Stem-Cell Research

[Edmaster]

Alright, it's time for one of those controversial debates and potential bloodbaths. I ask everyone to kindly deposit all firearms, superweapons, and sharp objects at our customs desk before entering. Just remember, flaming is for f*gs and fireplaces, not threads. [/jk]

Stem-Cell Research, a controversy soon to replace Social Security as our country's "touch it and die" topic, inevitably entered discussions concerning last year's elections. As most of you know, George Bush had banned the continued removal of embryos for research purposes, specifically related to stem cell research. Now, before everyone picks up their two cents in preparation to be thrown at my forehead, I would first like to point out a few things that I find a lot of people seem to be ignorant of:

When most people think of stem-cell research, they immediately think of Embyonic stem-cell research. This is incorrect, and a form of generalization, which brings me to my next point:

NOT ALL stem-cell research requires killing an unborn embryo or fetus. Usable Stem-cells are just as easily found in several other places, such as umbilical cords (when removed at birth), within bone marrow, from the nose, etc.



Now, since a primary factor within this controversy seems to stem (I said "stem", I'm so witty) from the morality and ethics of embryonic stem cell research, it seems to me that the best course of action would be to cease all embryonic stem cell research, and further support these alternatives (which have been around and usable for several years, although the media conveniently never seems to mention it). By doing so, the controversy that surrounds the whole "quality of life" issue will have been abated, and research will be able to continue in full swing. Steps are already being taken to achieve this, and thereby throw the entire "embryo" part out the door. Literally.

Hardly a controversy if neither side has a problem with what's being done, huh?

More information can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/
and here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/stemcells.html
or if you still need info, try here: http://www.google.com/

Discuss your thoughts on this topic.

[meat.eater]

One hell of a first post, mate.

I'm reserving this for my thoughts. i need to go - but I certainly have opinions.

[Megabyte]

its not a hot button topic because...its banned
there's nothing to discuss, benefits or no

If you wanted to discuss the possibility of allowing it legally, and reasoning behind it, then that'd be worth going into I suppose.

We'd be discussing the theoretical morality if/when the research becomes legal again, which is pointless since it could be years or even decades until such a policy changed.

[Edmaster]

its not a hot button topic because...its banned
there's nothing to discuss, benefits or no

If you wanted to discuss the possibility of allowing it legally, and reasoning behind it, then that'd be worth going into I suppose.

We'd be discussing the theoretical morality if/when the research becomes legal again, which is pointless since it could be years or even decades until such a policy changed.

From what I understand, Bush has only called for the banning of embryonic stem cell research. Research into other methods concerning the extraction of stem cells, such as removing them from umbilical cords and through the nose, is still legal.

[Office_Shredder]

its not a hot button topic because...its banned
there's nothing to discuss, benefits or no

If you wanted to discuss the possibility of allowing it legally, and reasoning behind it, then that'd be worth going into I suppose.

We'd be discussing the theoretical morality if/when the research becomes legal again, which is pointless since it could be years or even decades until such a policy changed.

It's banned in America. In a lot of countries, embryonic stem cell research is alive and kicking. In fact, they've begun using stem cells (adult and embryonic), to treat diseases in rats like cancer

[Megabyte]

It's banned in America. In a lot of countries, embryonic stem cell research is alive and kicking. In fact, they've begun using stem cells (adult and embryonic), to treat diseases in rats like cancer

just following the theme of the thread, which was the topic as it relates to the US
I don't see stem cell research as being some huge issue is all.

Its not too often when you see a medical or scientific issue rate high on the public's mind. Social agenda's are more our style.

[Office_Shredder]

just following the theme of the thread, which was the topic as it relates to the US
I don't see stem cell research as being some huge issue is all.

Its not too often when you see a medical or scientific issue rate high on the public's mind. Social agenda's are more our style.

