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.''"
Yay! (Sort of) (Score:1, Insightful)
Lab Tech 1: "Ok, we're going in, to harvest a few stem cells."
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Oh no you aren't! You're going to kill an unborn life! That's murder!"
Lab Tech 2: "No, we've got a process now where we can safely remove a few stem cells and the embryo will be unharmed and develop normally."
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "What? Really?"
Lab Tech 1: "Yep, 100% safe from killing unborn babies."
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "I don't believe you!"
Lab Tech 2: "Watch." *poit* "There we go, got a stem cell out and the embryo is totally unharmed."
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Gosh! What do you do with the embryo's when you're done?"
Lab Tech 1: "We plant them in women who wish to have a child but can't concieve or volunteers who wish to give them a chance at life."
Lab Tech 2: "Would you like to adopt one?"
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Absolutely not!!! I insist they not be murdered, but I'm no charity, go find someone else to raise it!"
Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
This is similar enough to cloning to trigger the same hostility. I don't really see the difference it will make.
Not to mention the problem of what to do with the excess embryos after the desired number of offspring has been reached. I don't understand how pro-life POV can accept fertility treatments that generate extra embryos.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:1, Insightful)
as an aside: I've adopted two children so some of us practice our beliefs.
hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)
good news, let us see it twisted someday (Score:3, Insightful)
I can just see it now. Bush will claim something like, "By sticking to our upstanding morals, we have driven science further than any other generation ever."
Bush is like a broken path in the Internet. Science will route around him.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense.... as much as the idea that anyone opposed to the death penalty being should be required to take death row inmates into their homes.
The word "harvest". (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish folks would stop using that word and find another one. "Harvest" gets a lot of folks riled up and gives them the impression that people are going to be farmed (or whatever) for their parts.
Yeah, yeah, I know that's not the case, but in this day and age of bumper sticker sound bites, that's all people hear and they don't want to investigate further. They'll just jump to the first two-bit opinion that fits or the opinion that was given to them by a pundit and to hell with the facts.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget where I read this but it illustrates the hypocrisy of the right-to-life kooks.
Your friend is working in an in vitro lab. The place catches fire, do you save your friend or the freezer full of frozen embryos? Most pick the friend.
Well, what now, Karl? (Score:1, Insightful)
KARL: Look, over there! A terrorist plot! Here's a chip for your More Secure[1] passport!
And here's some FAA guidelines to prevent people from bringing liquids onto planes, which will prevent[2] terrorists from hijacking or destroying a plane in flight!
And here's some legislation that will stop[3] terrorists from eating our babies by allowing us to monitor their email and telephone calls without a warrant!
And here's some statements by the Prez that say he can legally[4] ignore any law he wants in the name of NatSec.
[1] Not really.
[2] Not really.
[3] Not really.
[4] Not really.
Ok, I'm done ranting for the day. But seriously, the Fundies are going to have to find a different wedge issue now, especially as we gear up for the Nov elections.
On the down side, what I see coming from this promising research is a "See, if we forbid it, they'll find another, permissible, way to do it" reaction which may or may not be true with the next contentious research issue we face.
Raises a new problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
not the first time I've heard that.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If true, it kinda makes the extreme right a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? Kinda like saying you refuse to sacrifice one life for the sake of another while maintaining a war in the mid-east....but I digress.
Re:A little one-sided (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:mod parent underrated, lol (Score:2, Insightful)
People who are "pro-life" are also "anti-choice" it's true, but the opposite end of the spectrum isn't actually true; the "pro-choice" people aren't "anti-life" at all.
Abortion isn't something women do for recreation, it's a very major life choice. One side beleives a woman doesn't have a right to make a choice, and that having an abortion is evil, while the other side beleives that no matter how evil abortion is or isn't, that taking away a womans right to make that choice is the greastest evil of them all.
