posted
This article was, to me, an amazing read. Some key points I find most fascinating.
Stem cells are taken from a Blastocyst, or a group of about 200 cells. Simple math tells us the zygote has divided only about 8 or nine times.
California is proposing to take over wher the National Institute of Health can not now go, and fund stem cell research with state funds
The entire idea of "therapeutic cloning" which I see as a sort of stem cell time travel, creating embryonic stem cells that match my own DNA.
The "next medical frontier" of embyronic stem cell research will either be carried out by California alone (creating a veritable stem cell Mecca), be done in nations like Japan and South Korea, or Kerry will get elected.
I don't understand the opposition to this research. On a related topic, I remember in one of the abortion threads a while back, someone posted a link to a statistic concerning miscarriages, and the percentage of fertilized embryoes that do not carry to full term for natural reasons. I would love for that person to post it again, as it was basically what wiped out the religious objection to stem cell research for me, but I can't remember what it was.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am wanting to know more about stem cell research. Has there been any clue as to what it is about stem cells that makes them able to change into other cells? How possible would it be to take, say, a skin cell and turn it into a nerve cell?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, it's important to differentiate between embryonic stem cells and other types. The objection is only with the former. Second, none of those points speak to the primary objection: that the fertilization of an egg results in a human life, and that the creation of a human life for the purpose of experimentation and subsequent disposal is immoral. I can see disagreeing with it, but it's not hard to understand, is it?
And this is really just a minor quibble, but each division of a cell produces 1 new cell, so a 200-cell organism has had a minimum of 199 cell divisions take place. Each cell division is a separate event.
posted
Well Bev, it's the million dollar question. I think if you ask any scientist, they'll tell you that they don't quite know.
Currently, we can't just take differentiated cells and turn them into other cell types. I mean, research has been done concerning this, but it's not terribly easy.
Stem cells haven't made crucial decisions in their differentiation yet, so can be coaxed into becoming certain types of cells much much more easily. I think this is usually done by putting it next to the proper cells to get natural signals.
- I do some research on human cell lines, myself. I grow lung fibroblast cells on petri dishes to harvest protein and crude cell extract for experiments. Mmm, film of lung tissue.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know this was your line of work, dabbler, cool! While I am personally somewhat ambivalent on the origins of *embryonic* stem cells, I am also intrigued by this whole thing and wonder what will come of it. I wonder why a starfish can grow a new arm but I can't. I know there is a complexity difference between me and a starfish, but still. It seems like such a mystery.
It makes sense that a cell already differentiated would have trouble transforming itself into a completely different sort of cell. It seems like even if we knew how to do that, the actual transformation would be problematic. None of this "TNG" stuff where when your genetic structure changes you look completely different in a short period of time--even to the diffenece in hair color. Heh.
But doesn't it seem that if we knew what makes a stem cell a stem cell we could also tell a skin cell to be a nerve cell (even if the transformation couldn't go smoothly)?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 8 or 9 times number comes from the way cell divisions are measured -- by number of "generations" of cells.
There is 1 cell in the 0 generation, 1 (additional) cell in the 1 generation, 2 additional cells in the 2 generation, 4 additional cells in 3 generation. 8 additional cells in the 4 generation, et cetera, this keeping up until cells start dying, but we see that we're adding 128 cells in the 8 generation, which is about where 200 will be reached.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I'm sure the answer of how a stem cell becomes a specific kind of cell requires hundreds, if not thousands, of signals. The complexity of protein interactions in the cell and the nuances of interaction are amazing.
Tomorrow I'll see if I can look up some interesting reviews on embryonic stem cell research. It's time for me to leave work!
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I will revise. i understand the argument. However, I find it very very difficult to entertain. A blastocyst is a mass of cells that is usually about three days into a pregnancy. By contrast, implantation, when the embryo reaches the uterus, doesn't occur until about 7 days in, according to the limited research I have done (which is by no means exhaustive.) It looks like the disputed figure for percentage of fertilized embryoes that actually implant is about 50. That means that these blastocysts, whose humanity is being used to block research that would save tens of thousands of lives and improve countless others, are smaller than than a half a millimeter, and also have less than a 50% chance of becoming human anyway. Even if most of the embryoes that would be used were not frozen in nitrogen, I still find that argument terribly convincing.
