I am currently working on a persuasive essay for english regarding Stem Cells. I've been getting very deep into the topic and its become very perplexing/interesting. Now my question to fellow hatrackers is whats your opinion, are you for or against it (just wondering on how the average person feels on the subject)? I know of all the morale/religious and political problems that floats with the topic, so it was hard for me to finnaly decide. But i must say im pro Stem Cell research, just because of all the maraculous help it can provide towards the curing of diseases. So, what are your opinions?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I am pro research. Because such a large mass of stem cells are present in both the (I think the placenta or is it the cord?) by products of natural births and the waste of abortion clinics could be used as a viable source of research. Though I can easily understand the view that doing such research is "killing babies" I prefer to point out that the point of stem cell research isn't to just use stem cells as a medical technology for a variety of fields, but it is also to work towards creating a synthetic version that could be mass produced.
I know that my views may be frowned upon, but I do hope that my views will help you Postman.
Posted by Augustine (Member # 9225) on :
I am also pro reasearch, although I am also pro life, which can be looked at as a contradictory statement but try not to. I think abortion is ok only if it is an undeveloped embryo and for good reason. Stem Cell research could save lives in the future and these are undeveloped embryos.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I think it needs to be at least mentioned that there are other sources of stem cells besides embryos. From my understanding, embryonic stem cells are the most usefull type that we know of, but the others certainly have potential as well. I'm somewhat dissapointed that in many people's opinion, stem cells are synonymous with embryonic stem cells.
I have no problem whatsoever with stem cell research in general. However, when it comes to research on embryonic cells, I am a bit more undecided.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think research restrictions need to be relaxed, otherwise the United States is likely to fall behind in a potentially remarkable field of bioscience.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
What isn't often mentioned in the debates is that there are existing lines of stem cells. My school has access to a few. Most research centers do. As these lines were culled from (IMHO) less ethically enlightened times and the damage has been done, I don't see why scientists shouldn't put them to good use the same way they do with everything else.
And, as mentioned above, there are other forms of stem cells not drawn from embryos
For those reasons, I don't see any cause to make a huge fuss over the ethics of stem cells or why gathering support for making new lines is so vital. Our nation has a lot more important concerns and sometimes I wonder if these highly inflammatory issues are deliberately highlighted to draw attention away from real problems.
(my personal opinion: anti-use)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
More lines will eventually be needed anyways, otherwise everyone won't have access to whatever procedures and science comes out of stem cell research.
I don't really see the big argument over getting new lines. The grand majority of embryos being used are ones that would have been DISCARDED anyways. The argument that killing them for stem cells is wrong, but it someone MORE wrong than just plain throwing them away boggles my mind, especially when that argument stands in the shadow of the medical advances that could be made from this research.
I'm pro-research in every way. Let's do it, and do it the right way, and once it's done we'll never have to come back to it again.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Many of those cell lines are contaminated, or so I've heard.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
On a side note, anyone know anything about banking cord blood? All I know is that when I was pregnant, everyone seemed to be "advertising" that. They'd say how important it was, but not a lot of info on why.
I didn't do anything about it. I figured if it was something I had to shell out money for and it was worth doing, the least they could do was to convince me *why* it is so important.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am against embryonic stem cell research for two reasons:
One, I don't like how those embryonic stem cells are acquired. For similar reasons, I (along with most people) am against tests that are dangerous physically or psychologically to humans.
Two, the potential for getting stem cells from other sources seems promising enough that considering the problems inherent in embryonic stem cells, it seems reasonable to me to wait and see if we can avoid embryonic stem cells completely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If it works, they should use it within reason. Especially if it can save lives. I think I saw a special where stem cell research cured a form of chemically induced Parkinson's.
