Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Successful Stem Cell Research - From Adult Cells

Posted by: Shamalama 29-Jul-2005, 02:13 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,16074826,00.html QUOTE SWEDISH researchers have created new functioning brain cells from stem cells drawn from the brains of living adults, sparking hope that effective treatments for devastating illnesses like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's could be at hand, media reported overnight. Neurosurgeons withdrew the stem cells from the brains of adults during routine surgery for hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, a researcher at the Stockholm Karolinska Institute told the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet. As long as an agent was present to induce cell division, the extracted stem cells created new and working brain cells. "So far we have managed to produce several millions of new cells from the original stem cells. About 25 percent of them are (active) neurons," Ulf Westerlund, who presented his doctoral thesis on the subject last week, told the paper. Maybe now we can leave the embryos alone. It was said on Science Friday on NPR three weeks ago that adults stem cells would never yield brain cells due to the processes that are required, and those who said otherwise were wrong, and they were preventing people from living a full life because their diseases could not be cured, etc. Now it seems that it is possible that adult stem cells can be used for this, and with other Swedish research it has been found that adult stem cells can be used for any way that fetal stem cells can be used. Isn't this what the "evil right wing naysayers" in the Bush administration have said all along was possible? Now the Liberals will say that embryonic stem cells become anything, while adult stem cells are specialized and can only be what they are programmed to be. I'm still waiting on the data to prove this one out. So far, for all the hype, embryonic stem cells are spending a lot of time doing nothing in the labratory. It is funny that Sweden, the 2nd country to allow abortion, is doing research on adult cells, don't you think? There is nothing in their government stopping them to use embryonic cells, but they chose adult cells here.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 29-Jul-2005, 02:43 PM

Wow, that's exciting information. But what are we to do with the unwanted embryos now?

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2005, 08:51 AM

I think that mankind has only begun to scrape the surface of medical knowledge and technology. So to me, this kind of news is uplifting considering how eager so many people are to destroy life in order to prolong life. I have heard several times that there are stem cells in the umbilical cord and placenta that are just as valuable as those found in the embryo. If this is true, why would anyone insist on those cells from the embryo and not from another source?

Posted by: CelticCoalition 02-Aug-2005, 10:12 AM

Well, this is the way I think about it. If you are going to abort the fetus, why not put that ebryo to good use? Why not use it to prolong or create better lives, instead of just tossing it away? Course, I don't know if that's what is done...perhaps aborted fetuses can't be used or something. But if these are what are used...then why not? Let some good come out of these lost lives.

Posted by: Shamalama 02-Aug-2005, 03:59 PM

Good thinking, Brother CelticCoalition. But when aborted fetuses become profitable, then abortion will become profitable. I can easily see that this would lead some to get pregnant just to be able to sell their aborted baby to a lab (or the black market) - the stem cells would probably be quite valuable. Yes, I know about the "throwaway embryos" in fertility clinics being used for research, and therefore there isn't anything "meaningful" lost in the process. I'm just worried about a very slippery slope here.

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2005, 05:44 PM

QUOTE (Shamalama @ 02-Aug-2005, 04:59 PM) Yes, I know about the "throwaway embryos" in fertility clinics being used for research, and therefore there isn't anything "meaningful" lost in the process. I'm just worried about a very slippery slope here. You have expressed my sentiments brother Shamalama. Let me just also say, that the combination of the potential of profitability in the abortion industry as it applies to stem cells, and that of gene splicing technology and cloning, provides the perfect recipe that amounts to humans being custom ordered, excluding the natural process, and lowering our society to one of Frankestienism. Of course, this could just be an overactive imagination coupled with conspiracy theory.

Posted by: Swanny 02-Aug-2005, 06:17 PM

Every new technology has the capacity for both good and evil. Do we wish to throw away the good for fear of evil? As these new technologies are further explored we humans have a responsibility to weigh both factors. No matter how badly some wish it, abortion isn't likely to be outlawed in the United State any time soon. So long as sex remains popular and people's attitudes about reproductive responsibility remains lax at best, then abortions will be performed. The legality of abortions is immaterial, they will be performed. Now, being a 100% red-blooded American heterosexual alpha-male guy, I don't have a dog in the abortion fight. I feel pretty certain that I'll never need or want an abortion. However, it seems seems to me that if abortions are going to be performed any good at all that might be derived from an otherwise tragic circumstance should at least be considered and explored. Certainly the ethical concerns and issues must be considered, but not matter what is decided you can bet that a very large number of people are going to be unhappy with the dicision. Swanny

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Aug-2005, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (Swanny @ 02-Aug-2005, 07:17 PM) No matter how badly some wish it, abortion isn't likely to be outlawed in the United State any time soon. So long as sex remains popular and people's attitudes about reproductive responsibility remains lax at best, then abortions will be performed. The legality of abortions is immaterial, they will be performed. Swanny's right about that, I believe. It's never going to become profitable to get pregnant intentionally to abort a fetus for science and get paid -- the supply is too ready, and neither end of the process is as quick and simple as you might think. There are also spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") with usable tissue. It is a delicate matter, because it is almost always a painful emotional issue for the parents who have experienced loss. But then, so is the donor side of many vital organ transplant stories, and in those situations the voluntary donation of a loved one's heart, corneas, and so forth becomes a healing to both families. The question remains -- is a fetal stem cell (whether from the cord or from the fetus itself) more pluripotent (="can go more ways to make a greater variety of cells") than an astrocyte sampled from a mature individual? (Those are the little star-shaped cells in human brains that take on needed shapes and functions, and are not tightly predetermined. They've known about them for a long time. Now it seems there is a little more control over what they may become on external demand.) The answer, until quite recently, was thought to be "yes." This new development is thought-provoking and calls for a lot of deeper investigation, if it was rigorously arrived at and can be replicated through trials. Part of that is controlled comparison of how effective each type is. You can't do that with one type eliminated from the trials. But these announcements tend to come very early with all their political implications swinging. I would say it is not a reason to call off existing lines of research, if the ethical climate is not doing so already all by itself.