Adopt an Embryo (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, while the objection of President Bush and other moderates is killing the embryo, the Catholic Church and real "right wing zealot" Protestants have another deeper objection: the separation of sex and procreation. The idea is that it is fundamentally disordered to separate the two, as we have done since the 1930s. There is an analogous separation of eating and nutrition - also enabled by modern technology. While the Catholic Church has not said anything (that I know of) about the food angle, it is less emotionally charged and may help understand the reasoning concerning sex and procreation (described in full jargon laden glory in The Theology of the Body [amazon.com] and various attempts to explain it to laymen).
Technology enables us to separate eating and nutrition. You can eat without nourishment thanks to Olestra, Aspartame, Sucralose, and friends. You can nourish without eating thanks to IVs, vitamin pills (get your necessary nutrients while eating junk food), feeding tubes, and friends. You can justify the nourishment without eating in various special circumstances - but the attempt to repeat the pleasure of eating beyond the requirements of nourishment is gluttonly and has generally bad results.
Similarly, the attempt to repeat the pleasure of sex beyond the needs of procreation (birth control, gay lifestyle, etc) has generally bad results - physical, emotional, and spiritual.
Re:not the first time I've heard that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's reliable.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pro-choice, but I do think there is a negative moral angle on abortion. I don't think any truly advanced society should have a place for abortion; education, contraception, and societal support for young mothers should completely remove the need for any such thing.
But you know what? The same right wing that preaches so hard against abortion, also preaches against practical sex ed, available contraception for minors, and social services for unwed mothers...not to mention the moral stigma they attach to young unwed mothers.
So don't talk about how you're adopting some of the babies who actually got born...That's the smallest part of what you need to be doing.
Re:We'll see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, I'm not going to go around and pretend like our current US President is doing a great job. But it's tiring to see a supposedly intelligent, educated base like Slashdot fall for the Democrat propaganda machine.
Under Clinton, you couldn't do any research on ESC using federal funds-- at all. This is a bill that Clinton signed into law in 1995. In fact, Bush's rules are less stringent than Clinton's, and yet all we do is demonize Bush for his stance on stem cells. Why is that?
Re:Well, what now, Karl? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, you should distinguish between the set of issues that Dr. Evil, I mean, Karl, use to whip up support, and the set of issues that religious / non-materialist persons care about. For example, Christian's care[d] about killing humans before, while, and after the Republicans use it to get people to go vote.
Not doing evil things is a religious (or as you say, "fundies") / non-materialist issue. Getting people to vote Republican is a Karl Rove issue. If you think they're the same, you're exactly the kind of chump that Karl tries to manipulate to the voting booth.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
And frankly, it's much easier to carry two kids than one adult.
And yet, we need people like Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Religion and science CAN co-exist. Some religions moreso than others, that's clearly obvious, and the level of peaceful co-existance will vary from scientific field to scientific field. And, I would argue, that there is a great benefit that comes from those who question science from outside the scientific perspective. Not always, and great advances may be held back by ignorance, but I would say that sometimes, it is a good thing.
Take this breakthrough, for example. Religious truth aside, we managed to preserve the embryo without permanently damaging it or destroying it. Now, this probably won't matter when it comes to the ones that are frozen and slated for destruction anyhow, as people have noted -- they'll still be gone at the end of the day. But what, I might ask, if even one embryo (in the future) is implanted and grows into something? We came up with something better. A less invasive method that wouldn't have happened had there not been some questioning of the original method.
I realize, of course, that my point there may be a minor one, and a grasp at a straw. That's fine. But consider the danger of many like-minded individuals. While they have a great deal of potential, and may do something very well, they don't tend to see the other side of the coin. It is a "group think" problem. Were it that I had time, I would come up with more examples, but I think the point can lead you, the reader, to your own challenging quesitons.
Religion and science provide much needed diversity to our way of thought. They cannot do so, however, if they don't interact and don't have the ability to interact and encourage (or discourage) each other.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also amazing that we make them work through the requirements at all. It would also be amazing what they could have done if their work had not been bureaucraticly retarded for how many years now? At least they did manage to do it. Give thanks.