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
Well, yes there are many other sources of stem cells. Everyone contains stem cells in there body, healing is shows that, but those stem cells are only mulitpotent, meaning they can only be one certain type of cell. See with my contradictory statement(in my mind) is that, i would never want to see a living fetus die, but if abortion occurs, dont let that go to waste, such things can come from it. Also the definition of when a human becomes a human is undefined. 5-7 days after fertilization occurs a blastocyst forms. Blastocysts are totipotent, they can become any cell in the entire body. Now in my belief system, something like that has not devolped any brain, or any form of human, it has the potential yes, but not hasnt reached that yet. If scientists were allowed access to those types of cells, i believe SC research would proceed more smoothly. But as many people on hatrack have said, there are many other places for stem cells, and embryonic dosent always have to be tagged to it. Adult stem cells, they help in curring cancer and other blood diseases. There are many ways SC research could be helpful. Too bad its not government funded.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Does anyone know anything about umbilical cord stem cells? A while back I heard that they might even be as versatile as embryonic cells. Haven't heard much since then, though.
Really, that's my biggest problem with the whole embryonic stem cell debate. It seems like we could sidestem most of the controversy if we put more focus into alternative stem cell sources.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I think stem cell research is very exciting and I am interested in seeing further developements.
So many people seem to think that means we have to use killed embryos. That's not true. There are many other ways to get stem cells, and they are being researched.
It's a little known fact that not a single person has been cured as a direct result of embryonic stem cells. Stem cells from alternative means have saved hundreds of lives already.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheDisgruntledPostman: If scientists were allowed access to those types of cells, i believe SC research would proceed more smoothly. But as many people on hatrack have said, there are many other places for stem cells, and embryonic dosent always have to be tagged to it. Adult stem cells, they help in curring cancer and other blood diseases. There are many ways SC research could be helpful. Too bad its not government funded.
I don't know that much about the current US rules on this. My understanding is that government funding for stem cell research is allowed, except on embryonic stem cells obtained from embryos killed 2001 or thereafter. However, it is not illegal. Am I wrong?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but the potential for embryonic stem cells is also greater. Growing new organs isn't going to be done with adult stem cells taken from bone marrow.
More research needs to be done before it can be dismissed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I support it, but only for the purposes of playing god.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Oh, I'd think we're decades away from figuring out how to make organs without making babies first. It may sound easy, but it isn't. And we can get stem cells from germ cells, umbilical cords, and adults without killing babies.
In my opinion, the ends don't justify the means if you have to kill embryos to get the stem cells.
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
Well in the book im reading on the subject for my essay "stem cell now" (very good and informative book). Christopher Scott mentions how people are confusing Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning/Theraputic Cloning with Genetic Cloning. What they are trying to do with SC is to clone the cells, so there are more of them. With Theraputic cloning, a blood cell SC would be removed for instance, than cloned to make more of that certain cell. Its quite interesting. No human cloning, that just gives SC research a bad rep.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Who are you responding to?
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
either im going crazy, but i thought i read pre-reposting someone talking about cloning (god all these hours of no sleep more work are killing me)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Oh, I'd think we're decades away from figuring out how to make organs without making babies first. It may sound easy, but it isn't. And we can get stem cells from germ cells, umbilical cords, and adults without killing babies.
In my opinion, the ends don't justify the means if you have to kill embryos to get the stem cells.
You'd rather them just throw the embryos away and not get any use out of them at all?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I think if you have to kill human life to get them, yes. Throw them away. However, you don't have to kill human life to get stem cells. You can get stem cells from miscarriages, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cords.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Throwing them away doesn't kill them? What, do they gestate independent of the womb and preserved in a medical waste bin?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Yanking them out of the womb killed them. Or growing them in a petri dish and not implanting them in a womb killed them. Don't be dense.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
In theory, experimenting on embryos that are going to be dead anyway for an extremely good cause honestly doesn't bother me much. But if it were to in any way lead to more embryos being dead, I would have serious problems.
So that is why I do have some concerns with embryonic stem cell research--the fear that one might lead to the other.
