moderateamericain Posted September 23, 2008 Report Posted September 23, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265135,00.html Patients ditch insulin shots I even heard a story (can't find a link for it) about a texas cop who was paralyzed and after a stem cell procedure had movement in his legs. If anyone knows about that please contribute. Its time for the world to wake up and realize two things. Stem cells are not people. They have not even developed into anything yet. IE its not murder. The upsides are just too great for us to not actively explore this. Quote
gc1765 Posted September 23, 2008 Report Posted September 23, 2008 I think this says it best: link Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
segnosaur Posted September 23, 2008 Report Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) Its time for the world to wake up and realize two things. Stem cells are not people. They have not even developed into anything yet. IE its not murder. The upsides are just too great for us to not actively explore this. First of all, I'm an atheist, and I have no moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. That said, you need to keep something in mind: there are actually 2 sources of stem cells... embryos (the one that causes all the controversy) and so-called 'adult' stem cells. At one point, people thought that embryonic stem cells were the most 'useful', since it was though that 'adult' stem cells were too fixed to provide required variation. However, after years of research, it seems that the 'adult' stem cells have proven to actually be the most useful (actually being used in dozens of actual treatments), whereas embryonic stem cells haven't produced anything that is anywhere near completing even clinical trials. If you read the article you referred to, you'll see a reference to how the stem cells were taken from the patients themselves. This would make them adult stem cells (not embryonic). The problem is, whenever most people hear of 'stem cells', they automatically assume embryonic stem cells, even though its adult stem cells which are probably the ones providing the cure. I even heard a story (can't find a link for it) about a texas cop who was paralyzed and after a stem cell procedure had movement in his legs. If anyone knows about that please contribute. A quick googling found several stories about paraplegics regaining partial use of their limbs following stem cell treatments... For example: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/1943224 Edited September 23, 2008 by segnosaur Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 24, 2008 Report Posted September 24, 2008 The problem is, whenever most people hear of 'stem cells', they automatically assume embryonic stem cells, even though its adult stem cells which are probably the ones providing the cure. I believe the "moral" ban on human genetic experiments is as backward as Taliban's view on most modern things. Immoral how? Why? Because God wouldn't want us to? Because we can create monsters? Well believe it or not "monsters" are born all over the earth, and that doesn't even serve science - just luck of the draw. If God allowed the nuclear bomb and the Internet he would probably allow everyhting else... Quote You are what you do.
White Doors Posted September 24, 2008 Report Posted September 24, 2008 First of all, I'm an atheist, and I have no moral objection to embryonic stem cell research.That said, you need to keep something in mind: there are actually 2 sources of stem cells... embryos (the one that causes all the controversy) and so-called 'adult' stem cells. At one point, people thought that embryonic stem cells were the most 'useful', since it was though that 'adult' stem cells were too fixed to provide required variation. However, after years of research, it seems that the 'adult' stem cells have proven to actually be the most useful (actually being used in dozens of actual treatments), whereas embryonic stem cells haven't produced anything that is anywhere near completing even clinical trials. If you read the article you referred to, you'll see a reference to how the stem cells were taken from the patients themselves. This would make them adult stem cells (not embryonic). The problem is, whenever most people hear of 'stem cells', they automatically assume embryonic stem cells, even though its adult stem cells which are probably the ones providing the cure. A quick googling found several stories about paraplegics regaining partial use of their limbs following stem cell treatments... For example: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/1943224 Nice summary. And I agree. Even as an Atheist - some could have issues with cultivating embryo's for research. Nothing to do with religion necessarily. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
segnosaur Posted September 24, 2008 Report Posted September 24, 2008 The problem is, whenever most people hear of 'stem cells', they automatically assume embryonic stem cells, even though its adult stem cells which are probably the ones providing the cure. I believe the "moral" ban on human genetic experiments is as backward as Taliban's view on most modern things. Wait a second... are you talking about the use of embryonic stem cells or other research? They are two totally different issues that are quite independant of each other. Those that are opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells tend to base their opinions on a few ideas: - That the embroys are 'human' and as such we shouldn't be using 'humans' - That using embryonic stem cells might result in women getting abortions specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells (something that people may also object to if they considered the embryo as 'human') That's not the same as the concerns over genetic engineering of humans, where the concern seems to be that it somehow belittles people that have various genetic (but non-leathal) diseases. Quote