This is a social agenda...... ten years from now, when we're all working minimum wage for the Germans because of their booming biotech industry, you'll wish we put a bit more in research and development ;)

[Megabyte]

pff, the chinese will run us before the germans ever will

[Match Strike]

just following the theme of the thread, which was the topic as it relates to the US
I don't see stem cell research as being some huge issue is all.

Because, obviously the US is completely isolated and unaffected by the rest of the world, right?

[Edmaster]

just following the theme of the thread, which was the topic as it relates to the US
I don't see stem cell research as being some huge issue is all.

Its not too often when you see a medical or scientific issue rate high on the public's mind. Social agenda's are more our style.

There was actually a great deal of controversy over this issue last November. One side wants to legalize it while the other wants to keep it banned. What neither side seems to know or acknowledge is the possibility exists to obtain stem cells from sources other than embryos.

The main point others try to make is that embryonic stem cells are easier and more efficient to produce, so they should be the ones the US should focus on. Yet, by doing this, our government would only invoke more controversy, and have the process slowed by objections on either side. In the long run, non-embryonic stem cell research is going to be the best course of action for the United States, and the world, if you choose to expand this line of thinking.

[uniquinous]

There's a *lot* to this topic, and as a scientist who has given formal lectures and talks on it, I have quite a bit to say. Unfortunately I have a histology exam tomorrow, so I will make my opening remarks brief.

Stem cell research is not illegal, it just doesn't get public funding in the US, and previously made lines are still utilized. Harvard, for example, stives forward with embryonic stem cell research.

There are a few facts I want to just get out on the table:
-Embryonic stem cells have a much larger potential then any subsequently made stem cells. The earlier you can isolate them the better.
-The possibilities in treating disease are tremendous as it completely gets around organ donor problems (after all, a cloned liver from someone has their *exact* genetic code - no reason for the body to reject it). Further, learning more about the how and why of cells dividing could aid us in coercing spinal nerves to regrow, leading to the possibility of ending many injury-induced paralysis cases
-There are *thousands and thousands* of frozen embryos already created that will be discarded anyway in our fertility clinics. We have the possibility of not letting them go to waste, but Bush is a moron and would rather have them destroyed outright then used to better society.
-Further research in how these cells are created will lead us to one day (in the near future) be able to *create* them without going through the embryo step at all. Hwang et al from Korea published a few papers that said they have done just that, tho there is a LOT of controversy that came up recently, so I'll let that point go for now.
-The bioethics committee that reviewed the stem cell case and advised bush is made up of top scientists, lawyers, and ethicists. When the leading scientist (and others) on this panel stated the use of stem cells would benefit mankind, she (and others) were fired without reason, to be replaced by other lawyers.

EDIT: looking back that wasn't brief at all.... :dry:
back to histology...

[Office_Shredder]

pff, the chinese will run us before the germans ever will

Probably not.... we'd blow the Chinese up before we ever let them run the country... besides, they need us for now so they can keep their economy booming through market manipulations.

[Jeffery]

Hwang et al from Korea published a few papers that said they have done just that, tho there is a LOT of controversy that came up recently, so I'll let that point go for now.

And by controversy, you mean admition and proof that he outright faked a good majority of his larger claims in stemcell work. Right?

And I agree with you that people are overreacting to conservative propaganda on what stem cell research is, and what it uses. Doctors are not walking around aborting kids to get to the stem cells. There are hundreds of thousands of sources for stem cells that would destroy nothing that won;t be destroyed anyways.

[Office_Shredder]

And by controversy, you mean admition and proof that he outright faked a good majority of his larger claims in stemcell work. Right?

Faked is such a harsh word..... we prefer told creative stories related, but not necessarily based on, reality

[Megabyte]

Because, obviously the US is completely isolated and unaffected by the rest of the world, right?

As far as most people here in the US like to think, yeah. This isn't about the reality, its simply the ignorance with which we like to view ourselves.

Its not a matter of what the actual benefit/cost of the research is, its a matter of how people view. Thats the whole idea behind a moral discussion.