Kinda like the fear that the selling of organs could lead to people losing them against their will.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I see this just like I do cloning, why the hell would you be so afraid of it if it can vastly benefit our level of technology.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yanking them out of the womb killed them. Or growing them in a petri dish and not implanting them in a womb killed them. Don't be dense.
I'm not dense, I'm wondering at your moral ambiguity that says either it is or isn't okay for them to be killed via lack of implantation/womb yanking, but that regardless of that fate, using them in research that might save millions of lives is WORSE.
Perhaps you can clear up the confusion.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
The ends don't justify the means. It's that simple, Advent. There are some roads too dark to take no matter what nebulous benefits might come out of them.
Please realize that cloning experiments cause the death of lots and lots of created human embryos as they try to keep the created embryos alive longer and longer. That's basically experimenting on human babies. And what great benefits will you get from cloning humans anyway? We've got plenty of humans produced the regular way.
Embryonic stem cell research also comes from the deliberate killing of human embryos.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Embryonic stem cell research also comes from the deliberate killing of human embryos.
Does it, Theaca? I don't know enough. Can they use tissue from embryos that died for other reasons? Or are they creating zygotes in a petri dish and then killing them?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I think if you have to kill human life to get them, yes. Throw them away. However, you don't have to kill human life to get stem cells. You can get stem cells from miscarriages, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cords.
*points to post*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yes, I read that. I simply don't know enough about what is *possible*. Your statement that I quoted above implied that you *have* to deliberately kill embryos in order to do the research. Hence the confusion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, You don't have to kill embryos for the express purpose of doing research with them. Embryos from things like abortions or the left overs from some types of medical fertilization/implantation are just as useful.
I don't think Theaca realizes that this is what Lyr is talking about though, the choice between throwing these embryos away or doing stem cell research with them. As far as I understand it, this is actually the central question in the stem cell research debate.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
OK, that's what I assumed, but I also tend to assume that Theaca knows more than I do on this subject. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Um, those embryos are still deliberately killed for one reason or another. So I'm still against abortion or medical fertilization cell research.
However, you can use naturally miscarried babies for research, with the family's permission, and that would be similar to organ donation. I'm in favor of that.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I would've happily donated my miscarriage to scientific research if I had known it were possible.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Actually, embryonic stem cell research DOES always cause the deliberate death of embryos in all cases at this time. Here is a quote that is a pretty good explanation:
“At the current state of technology, (embryonic stem-cell research) requires the intentional destruction of a human being...That living and growing embryo is then destroyed when it is five to seven days old to harvest its stem cells" ---Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia who holds a doctorate degree in neuroscience from Yale University.
Since it is impossible to catch a spontaneous miscarriage as early as 7 days of age, every single embryonic stem cell is obtained by deliberately creating and then destroying a human being.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Theaca, But you're not answering the question. Given that these things are going to happen, is it actually worse to use the discarded embryos to try to cure other people than it is to throw them away?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So, if someone wanted to get pregnant invitro, and they created say, a dozen embyos, as is really the norm for such a process. Then let's say the woman used half a dozen of those in the process, got pregnant and wanted the rest to be gotten rid of.
Would you, or would you not support the use of those other half dozen embryos for research?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If she's right, abortions wouldn't count either. You can't know that you are pregnant that early on because technically, you aren't until implantation occurs.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
If I murdered you today and took your heart, you'd be dead. Since you are dead, you won't need your heart anymore, so I'll just give it to Fred over here. After all, you don't need it anymore.
No. It's immoral and circular logic. The ends don't justify the means. Don't produce the embryo for stem cells. Don't kill a fetus for stem cells or salvage stem cells from aborted tissue. Use other types of stem cells. I feel like I keep saying the same thing.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Would you, or would you not support the use of those other half dozen embryos for research?