WIP Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 The problem is, whenever most people hear of 'stem cells', they automatically assume embryonic stem cells, even though its adult stem cells which are probably the ones providing the cure. Right, but there are limits to the usefullness of adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, and if their development can be controlled, they could be differentiated to assume the characteristics of any tissue cells in the body; so their potential uses are unlimited. And that's where the religious right comes in! When George Bush vetoed funding for studying new lines of embryonic stem cells two years ago, it was to satisfy his base of supporters who make a ridiculous argument that excess fertilized embryos that are being kept in cold storage in the nation's fertility clinics are all "babies" that must be implanted in women and brought to term. Getting to the next level in stem cell research won't happen as long as there are a large group of people who think that frozen fertilized embryos should be awarded full human rights. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
segnosaur Posted September 26, 2008 Report Posted September 26, 2008 Right, but there are limits to the usefullness of adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, and if their development can be controlled, they could be differentiated to assume the characteristics of any tissue cells in the body; so their potential uses are unlimited. Yes, that HAS been the common wisdom. However, scientists HAVE been able to manipulate the adult stem cells to generate tissues that they had thought impossible. Embryonic stem cells? They often produce tumours when used. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hh_MWg...UjX2MgSpcoiJoBQ The situation may change in the future. But as it stands now, adult stem cell research seems to be the one having all the success. (And once again, I want to stress that I am an athiest, and I have no objection to the use of embryonic stem cells... I'm just concerned about results.) Getting to the next level in stem cell research won't happen as long as there are a large group of people who think that frozen fertilized embryos should be awarded full human rights. Keep in mind that the limits on embryonic stem cell research applies only to funding provided by the United States government. As far as I know (feel free to correct me on this), private organizations (including businesses) can continue doing embryonic stem cell research, as can the governments in other parts of the world. If there are significant advances that can be made by embryonic stem cells, they likely will be made, even if one particular funding source (i.e. the U.S. government) refuses to contribute. Quote
Wilber Posted September 27, 2008 Report Posted September 27, 2008 Keep in mind that the limits on embryonic stem cell research applies only to funding provided by the United States government. As far as I know (feel free to correct me on this), private organizations (including businesses) can continue doing embryonic stem cell research, as can the governments in other parts of the world. If there are significant advances that can be made by embryonic stem cells, they likely will be made, even if one particular funding source (i.e. the U.S. government) refuses to contribute. Bottom line is this research will go ahead in spite of any actions by the US government which wants to forfeit the US's position at the leading edge of this technology because of dogma. Stupid. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 27, 2008 Report Posted September 27, 2008 (edited) Bottom line is this research will go ahead in spite of any actions by the US government which wants to forfeit the US's position at the leading edge of this technology because of dogma. Stupid. Right....the US should pursue the research so as not to forfeit their "position".....translation: Damn, someone else is going to have to pay for the research this time. Shucks. Go for it...Canada! Edited September 27, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted September 27, 2008 Report Posted September 27, 2008 Right....the US should pursue the research so as not to forfeit their "position".....translation: Damn, someone else is going to have to pay for the research this time. Shucks.Go for it...Canada! Personally, I could give a crap whether the benefits and profits which will arise from this research go to countries and corporations other than the US. Still stupid. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 27, 2008 Report Posted September 27, 2008 Personally, I could give a crap whether the benefits and profits which will arise from this research go to countries and corporations other than the US. Still stupid. Logically then, other governments (including Canada) who have not so invested (to at least US levels) are "stupid"? How do you reconcile the gains made to date for stem cell research in the US with your pronouncement of "stupidity" ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted September 28, 2008 Report Posted September 28, 2008 Logically then, other governments (including Canada) who have not so invested (to at least US levels) are "stupid"? How do you reconcile the gains made to date for stem cell research in the US with your pronouncement of "stupidity" ? If the reasons for them not doing so are grounded in the same ideology then they would also be "stupid". Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.