I as a human being have to make a choice whether that infinitesimal bundle of cells' rights outweigh all the people this research would help. People who equate embryonic stem cell research with abortion are baffling to me. We aren't talking about a fetus here, with a heart and lungs and head and hands. We are talking about a cell mass that hasn't even implanted yet, that half of all pregnant women will experience as nothing more than an unusually heavy menstrual cycle. If it deserves equal rights, I don't understand how.
The religious argument here is really the only one that makes the slightest bit of sense. If the soul incorporates at the moment sperm touches egg, then even a blastocyst has rights like you or me. But think about the implications of that! That would mean that those souls in the afterlife that came from humans who have walked the earth, even for an instant... people who drew a single breath, would be outnumbered by the souls of those who never even left the womb. If that is the case, then what is the point of this life anyway? If life on earth is supposed to be a period of choice and maturity, and whatnot... in other words, if Life is so important to the spiritual existence of a soul, then how can it possibly be true that most souls don't experience it at all.
I believe, as I have said before, that life begins somewhere in between conception and birth. Whether that is the first heartbeat, the first brain wave, the first movement, the first emotion, some entirely arbitrary point, the point when the fetus can survive outside the womb, whatever, I don't know. Those who would set it as late as the first breath make me uncomfortable. Those who set it too early also make me very uncomfortable, because it just isn't right to value a blastocyst above a possible revolution in bettering and saving lives. So where should it be set? I really don't know. Somewhere in the middle. But it's time to tell the extremists on both sides that they can not make policy for this nation, not policies that will block help for those who most need it, the sick and infirm.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the current policy isn't extremist - it prohibits no research, and limits what will be funded in order to take into account the moral beliefs of a large percentage of voters.
So if you want to be middle of the road, allowing people who don't think it's murder to do it while not forcing those who do think it's murder to pay for it would seem a pretty fair middle of the road position to me.
posted
But, you see, the current policy is like putting the Boot on somebosy's car and then telling them they are perfectly free to drive around anyway. The stem cell lines currently being used are actually restricted from ANY sort of clinical trials. The reason is that they are contaminated with mouse cells and are deemed unsafe for humans. That means that every single result that comes up through the research that the federal government can currently fund is utterly useless to the people who are actually suffering. The research is, at the moment, purely theoretical and/or hypothetical because when the results come through, more blastocysts will still need to be destroyed before the research can be applied in medicine, which will have to be privately funded, and can't take place in labs which recieve federal funding (which is a veritable bar from it actually taking place at all.)
The extremists on this issue HAVE set policy. I honestly believe that granting equal rights and consideration to a 200 cell mass 3 days after fertilization is an extreme on the spectrum. It is only by granting it equal rights with a human being that the current policy makes even a sliver of ethical sense.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Or on the non-religious issue, do you believe a blastocyst has the same right to life, liberty, and property that you and I do?
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Now answer me this... And don't take this as an attack, because I really am curious.
Is life on earth important to the spiritual process? What is God's purpose in placing people on earth to live out mortal lives?
If mortal life is an important step in the spiritual life, and more than half of all spiritual lives do not experience mortal lives, how does this reconcile? It's true that the free will argument absolves God of responsibility for our evil choices, but sureley if he intended for spiritual beings to go through the experience of being mortal... Well, I'm sure you get the question.
I ask because I believed life began at conception until I learned of the vast numbers of "lives" would never even begin under that definition.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and as to how stem cells can turn into other cells... That's what they are designed to do! Imagine, there are only 200 cells that will become every sort of cell in the body. An infant is born with more bones than that! So these cells have to divide and divide and divide to create the mass of the infant, but they also have to specialize. What was once a stem cell becomes a brain cell. Another becomes a bone cell, or skin cell.
