's a registered organ donor, and my dad needs a liver, so let's go ahead and whack him to get the goods." Organ donation is not used as as excuse to let somebody--or make somebody--give their life, whereas stem cells are.

Stem cells are also found in unbilical cords. Why can't we just use those? You know, so we don't have to murder any more babies?

To my knowledge you wouldn't be able to build a new spin or something that isn't donateable from umbilical cord stem cells because the orginal cells have to be from that person. So if I need something new for the ol' spine then I need stem cells from me to be able to remake it. Any other person's stem cells would make a foriegn spine and my body would reject it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Exactly. It just doesn't make any sense - like people against being organ donors. What use do those people have for them once they're dead?

Yes, there's a matter of choice in organ donations, but the same logic stands - that otherwise they'd just go to waste.

---

The problem is, an organ donor would die anyway. Nobody says "Well, this guy's got a good chance, but he's a registered organ donor, and my dad needs a liver, so let's go ahead and whack him to get the goods." Organ donation is not used as as excuse to let somebody--or make somebody--give their life, whereas stem cells are.

Stem cells are also found in unbilical cords. Why can't we just use those? You know, so we don't have to murder any more babies?

---

Those embryos will die anyway, too. They don't make it past two weeks - that's hardly killing babies.

Quote:

---

Those embryos will die anyway, too. They don't make it past two weeks - that's hardly killing babies.

---

Exactly. I don't like the idea of creating embryos for pure reserch, but if they're gonna be destryoed anyway, then you might as well use them anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

---

Those embryos will die anyway, too. They don't make it past two weeks - that's hardly killing babies.

---

Exactly. I don't like the idea of creating embryos for pure reserch, but if they're gonna be destryoed anyway, then you might as well use them anyway.

---

Everyone is eventually going to die. So can I have your spleen?

Even if the embryos are being created initially for other purposes, at the end of the day it is still being used as an organ farm. And while right now it's limited to embryos a could of hours or maybe a few days old, things do tend to progress, so perhaps 50 or so years from now, it might seem perfectly resonable to create a human clone of yourself for body parts. I just think it's wrong to take bodyparts from a living human being who was given no choice in the matter and who will die as a result of the procedure. Calling it an embryo changes none of that. It is still a *human* embryo, and it is being used as a donor of body parts without any consent and those doing so know darn well that the human embryo *will* die as a result.

If it were a born human baby and another coutry were doing this, it would be considered the worst human rights abuse probably since the fall of the Soviets or the Nazis. to me at least if I wouldn't do it to a person who was born and while looking them in the face, it shouldn't be done at all.

I'll admit to you that I see human life as beginning at conception. So I am biased on the matter. I take the "human until proven nonhuman" approach, meaning that until I'm convinced beyond any doubt that at a particular point the embryo is not human, it is a human and has at least as many rights as anybody here.

so would you say the morning after pill is wrong?

yes I would.

well that's good gnostic yevon. the amount of people that would have answered no to that question is stunning while still holding your views.

so while this thread is almost over with and past it's use.

tell me. if to end life at any stage wrong? is to prevent it also wrong? (contraception). i jus like to know how thse things work with people of certain views. thanks for your time

For me it isn't wrong to prevent a prgnancy, just wrong to abort or otherwise kill the baby after it is concieved. However, for many people (In my area they are mostly Catholic) it is just as wrong to prevent a conception as it is to end a pregnancy. I respect such people, I just disagree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

---

...but they can be used. If you need brain cells, you get the adult stem cell which can form brain cells.

---

Not always. Some cells cannot be derived from adult stem cells. Do people just assume that we want to kill babies for the hell of it? 'Cause if so, theres no point in attempting intellegent debate.

---

Unless I'm vastly mistaken(it has been well over two years since my last biology class), ALL cells can be derived from adult stem cells(by definition), as long as you have all of the different kinds of adult stem cells.

---

No, not all cells can be derived from adult stem cells.

The most relevant example lies in the brain. There are two areas in the brain that continue to produce neurons during adulthood: the sub-ependymal zone (SEZ) and the sub-granular zone (SGZ). The neurons generated in the SEZ travel along the rostral migratory stream bound for the olfactory bulb where there is a modest amount of neuronal turn-over (read: there are neurons dying that need to be replaced--unlike most other areas of the brain). Those generated in the SGZ are bound for the granular zone of the hippocampus (they have a much shorter "trip" to take). There are some interesting theories out there detailing why the SGZ would need to produce more neurons, but at this point there is little empirical support for said theories.

[to summarize the bulk of them: the hippocampus has been demonstrated to be necessary for encoding new declarative memories--for an interesting case study, check out the hippocampectomy patient H.M., and it is thought that these new neurons might be needed as someone acquires more knowledge/information/mental pornographic images/etc.]


But it is important to remember that the neurons produced in these areas are not generic neurons that could simply be placed anywhere in the brain. They are intended to fill a very small subset of restricted areas in the brain. So you couldn't take some adult stem cells from the SEZ, place them in primary motor cortex, and expect them to differentiate into Betz neurons, or put them in the cerebellum and expect them to differentiate into basket neurons, and so on.

The take home message here is that neuronal adult stem cells are probably not incredibly useful throughout the brain (though this is not to say they are not at all useful, just rather restricted in meaningful application). I'm also not saying that other adult stem cells aren't useful.


If you have moral objections to using embryos as a source for embryonic stem cells, that's you're prerogative. However, don't blindly claim that adult stem cells (and you can go ahead and lump umbilical cord stem cells into this group--the only real distinction is that all other types of stem cells are pluripotent or multipotent, and NOT totipotent) are just as "useful" as ES cells (because that's just wrong, not to mention uninformed).