[uniquinous]

Yes, I try to stay away from extremes as saying "the major contributor of stem cell research faked a lot of his work" tends to completely scare people off, and overshadow the fact that many of his leading competitors, including the Harvard lab here in the states, has been doing perfectly legitimate work.

Logically the ends that he said he met are achievable, we just don't exactly know how yet. But again, to find out exactly *how* these amazing cells work, we need to *study* them first. This is the problem with US public (NIH) funding.

[sayter]

I think I have two stances on this topic:

First, for medical science I see it as a valid and useful method to deal with problems arising. Most notably the inevitable uselesslessness of antibiotics given another 20 years or so. Being able to flat out REPLACE body parts would be much more useful than saving existing ones and potentially becoming worse in the process.
However, I don't necessarily agree with it either. Afterall, the very act of advancing medical science is what causes so much imbalance in nature in the first place. We treat diseases which should be allowed to run their course to keep populations in check. Of course, no one I know has ever been in a situation where they may need such a procedure to survive...so I am not the best judge in this circumstance. Although personally I would choose death.

My second stance comes from the inevitable use of stem cell research for military application. I think this is outright "heresy" , if you will. I have no issue with "scratch building" life, since I have absolutely no loyalty to religion or such views. However, allowing people to custom-build another race, essentially, from scratch just sends off these warning lights in my head.

Granted, a lot of these fears are likely fed to us via sci-fi movies and books we have read or seen....yet it is also blatantly apparent that many such things would happen exactly as written/seen in said fiction.


It really is a semantic argument. No one has exactly the same views on it. I think it has a definite promise and is a viable scientific field that SHOULD be explored. However, I think it should also be closely monitored since the potential for abuse of the knowledge is extreme. Think of the bio-weapons that could be developed using such knowledge (and likely have already been developed. VX nerve gas could be tame compared to other things developed since the early 90's)

[Scorpionz]

Stem cells are good. whoever opposes to this... is WRONG

[Shiny Flors]

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070484.html

This is the best paper on stem cell research I have read. I do not deny the potential stem cell research has for advanced medicinal treatments and cures. The debate over stem cell research is not about the means the research is done but rather the source of stem cells, specifically embryonic stem cells.

The moral problem with embryonic stem cell research is a beginning of human life issue and an embryo's right to life. Once this debate is settled, then embryonic stem cell research and abortion ethical issues will be solved.

[Mithrandir]

I'm in favor of the type of stem-cell research that has actually produced results in the form of around 68 different diseases being cured/treated (can't remember the exact number offhand). This is, of course, adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, has not cured anything and has killed at least one person. So my first reason for being opposed to embryonic stem cell research is that it is fiscally irresponsible.

My second reason is that it is morally wrong to kill a human being to take its body parts to benefit others. It was wrong for the Nazis last century and it's wrong for us this century. This argument hinges on the question of what the unborn is of course (unless you happen to think the morality of the film "The Island" is fine).

[uniquinous]

.. ...:eek:

See these are the misconceptions we need to fight...

No one has any plans to use stem cell research to clone races for military purposes. This is not Episode II. Furthermore, if we were to magically obtain all possible information on stem cell differentiation, it would be quite difficult to create any type of biological weapon with that information. We already know many ways why cells *don't* grow normally (which would be biowarfare), but we have yet to figure out exactly why they *do* develop the way they do.

Furthermore, cloning therapy in no way creates life. It's not like organs are being harvested from babies, or that humans are grown in some large tanks ready to be disemboweled. Stem cell research hopes to grow individual organs in vitro (erm... in the lab). If a liver is needed, a liver is made (potentially, in the future, from this research), and no other body part need come into the scenario.

[Edmaster]

.. ...:eek:

See these are the misconceptions we need to fight...

No one has any plans to use stem cell research to clone races for military purposes. This is not Episode II. Furthermore, if we were to magically obtain all possible information on stem cell differentiation, it would be quite difficult to create any type of biological weapon with that information. We already know many ways why cells *don't* grow normally (which would be biowarfare), but we have yet to figure out exactly why they *do* develop the way they do.