As to why removing the stem cells destroys the blastocyst... well the blastocyst doesn't really have that much in the way of extra stem cells. It pretty much takes all of them to get a cell line started. Monzygotic twins (unless I am wrong, which is a distinct possibility) are made a wholly different way. That happens with the very first cell division. Instead of creating the two-cell entity that would then go on to become a four-cell, then a blastocyst, then a fetus, etc (skipping a few steps, of course) it, by some freak accident, forms two completely independent zygotes! Then each of them divides as normal. If I have my facts straight, a monozygotic (politically correct for identical) set of twins is impossible if the very first cell division (a few hours after conception) happens normally. A blastocyst is about three days later, so the two can't really be compared.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I remember in one of the abortion threads a while back, someone posted a link to a statistic concerning miscarriages, and the percentage of fertilized embryoes that do not carry to full term for natural reasons.
So you're saying that the day all natural miscarriages can be prevented, you will join the "from conception" camp? Since forest fires occur in nature, there is nothing wrong with me deliberately setting one? Is that what you are saying? [/leaving thread]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I can answer your question, mainly because I don't know. I know that babies can die, so I know God tolerates souls existing for very short times.
posted
I live in CA, so I will be voting on this issue. And I am torn.
I do not consider a blastocyst a life, exactly -- more like a potential life. But it is more than just "a clump of cells." So while creating embryos just for the sake of stem cells (or anything else that will destroy the embryo) is, IMO, wrong; taking embryos that already exist (say left-overs from IVF) is stickier. Given the potentially life-saving nature of the research, I would personally be inclined to support it.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean I think it appropriate for the State of California to support it.
I haven't definitely decided how I will vote . . . so go ahead, try to sway me. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If mortal life is an important step in the spiritual life, and more than half of all spiritual lives do not experience mortal lives, how does this reconcile? It's true that the free will argument absolves God of responsibility for our evil choices, but sureley if he intended for spiritual beings to go through the experience of being mortal... Well, I'm sure you get the question."
Maybe at the moment of conception God gives us the choice to stay with Him and not to come into this world.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Did you read the New Yorker article I posted? Did you, dag?
Dagonee,
Yes, infant mortality has been around for a long time, but there is a difference. We are talking about those who died before they were even born outnumbering those who took their first breath. If life is an important part of the spiritual process, how can this be so?
The truth is, it's a question we can't answer. This is how I came to my belief that the line where life begins lies somewhere in between. If it's a question without an answer, I'm not willing to set aside all the people suffering from conditions that embryonic stem cell research could help just for the sake of erring on the side of caution.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
My standard argument on that score would be that there are probably millions of Californians (certainly hundreds of thousand) who believe as I do. Given that, it can be seen as a sign of respect for differing beliefs not to force them to support this.
Further, propositions are notoriously difficult for planning purposes - they automatically take their share of the budget, and the legislature either can't or has to jump through hoops to make changes in response to changing conditions and priorities. This is especially problematic in allocating funds for something like medical research. Theoretically, this could lock research money into a proven dead end, although I doubt the money would last long enough to prove that even if embryonic stem cells do turn out to be a dead end.
posted
I skimmed it. It doesn't look like it has anything that wasn't in the 10 or so other articles on the topic that I read in the last month.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stem cells are special in that they are not specifically organized or predisposed to any organ system. Of course, based purely on their positions in the little ball, they will specilize.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it's a question without an answer, I'm not willing to set aside all the people suffering from conditions that embryonic stem cell research could help just for the sake of erring on the side of caution.
I take the opposite tack - possible alleviation of suffering isn't worth the execution of possible human life.
quote:The real test of their convictions will come if the hoped-for cures materialize and if it is their loved ones who are afflicted but could be saved. That will be the crucible.
It worked for Nancy Reagan.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's wonderful, but it's speculation. If we are going to base this on speculation, I'd rather speculate that the soul comes later, so that people who are suffering can be helped by this research.