I would not support that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, you don't support harvesting the organs of a murder victim?
edit: To explain, these embryos are created and destroyed whether there is research done on them or not. The choice offered here is not whether or not they'll be created but not brought to term, but whether they'll be used in research or discarded.
edit 2: As such, saying "Don't create them in the first place." isn't really an answer. They're going to be created (or not) independently of whether or not they are going to be used for stem cell research.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Of course I do. IF the next of kin, or the dead man himself, want him to be a donor. Otherwise, no.
The baby did not get a say, and the people who created it are the ones who destroy it.
The embryos should never have been made in the first place. They have no say, no advocate.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
The point that they are they are trying to make is that the embryos are not being created for the purpose of stem cell research. They are being created for other reasons, and then being used for stem cell research.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But they WERE made. You can't stop that, and I don't think you'll ever be able to. Were the new abortion laws that some are trying to come up with to pass, it would outlaw abortion, but it wouldn't outlaw invitro fertilization.
I know you disagree with the creation and destruction of embryos, but the fact of the matter is, they are still there, and they WILL be killed, there's nothing you can do to stop it. You'd rather them just die and help no one, than die and possibly help others?
That's exactly the same as saying a murder victim's organs should go to waste, regardless of what the family wants.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
*sigh*
So I disagree with making embryos for any reason. OK? And there is no informed consent when the parents or the scientists are the ones discarding the embryo. So it's still wrong in my book to use the tissue.
Most embryos made are destroyed or die off for one reason or another during the creation, petri growth, or implantaion. That's reason enough for me to be against the process. Human life needs moe respect than that.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Theace, You are really, really not answering the question - in fact, you're again answering the question that people have explicitly said they aren't asking - and I don't know how to state it any clearer than it's been stated by three different people now.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I don't understand what you don't get.
I'm being as clear as I can.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Restate the question? I'm not dodging anything. I'm being as clear as I know how to be at 2am.
I say it's wrong to use the material gotten from created embryos. No matter why they were made. No matter what magical outcome could be invented. It's unethical and it's a path we shouldn't take.
And I don't believe that doing this to embryos is even necessary to stem cell research when we have all these other ways to get stem cells.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, that actually answers the question of what to do with them after they are made instead of the whether or not to make them question you kept answering.
So you do think it's worse to use them to cure other people than it is to throw them away.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Most embryos made are destroyed or die off for one reason or another during the creation, petri growth, or implantaion. That's reason enough for me to be against the process. Human life needs more respect than that.
I don't think I'm understanding you here, Theaca. For clarification, are you saying you're against the entire in vitro fertilization process?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Yes and yes.
Although, again, not one single person has been cured from embryonic stem cell research so far. So there ARE no lives being saved yet, meanwhile stem cells from other places ARE saving lives. But most people act like if we don't use 7 day embryos for this, and the government won't use funds for it, that we're holding up progress. We aren't, at least not yet.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
As a test-tube baby I'm slightly offended.
There are a lot of people who would never be able to have kids without this process.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
It's the official position of the Catholic church, Juxtapose. Part of it has to do with fact that it is a process that skips marital sex completely. But my non-religious objections focus on the fact that to give you life, Juxtapose, there were probably several other embryos that were destroyed or frozen. As a prolife person, I'm against that whole process. Using those embryos for stem cell research would therefore be wrong too.
I certainly don't care when other people do it, it's legal, and I rejoice when babies are born, but, I'm not going to say it's ok with me to mess with human embryos in a laboratory. For any reason.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You're consistant, I'll give you that. No hard feelings or anything. I didn't realize it was an official position, but I'm glad to have learned something. Out of curiosity, is it also a policy that conception should only happen through (marital) sex? Besides the immaculate variety, of course.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I am very much in favor of stem cell research.
But brain no worky too good right now, so I can't write out a good explanation at the moment.