Bless Dr Lanza [i-bless.com]
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so this actually does address the Pope's main concern, and reduces stem cell donation to no different than kidney donation. Thus, as a Roman Catholic, I'm ethically satisfied. But the science half is still dissatisfied: What, exactly, does this get us? As we've been arguing all along, unless by some chance you have an exact DNA, RNA, and Mitochondrial match with a living human being who has a disease, the embryonic stem cell is likely to turn into tissue rejection upon growing & implantation. Where Adult Stem Cells don't have that problem. And now that we've even got brain neuron regeneration from adult brain stem cells in the pipeline, exactly what is this discovery good for again?
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:4, Insightful)
And, for the record, screaming "Rape and Incest" in a discussion about abortion, is like screaming "Nazis" whenever you're talking about war. You're not adding anything to the discussion.
Heathy Debate (Score:2, Insightful)
the grandparent poster's parody script (which was quite funny IMO)
Actually it was meant to explore the issue and it has fostered a debate of sorts. The problem, from where I live, is a community crammed with children where social programs have been slashed, education is underfunded and the cost of living is very high. People who do insist upon populating the earth and saving every embryo need to do more than just adopt, they need to do ensure society has a place for them and has the necessary services in place, otherwise they will be debating where the build the next prison to house them as adults.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an area where secular services are needed...We know the churches views on contraception ("Abstinence is good enough for anyone"), sex education ("Don't have sex until you're married, and don't enjoy it or you'll go to hell"), and on adoption ("Even though you're a slut and a whore for having this baby, we'll be willing to take it away from you and raise it to be the sort of kid that you're not").
Frankly, what this issue needs more than anything else is for the goddamn moralists to take a step back. This is a practical problem: women are getting pregant who don't want to be pregnant. There are practical solutions: help women not to get pregnant unless they want to be pregnant. This means education, and healthcare, and a whole bunch of things that the chruch cannot and will not provide.
If we provide these things, the numbers of abortions will decline, and isn't that the fricking point?
Re:off topic, but still... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just human nature. Humans are intrigued by physical action. It..moves them. That's why action movies get most box-office dollars. Kiss-kiss bang-bang.
Re:Heathy Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
People who do insist upon populating the earth and saving every embryo need to do more than just adopt, they need to do ensure society has a place for them and has the necessary services in place, otherwise they will be debating where the build the next prison to house them as adults.
I take it you read "Freakonomics?"
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
The choice isn't between pregnancy and abstinence. It's between pregnancy, spending a bit of money on contraceptives, and abstinence. But if people don't know where to get contraceptives, they will not have the third option.
So now it's the teenage "live-forever-no-consequences" instinct against the prohibitions instilled by their parents, who quite obviously had sex. How do you expect it to turn out? And do you want one mistake to dominate a person's whole life? Or even simply derail it for a year? Because you don't want people to wear a piece of rubber?
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
How about a realistic approach? How about telling kids "Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, and it'd be great if you practiced it. However, that's probably unrealistic, and so here are some ways to protect yourself if you do choose to have sex."
Because, you know, many of them WILL choose to. And which would you rather have? Pregnant teenagers with untreated STDs because they don't know fuck-all about protection and are too ashamed to go and get treatment when they get sick, or teenagers who're at least armed with the information to make an informed choice, and who might avoid some heartace (or worse)?
Abstinence is great, but teaching abstinence only does NOT work.
Re:Off topic, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the negative moral angle? A truly advanced society shouldn't be basing its moral imperatives on rhetoric which doesn't distinguish between various stages of life, such as gamete/embryo/fetus/child (much less the various stages of embryonic development). This "negative angle" which you conceive of is merely the result of a group of ignorant fanatics attempting to put undue guilt on women who are faced with the already difficult choice of whether or not to fully carry a pregancy to term.
The fact that pro-lifers often equivocate abortion to murdering children, and paint pro-choicers to be pro-abortion, or advocating abortion, should show that their argument is fundamentally flawed. If you concede that aborting a pregancy is morally wrong, then what of morning-after pills as a contraceptive option which prevents a pregnancy even after the egg has been fertilized? And what about masturbation? When you carry the logic further based on their false premises, you can come to all sorts of absurd conclusions. Accidents will always happen no matter how advanced a society is. And the fact is, having a child should be a planned out decision, and a woman should have the right to abort an unplanned pregnancy if she has no desire to bear a child.