As for pooka's forest fire analogy, I don't really think it's apt. What I'm trying to get at here is that these failures to implant, these unnoticed miscarriages are natural. Just like forest fires are natural. So I guess I could turn the question back, SHOULD we be trying to stop these embryos from self-aborting? I don't hear anybody speaking out for research into saving the lives of all the embryos that do not implant. After all, this simple defect has taken more "lives" than any plague in history. Probably more than all of them combined.
Forest fires must be allowed to occur, by the way. And, in fact, if you are doing it for a good reason and know what you are doing, you SHOULD do controlled burns once in a while. It may cause a loss in plant life, but that loss pales in comparison to the renewal and revitalizing power the fire can bring, though it may seem terrible for all the squirrels, birds, and shrubs it destroys.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well here. I'll give you an even more horrid choice, Dagonee. Let's just assume for a moment that a blastocyst IS a human with rights of its own. Actually, that isn't good enough. Let's take it to the hypothetical. There is a child who lives on your street. However, this is a magic child. When he dies, all people in the world who are dying of AIDS will be instantly cured. He is a wonderful, healthy boy, inquisitive and smart. He is loved by his family and is the pride and joy of his school. However, an entire population is in the process of being wiped out halfway across the world. You can end it, but the sacrifice is almost too much to bear. Do you kill the boy?
In this situation, I don't think I would have the emotional strength to do what I believe would be right. But I hope that i would kill him. Does that make me a monster?
If you believe that the blastocyst is a human, that doesn't change the fact that this is a moral dilemma on both sides. It isn't black and white.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can end it, but the sacrifice is almost too much to bear. Do you kill the boy?
Absolutely not. And I'd protect him from anyone trying to do so.
quote:In this situation, I don't think I would have the emotional strength to do what I believe would be right. But I hope that i would kill him. Does that make me a monster?
I'm not prepared to call you a monster for a response to a hypothetical. But I find the choice, if actually made, to be evil, and would probably consider you a monster if you did it.
quote:If you believe that the blastocyst is a human, that doesn't change the fact that this is a moral dilemma on both sides. It isn't black and white.
Exactly. A moral dilemna. So why should one side force the other to subsidize their choice in this dilemmna?
posted
And why should the other side withhold funds belonging to all people collectively simply because of their choice in this dilemma? The funds being discussed here do belong equally to those who support embryonic stem cell research, not just those who oppose it. The law has never allowed members of the public to demand tax dollars be spent (or not spent) in specific ways. For some, the moral dilemma is "do we let these people with chronic terminal diseases die simply to avoid offending a portion of the populations' moral sensibilities."
The whole "tax base belongs to everyone" doesn't only fall on one side here.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Klein argues that the debt could be repaid by revenues generated by patents, royalties, and license fees from the research; he likes to say that, unlike most bond measures, which finance things like construction of schools and roads, these bonds will give the state an “upside.”
That's an interesting point Dag. If embryonic stem cell research is so promising, why aren't private companies and foreign governments investing money in it?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I loved working in the States," Dr. X says. The training, the laboratories, the equipment - all were first-rate. So were the colleagues. But because embryonic stem cells are nearly impossible to obtain in the US, this researcher felt it necessary to move to China, even though it meant leaving spouse and children behind. "China," Dr. X says, "is the future."
And private businesses (or rather, universities)are.
quote: UCSF, Stanford and Harvard, among other universities, have set up privately funded programs, in some cases using labs separate from their main campuses, to sidestep the federal restrictions. UCSF and Stanford have raised $11 million and $12 million, respectively, while Harvard reportedly hopes to raise $100 million.
However, the vast majority of funding for research of this type comes from the Federal Government. It simply has the deep pockets to get it done. A state university can't exactly raise a billion dollars to do much of ANYTHING. It's made even more difficult because taxpayer money is also in the facilities themselves. If taxpayer dollars did so much as pave the parking lot for a lab, research would have to be conducted, not only using private funds, but at an entirely separate facility, built specifically for the purpose.