-pH
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Pretty much, Juxtapose. Using a turkey baster or laboratory are both considered wrong. However, there is one kind of infertility method where they take sperm collected after normal, marital sex and they take an egg from the wife and they place both of these into the uterus in hopes that they will unite. This works if the sperm is unable to swim to the egg on its own for various reasons without intervention. Some sources seem to think this might be ok. It seems ok to me, I think.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Just a couple of thoughts to balance out the buzzwords:
I'm "pro-life" too. I think humans are wonderful things with wonderful potential. I'm so "pro-life" that I think it's well worth the destruction of a dozen or so unintelligent masses of cells to that a baby can be born into a family that loves him so much they are willing to pay thousands of dollars just for the chance of having him.
I think human life deserves way more respect than it gets a lot of the time. To me, though, stem-cell research is important because we value human life so much. Even if such research doesn't lead to 'miracle cures', it will undoubtedly lead to better understanding of human life and development. I think the chances are very good that it would therefore lead to vast improvements in medicine and understanding of aging even if only indirectly.
I disagree with the "magical thinking" arguement above. Sure if we already had 10 more years of science in other areas it might make current SC research or even Embryonic SC research (hereafter ESC) more productive, but that doesn't mean what's going on now is worthless because we aren't farther ahead in other areas. It's just as likely that ESC research will advance the areas of human genome and cell decay research as it is the other way around.
I think there is a lot more potential to ESC and other research than we hear about, precisely because of fears of being accused of "playing god". Want to postpone or eliminate aging/death? Playing God. Want to learn to improve the human body at a genetic level? Playing God. Personally, if there is a God, I think it's very arguable that we were meant by Him to "play god". And if in your playing you find a way to give us advantages that improve the quality of our lives, I say "Play away". After all, many people consider themselves "children of God". Human children play at being human adults all the time. Why shouldn't children of God play at being God?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KarlEd, while I agree with your last statement to some extent, I think that there is so much power in unlocking genetic power that there is a lot of responsibility that comes with it. This power should not be taken lightly, and we always need to think about the consequences. The movie GATTACA comes to mind. There really are a lot of ethical things to consider as we do unlock these mysteries.
Call me conservative. I don't like to rush into anything.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bev, I'm 100% with you on that. I agree that there needs to be caution. However, I disagree with the notion (not that you've offered it) that because something is dangerously powerful it should therefore never be explored.
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
i can see theres alot of dispute of the killing of a human embreyo for research, but there's a big question to go with it. Just when are humans considered human? Some scientists want to raise a fertilized embryo to its blastocyst stage, 5-7 post fertilization. Is that hollow cell considered human, or just a ball full with genetic information?
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Karl,
Have people ever been particularly cautious with this sort of research and these kind of groundbreaking ideas? My understanding of scientific history is that you simply follow the path the knowledge takes you. Somtimes, like with nuclear power and weapons, and chemical weapons and that sort of thing, society and governments place restrictions and bans on things, and in the medical field ideas that eventually prove to be ridiculous, or immensely harmful may be dropped but if embryonic stem cell research yields enormous dividends I don't see anyone putting the breaks on it, Ethan Hawke and Malcom McDowell movies or not.
Additionally I'd like to give Squicky props for that great first post, loved it .
Additionally I'm all for it, and I tend to often wonder how many people fighting it, would continue to fight it if diseases and disorders potentially proved to be cured in the distant future that directly effected them. I do not direct this at Theaca specifically, but rather at the general populace that fights things like this when they are vague, general concepts but develop distinctly different points of view when issues directly effect them.
Anyway, I imagine the rules will be relaxed once the current administration is bounced in a few years, and states like California already appear to be fighting hard to be development central for the research in the country in the future. I believe Arnold is already fighting hard for California to be the frontrunner in research in this area just as Silicon Valley was a mover and shaker in the computer, hardware and software industry over the past four decades.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheDisgruntledPostman: i can see theres alot of dispute of the killing of a human embreyo for research, but there's a big question to go with it. Just when are humans considered human? Some scientists want to raise a fertilized embryo to its blastocyst stage, 5-7 post fertilization. Is that hollow cell considered human, or just a ball full with genetic information?