What is immoral is persecuting women who make a choice about what to do with their bodies realizing that bearing a child is a life-changing event that can't be undone. This persecution can be as extreme as blowing up abortion clinics, or it could be in the form of taking away access to contraceptive drugs, or it could even be passive persecution in the form of placing guilt on young women who have abortions or have ever considered having an abortion. This guilt leads a lot of women to make choices that are not in their best interest and create more social problems that arise from these poorly made decisions. Thus, calling abortion immoral has the same consequences as relating it to murder.
Re:We'll see... (Score:1, Insightful)
It may be emotional bordering on hysterical, and it is often inappropriate, but it's entirely rational.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) Hair-splitting: Incest shouldn't be a separate category here. Either it's Rape of a Minor, assuming one of the parties -can't- consent, or it's Rape if one of the parties -doesn't- consent, or it's just icky consensual brother-sister stuff. I never understood why it's always trotted out like it's a whole new category.
(2) Life of the mother, in my opinion, is a much more compelling reason for termination than anything to do with rape (assuming the two don't overlap).
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:4, Insightful)
And when I say education, I mean education. I don't mean "teach abstinence". I mean "this is sex, this is what goes on, this is what you can catch, and this is how you can do it safely." I'm talking a significant course here, not just a day out of gym class.
The only way to help people make the right descision, is to make sure they have access to all the information. They may go through the whole class and not learn a damn thing, but they have a much better chance than if you'd tried to keep them in ignorance all along.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean if we could cure hemophilia for example, with giving the person a new liver that wouldn't be rejected, it would cause the pharm-co's lose of tons of cash considering each shot a hemophiliac must take for an injuy costs about 1500 dollars. Consider that your average hemophiliac needs about 40-60 shots a year and you are talking BIG cash.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I do believe that the bulk of our societies sex issues have a religious root, and I don't think that adding more religion is the answer, especially since their method of dealing with the problem is basically to deny it exists until a child is born.
The first step is to slow down the number of unwanted pregnancies, and that takes education, and that takes contraception, and since the church is anti-sex ed, and opposed to providing any form of contraception, and only promotes the use of abstinence/"Please god don't let me get pregnant", I don't see how getting them more involved is going to help in any way.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean before or after they're thrown out with the rest of the medical waste?
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
And economics? To minors who think that money is something you ask your dad for more of? I don't think that'll be a compelling argument.
I don't have problems with those things being taught, but they should be only a small part of the total lesson. Those kids should be taught about sex, they should be taught about rape, they should be taught about many different kinds of birth control AND HOW TO USE THEM. They should be taught about abortions, and how to make sure you don't need one. STDs, abuse, health issues, legal issues, the works, all the stuff that we had to learn the hard way.
Re:Yay! (Sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
And my metric is what the embryo/fetus is biologically capable of at that point of development. The human reproductive cycle is well understood and the biology behind it has been extensively studied. Consciousness in the context I was using it in refers to the state of being sentient. Being asleep or "unconscious" does not mean that one is braindead or has lost sentience.
Also, even though gametes are the only haploid cells in a human being, that doesn't mean they don't possess a full set of chromosomes which are expressed in a human being (the monoploid number in humans is the same as the haploid number). If you want to say that gametes aren't human beings because they are haploid cells, then what about a culture of tongue cells or any of the many other types of diploid cells in the human body which can live in vitro and grow and reproduce?
Why not make the distinction based on the abundance of other biological characteristics which are different between embryos and a 3rd-trimester fetus? Or on more fundamental differences such as cognitive capacity or biological complexity?
Re:Hu, intresting that. (Score:3, Insightful)
...much as a coma patient is just another part of the hospital.
Whether you agree with that or not, surely you can appreciate that the issue is more nuanced that you're putting forward.