The United States economy is the largest in the world. No small reason that most major medical advances come from here, and the best and brightest medical students from all over the world train here, is that there is a lot of money coming from the Federal Government (National Institute of Health) precisely to find cures, develop new treatments, and create better drugs. Since all of this research is done at government subsidised labs, a ban on federal funding is, in all but name, an almost insurmountable bar to effective research. The private sector is trying, which is why those universities above have separate labs for the purpose of research, but this is the sort of thing the NIH was created for.
Some very promising things have come from China, by the way. As early as 2001, they had given a paralyzed mouse the ability to move its legs. But the best medical research infrastructure in the world is in the United States. If we get on this, it will be done faster, and more effectively.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And why should the other side withhold funds belonging to all people collectively simply because of their choice in this dilemma?
OK, this is an interesting question. Why can't we "earmark" our taxes to be used as we see fit? Obviously some things just need to be done. But when it is a controversial issue, why can't we say at tax time "next year do (or don't) put my tax money towards stem cell research". Seems like the simple solution to this. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We do not fund the individual programs the government participates in, we fund the government as a whole. The government can then decide how it wants to spend money. To create a system where people could "opt out" of specific programs would not only undermine the government's power to get anything done at all, but would create a beaurocratic monster that would eat up vast sums of money.
Believe me, if I could opt out of paying for things, my money wouldn't be developing new and more efficient ways of killing people. Star Wars wouldn't be getting my 1 two hundred and fifty millionth of a penny next year, nor would the "bunker buster" nuclear weapons. But the government has jurisdiction as to how it spends money. The only power the people retain insofar as taxation is concerned is the power of the polls.
Incidentally, there have been numerous attempts throughout American history by citizens to sue the federal government to stop programs, precisely because "it's misuse of my tax money," and SCOTUS has swatted them away like flies. I'm sure Dag can give you case names, but I'm drawing a blank.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't cite the case, but you're right. I'm generally opposed to direct tax allocation like that. But the lack of legal standing over misuse of tax funds does not mean that the moral beliefs of constituents shouldn't be a consideration in legislating policy.
It's one of the strongest reasons I have for considering getting rid of the death penalty, for example.
posted
Huh. I guess that makes sense. It's just that the IRS already does so much involved work into making sure we are paying the right amount of taxes, I didn't think it would be that much more work to volunteer how much money goes where. But I guess since the amount devoted to different programs hasn't even been decided yet, that is pretty meaningless.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I hate to be the scrooge here, but should Californians bear the financial burden for what is essentially something the federal government should be paying for?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They shouldn't. And if Kerry wins, California won't. However, if Bush wins and California passes prop 71, it could have either dire consequences from the lack of federal oversight and budgetary inflexibility, or it could usher in a new age in medicine, by attracting the leading researchers in the leading research nation in the world all into one state, no, one institute where they will solve some of the most pernicious medical scourges of our time. They will also destroy dozens if not hundreds of blastocysts. I am an optimist, so I honestly think that the answer (while certainly somewhere in the middle) would be closer to the latter. Is it California's job? Technically, no. But neither was creating the computer as we know it. Some of the great developments in science and technology in our age have come from California. I don't envy you your decision, rivka, but I know how I would vote. Pass Prop 71.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you voting against it? I haven't read my voter information guide yet. I'm not sure what exactly is in the proposition.
Posts: 1056 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, rivka, I honestly had a feeling you were going to vote no. I agree with you by the way. It shouldn't be a state issue. It should be done by the NIH. And to be perfectly honest, voting no on prop 71 and yes for John Kerry might well have the same result, without the drain on California. In fact, if John Kerry gets elected AND prop 71 passes, then California will actually be competing with the NIH! The NIH would win, by the way. California would end up locked into a huge expense with no guarantee that the patents and corresponding income would even come to that state. So I understand your vote entirely.
Be that as it may, I would still vote yes if I lived in California, because I honestly fear that Bush will be re-elected.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Since forest fires occur in nature, there is nothing wrong with me deliberately setting one? Is that what you are saying? [/leaving thread]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