That's the crux, and it has always seemed rather apparent that most of the religiously devout, will never bow to anything post-conception. Note the term "baby" used interchangeably by so many on the pro-life/anti-stem cell research side for anything post conception no matter how simplistic in form.
I don't really think agreement will ever be possible with those truly hardened onto either side of the issue. Fair enough, I think both sides are motivated by their heart as much as anything and that's what is most important. I appreciate the civility in the thread as normally this kind of issue gets my cranky pants on in a hurry, hopefully I haven't offended anyone .
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: Karl,states like California already appear to be fighting hard to be development central for the research in the country in the future. I believe Arnold is already fighting hard for California to be the frontrunner in research in this area just as Silicon Valley was a mover and shaker in the computer, hardware and software industry over the past four decades.
It just sounded like a huge waste of money to me as I've read about California. Deliberately spending tons and tons of California tax money on research with embryonic stem cells obtained post 2002 sounded ridiculous. I don't think we're at the point yet where it is so necessary (to researchers) that that particular type of stem cell is more necessary to study than all the other types, which are NOT prohibited from using federal monies. Seems like a big waste of money. How do the Californians who know something about the issue feel about it, I wonder.
(edit to add: since the only cells not allowed federal moneys are stem cells made since 2002, then I wonder. Aren't there any embryonic stem cells made in 1999, 2000, 2001? Save California a ton of money to just do that instead and use federal grants for their researches. But maybe I'm missing something, since I am against it in the first place?)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Theca: most early strains of stem cells became contaminated before people realized the research value of an uncontaminated strain. The total number of federally eligible uncontaminated strains not unvailable for other reasons is extremely, extremely small.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Ok, if that is true, what about the rest? If federal funds can be used for all kinds of research including all stem cell research except embryonic ones, and we still have much, much to learn about those available stem cells, then is it worth spending all this California tax money to focus on the one thing we can't use federal funds for?
If I lived in California and I realized where all that money was being channeled into, I'd be pretty upset even if I were a fan of embryonic stem cell research. Significant advances that are practical are years away, at least. Meanwhile the federal law could always be changed, this is still a major ongoing debate. So choosing to divert all those funds now seems like a terrible use of California funds.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I would be angry about that use of money too.
I'm waiting for someone to prove that we need embryonic stem cells to further the research that will cure everything. You hear about it all the time, but as Theaca has said...no one has done it. No one has cured or saved anyone with embryonic stem cells. ON the other hand, some fascinating and wonderful things are being accomplished with adult stem cells. Why are we not focusing on that? We already have success in the area, and they can be obtained without any moral question at all.
I'm all for donating cord blood, too. Like Theaca, I'd love to see significant advances toward curing diseases made with stem cell research, I just don't see the necessity to use embryonic stem cells, especially when ALL the current success hasn't come from that source.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't follow that argument. Just because something hasn't produced results yet doesn't mean that it won't. You don't stop when you find something good, you keep going until all options have been exhausted. Besides, until it is studied, you don't know whether or not it will be less or more effective than the other stem cells being used. I say explore every avenue, and every option.
Also, not ALL of that California money is being used specifically for embryonic stem cell research, some of it is being used on other forms of SC research as well. I don't see the problem with that, they want to bring bio-tech firm business to California so that when the advances are realized, they will be the ones to reap the benefits. It's an investment, governments make them all the time. They want to corner the market, and they are well on their way to doing so. Researchers will flock to California to develop new technologies and techniques.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't follow that argument. Just because something hasn't produced results yet doesn't mean that it won't. You don't stop when you find something good, you keep going until all options have been exhausted. Besides, until it is studied, you don't know whether or not it will be less or more effective than the other stem cells being used. I say explore every avenue, and every option.