Furthermore, cloning therapy in no way creates life. It's not like organs are being harvested from babies, or that humans are grown in some large tanks ready to be disemboweled. Stem cell research hopes to grow individual organs in vitro (erm... in the lab). If a liver is needed, a liver is made (potentially, in the future, from this research), and no other body part need come into the scenario.

That's the ultimate goal, of course - being able to simply create organs without actually creating a human embryo. I am in full support of stem cell research, but I am wary of how we extract the stem cells for the time being. Existing cells should be used, but any further extractions should be done from adult sources (ie: non-embryonic stem cells). To use embryos as the source is to bring morality into the issue and only creates needless controversy.

[uniquinous]

Why? As people have previouisly mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos that could be used for this research. If we don't extract the stem cells to destroy those embryos, they will just be outright destroyed. I'm not even proposing anything about making new emryos - just using the ones that we already have that are going to waste.

Furthermore, how exactly is a 2 day old clump of cells an issue on morality? If anything, the moral issues come from retrieving eggs from donors. Why do you think combining genetic material is immoral if not developed further?

[Shiny Flors]

That " 2 day old clump of cells" as you define an embryo that is leftover from in vitro fertilization is the same "clump of cells" that other people define as a person. Many people believe a person is made at conception when two haploid cells, a sperm and an egg, form a single diploid cell irregardless of the location of the fertilization. That is the moral controversy, when does personhood begin?

[Jeffery]

If the embryos are going to be destroyed, how can it be more morally wrong to use them for research?
Either way there is no "life" coming forth from that clump.

[Shiny Flors]

The destruction of the embryo is the moral wrong not the research that is being done. The embyo's should not be destroyed. The fact that embryonic stem cell researchers want to destroy the embryo is the point of controversey.

Many of the same people against embryonic stem cell research are also against the destruction of any human embryo. If science did not want the embryonic stem cells then IVF would be attacked moreso than the research.

I am not sure what my view on the creation of stem cell lines so I have done research on it to understand both arguements. I do see the potential for cures to ailments through stem cell research. I also see the point of those against creating stem cell lines.

[Jeffery]

But you're wrong.

The embryos will be destroyed NO MATTER WHAT. If research is not done,then they are incinerated, and hence, destroyed.
We are not talking about companies making embryos JUSt to do research on them. There are hundreds of thousands of embryos that WILL be destroyed. For people to get upset because scientists want to use these to help discover new treatments for seriously ill and injured people is what should be morally wrong.

I will say it one more time. The embryos WILL be destroyed. There is no stoppig that.

[Mithrandir]

I will say it one more time. The embryos WILL be destroyed. There is no stoppig that.
You're wrong Jeffery.

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeslanding.asp

[Shiny Flors]

Yes I know what you are talking about Jeffery. Some companies do incinerate the embryos. Other companies freeze them. Some people have the choice to give the embryo's up for adoption. That does not change the fact that some people believe that if they are incinerated or used for research it is still a destruction of human life and the moral wrong.

[uniquinous]

The *only* usual reason embryos are frozen, is in case the same parents come back years later. There's really no reason to go through the entire (invasive) egg-retrieval process to create another set of embryos, especially when the incidence of birth defects is increased with parental age. The ones that are frozen will be autoclaved. It's not like the options are "incinerate or be frozen for all time", it's "incinerate now, or incinerate later". Even if you were to remove the embryos whose genetic parents *were* willing to allow them to be adopted, you'd still have hundreds of thousands going to waste.

In the end, they WILL be destoyed. Shouldn't we at least advance science and medicine and not let that be in vain?

As for personhood: any living cell in your body if isolated, theoretically has a *potential* for becoming an individual organism. Even tho Hwang is a fraud, the underlying biological principles hold, even if his experiments didn't actually figure out the specifics of that. That clump of cells has no nerves, and has no chance to survive on its own. How do you see that as any different then tissue cultures from biopsies?