New Hope for Stem Cell Research 466
ExE122 writes "A new scientific breakthrough allows scientists to harvest stem cells without harming the embryo. From the article: ''We have shown that we can not only generate stem cells without destroying the embryo, but that the remaining embryo also has the potential to go to on create a healthy blastocyst' said Dr Lanza, whose team's research is published in Nature. Asked if he expected the advance to satisfy President Bush, Dr Lanza said: 'Well, as you know, the President objects to the fact that you would be sacrificing one life to save another, and in this instance there is no harm to the embryo.''"
Re:Another possibility (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks to the embargo on stem cell research, someone is making a fortune off nervous new parents by storing this stuff just in case something awful happens. Graaarrr.
off topic, but still... (Score:5, Informative)
Pro-life liberals outnumber pro-life conservatives but they get almost no press.
Re:not the first time I've heard that.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
For an interesting perspective on the impact of life and culture in the future without the benefit of cloned organs - try reading some of Larry Nivens works. (I think Limits is the collection with the stories of a detective who goes after black market organ harvesters.)
Re:Irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:War Protests (Score:3, Informative)
1) abortion
2) IVF
3) death penalty
4) war
5) George W. Bush
6) the Republican Party, which has gone off the deep end
There just don't seem to be enough of us to rival the rest of the voting population.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:2, Informative)
Evil, malevolant Bush never decreed from his mountain that harvesting stem cells from embryos were banned, or sent you to prison, or damned your soul to eternal torment. There is simply no federal funding on the stem cell research when harvested from an embryo.
Scientists actually made new discoveries and made their methods more efficient because of the legislation! Imagine if there were restrictions placed on oil research back when it was first discovered as a fuel source. Either people would have researched other solutions or private investors would have furthered the original research.
Science doesnt come to a complete halt when the US government decides not to pay for it.
Re:We'll see... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We'll see... (Score:5, Informative)
The bolding was done by me.
Re:not the first time I've heard that.... (Score:2, Informative)
"Each year, thousands of laboratory-facilitated embryos no longer needed in the treatment of fertility are routinely discarded." (http://hatch.senate.gov/newsite/index.cfm?FuseAc
From (drumroll, please...) Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah.
Totipotent vs. multipotent, and the Hayflick limit (Score:3, Informative)
There is also the issue of that ol'Hayflick limit, cells from an adult are 'older', they have a more limited number of times they can duplicate themselves before errors start showing up. Each time an adult cell divides, it's telomoric DNA gets shorter, and short telomeres lead to increases in copying errors (aka somatic mutations). Cells from the blastocyst ("embryonic cells") still make telomerase, which repairs the telomeres. Adult cells don't (unless they are cancerous, but we don't want them8-0).
This is one big problem with adult stem cells as cures for older folks, older folks have cells that have been duplicated many more times than younger adults, their 'stem cells'; if you grow their cells outside of their body to make new organ tissue, the resulting organ tissue is even 'older' (has been duplicated more times) than the patient's original organ tissue. Thus a new heart grown from an adult's stem cells will likely have a shorter lifespan than the person from whom the stem cells came.
Re:off topic, but still... (Score:4, Informative)
Could you supply a link with data supporting this?
There is a lot of gray area here. There are also pro-choice "conservatives." Theoretically, more "traditional" conservatives would argue for liberty over regulation and would not attempt to make this a federal issue.
That said, you're also going to find a lot of people, liberal and conservative, who may not think abortion is an option for themselves. Yet that does not mean those very same people wouldn't view abortion as a personal choice that others should be allowed to make.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:4, Informative)
Objecting to unfettered experimentation on human subjects by researchers without any concern for the well-being of the subjects? Perfectly valid, and I'd be one of those shouting against such research.
Superstitious objections based on "My holy book says you can't use the color red" and similarly flimsy/absurd arguments? Should be ignored.
There's a middle ground between these two extremes, however, where the line is not so clear. At that point, discussion and debate and inquiry need to take place. And yes, while that discussion and debate and inquiry happens, some people will die, and that's very unfortunate. However, I think it would be much more unfortunate for humanity to completely abandon any sense of ethics in the pursuit of progress.
How many lives can be saved by having a treatment come a little sooner? I don't know. How many lives would be spent if we had a society hell-bent on progress with no regard for human life? I don't know, but the 20th century gives us some pretty damn good estimates...
I disagree with the notion that embryo == full-fledged human being, but as I said in my previous post, disagreeing with someone does not mean that I cannot understand and respect their views if their views are sensible, self-consistent and based at least somewhat on reality. I will not dismiss someone as an idiot if they say they have a moral objection to destroying embryos during research. I would dismiss someone as an idiot if they say "Well, you're not killing babies anymore, but now you're playing god, so stop it!" I would also dismiss someone as an idiot and a monster if they were to say that *ANY* restrictions on research should be removed.
Like this chap? (Score:3, Informative)
Hu, intresting that. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, no matter what you do, women will have abortions by inducing miscarrages, often in unhealty ways. By making it illegal, you are trading potential lifes for actually lifes of women everywhere.