Also, not ALL of that California money is being used specifically for embryonic stem cell research, some of it is being used on other forms of SC research as well. I don't see the problem with that, they want to bring bio-tech firm business to California so that when the advances are realized, they will be the ones to reap the benefits. It's an investment, governments make them all the time. They want to corner the market, and they are well on their way to doing so. Researchers will flock to California to develop new technologies and techniques.
And there it is. If California corners the market, we can and will produce the veritable brain drain of scientists across the country working in this field and potentially tangential fields. Others actually in the industry can speak more effectively to the issue, but making California the spearpoint in this specific research and development area can only help the state not hurt it.
As for why esc instead of just stem cells, or cord blood cells, all the scientists I've heard discuss the issue have stated that esc's have by far the highest potential in this area of research, there isn't an equality or equivalency between adult and embryonic stem cells, esc's apparently hold far more promise and possibility in the field.
So suffice it to say, that's where the research should continue to go, I have no issue with augmenting research with cord blood extracted cells, and adult stem cells but I'll follow the scientists expertise when it comes to this. It may take time, but all research takes time, and evolves over time, and I'm more than happy for researchers to take as much time as they need, this is far too important to shunt aside simply due to time issues, or minor fiscal issues which could and would likely be rendered irrelevant with the passage of time.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If laboratories were willing to pay for stem cells, and it were federally funded to perform research on them (after 2002) would there be people who 'donate' their embreyos to the labs for money, much like sperm donors do now? Perhaps this is a concern of pro-lifers. I don't know, since I'm not deeply informed on the positions of various groups, but reading the thread that is a thought that occured to me.
Edit: Added deeply
[ March 13, 2006, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Perhaps this is a concern of pro-lifers.
Very much so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If California corners the market, we can and will produce the veritable brain drain of scientists across the country working in this field and potentially tangential fields.
Not to mention the holy grail of bio-research: basic patents.
I'm not sure how you could look at "focusing our money into a predicted highly valueable/useful area that other people aren't working on" and come away angry at the misuse of money. To me, it looks like a really smart bet, albeit one available only to places, like California, that have the size to go it alone.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Mmmm. IF that is all true, and it pans out.
Since I don't live in California, and don't really understand the situation, I'm not angry, though. I do have doubts that things will pan out. I wonder if there will be a huge waste of funds thrown into building things or for researching unlikely projects that could have been put to better use. Furthermore, I wonder if the funds will dry up in a couple years when public opinion changes and leave all those researchers with half finished, useless information. I suppose I should do some reading when I get a chance.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
EDIT: Oh, hey, second page. Who knew?
Theaca is answering the question, and her answer makes sense to me.
I don't feel like searching, but I remember reading about how the results of the experiments Nazi doctors had conducted on concentration camp inmates were sealed, rather than being used. The situation is a much better analogy, I think, to Theaca's point of view than that of the murder victim (because, as she noted, the victim or his next of kin gives permission--and the parents of such a fetus are not morally able, in her view, to give this permission because of their complicity/culpability in its death). I seem to recall the phrase "tainted fruits" being used in what I read, though I could be making that up. Basically, the idea was that using the Nazi research would in a way justify it, and make us perhaps more indifferent to the evil from which these ends might come. If you believe all abortion is murder and should be illegal, how much more of an uphill fight will that be once we have grown more attached to the wonderful research results from embryonic stem-cell research?
I don't know if agree with Theaca, because, while I am opposed to abortion in general, I don't know that unimplanted embryos "count," in my book. But if I were convinced that unimplanted embryos deserved legal protection, then my stance would perfectly mirror Theaca's.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I don't like to rush into anything.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't think we're at the point yet where it is so necessary (to researchers) that that particular type of stem cell is more necessary to study than all the other types, which are NOT prohibited from using federal monies. Seems like a big waste of money. How do the Californians who know something about the issue feel about it, I wonder.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)