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2005, 09:49 PM

QUOTE (Swanny @ 02-Aug-2005, 07:17 PM) No matter how badly some wish it, abortion isn't likely to be outlawed in the United State any time soon. So long as sex remains popular and people's attitudes about reproductive responsibility remains lax at best, then abortions will be performed. The legality of abortions is immaterial, they will be performed. Swanny, I appreciate your honest and thoughtful expressions. There is a big "however" though. And that applies to those of us who view abortion as the single most egregious act ever to be sanctioned by the federal government. That is how I feel, with abortion-on-demand topping the chart. Considering this point of view, I think that "not wasting", or "making some good" from aborted fetuses would eventually, assuming of course that it is successful for stem cell research, give a sense of righteous justification to the practice of abortion, and almost guarantee its continuation for time indefinite. This would be a devastating setback for those of us who view abortion the way I do. Of course, there will always be those out there who think any means necessary for prolonging the life of their decrepid 90 year old grandfather is totally justified. They're willing to snuff out life a life in its beginning in order to unnaturally extend a life that's at its end.

Posted by: Sonee 02-Aug-2005, 09:50 PM

Everyone seems so worried about women getting pregnant just to sell the fetus for research and make quick money but who is offering to pay this fee? I havn't heard anything about paying someone for having an abortion from anyone in the Stem Cell research field, only from the politicians and the anti-abortion groups and I'm sure their not going to offer anyone money for a fetus. Am I missing something here? Have the researchers said they would pay for this or have they said they only wanted to use the many fetuses already getting aborted daily anyway? Perhaps I am mistaken, and if so please show me where, but I think the whole idea of selling fetuses for research is paraniod propaganda used by the politicians to stir up an already excitable public and give them a convenient platform on which to seek office.

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Aug-2005, 10:12 PM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 02-Aug-2005, 10:49 PM) Of course, there will always be those out there who think any means necessary for prolonging the life of their decrepid 90 year old grandfather is totally justified. They're willing to snuff out life a life in its beginning in order to unnaturally extend a life that's at its end. I'm not sure this would be the typical use of stem-cell-mediated regeneration. Spinal and brain injuries injuries happen to people of all ages. Perhaps you are thinking of Ronald Reagan's son's argument, that the research would be of help to the aging with Alzheimer's disease. And so it might. Now, I don't want to offend 50% of the membership here (the lads) -- but men tend to have a preoccupation with -- and sometimes a quite blatant desire to control -- what is going to happen to the products of conception. This is their shot at surviving and moving into the future genetically, and they haven't nearly as much biological control over the long run of it as we women do. This sits deep underneath a lot of other motivations, among them laws of marriage and ownership, primogeniture, what defines a legitimate child, the inclusion of rape among the aggressions of war, and all kinds of other historical things: not only "will it live to carry my genes", but "is it even MINE"? (Never mind about DNA testing -- that possibility is a speck of a mote of recency in the evolution of human motivation. The possessive behavior is very old and very strong: part of the concern of "my genes" has logically to be "and not my rival's".) So -- again, forgive me, lads -- the idea of women "getting pregnant and selling the fetus" sounds like an unreasonable fear that probably only a man would come up with. Sort of an extension of prostitution, perhaps. This is NOT to say men's expressed ethical concerns for human life and the right to it are bogus -- of course they are not, they're terribly sincere. But it does pay to remember that the unconscious force of the argument is right down on the survival level for men in ways that they might not recognize, or want to admit to.

Posted by: SCShamrock 03-Aug-2005, 05:37 AM

I just want to clear up something, for the sake of the argument. I don't have altogether too much fear that "fetus farming" is a thing of the future. I can see it as a real possibility in the light of several different scenarios, and would be glad to share those if asked. My biggest concern, and one I think is legitimate, is that the whole issue of stem cells' most usable form being from the human embryo, would give a morbid legitimacy to the pro-abortion crowd. That is the area in which I think America need not go. We do not need to promote this act of barbarism. And that, dear Stoirmeil, is the reason for my loathing of abortion, not some primitive form of species protection, or the instinctual desire to protect my genes. It is a barbaric practice, one that needs to be addressed in more than just the academic fashion so common in government debates. Get graphic, go into great detail, and then let the public debate begin. I can just see the Barbara Boxer's of the world standing to defend this practice even when much light is shed on its dark and sinister methods.

Posted by: Sonee 03-Aug-2005, 08:13 AM

The issue of abortion as a barbaric practice has been debated over for year, Shamrock. And thanks to the avid and vivid protests by the anti-abortion groups most of the world knows how graphic it is. I an completely against abortion as well, but I'm not foolish enough to think that it will ever be illegal again. Half the reason it was legalized in the first place was because too many women were dying from back room abortions performed by quacks claiming to be doctors. It was legalized, in part, to keep it somewhat regulated and to keep women from dying unnecessarily. If it were to become illegal all of a sudden we would just end up back where we were with back room abortions and no politician wants that. That's not to say that we should just give in and accept abortion, but we also have to be realistic. While we are fighting many valuable medical resources are being flushed down the toilet, quite literally. Let's take advantage of what is already there since it's not going anywhere for the forseeable future, and make those lost lives at least count for something other than political fodder. They are going to be lost regardless. As for the idea that these advances are trying to prolong an already long life at the expense of a new life, that just isn't the case. For example, my grandmother is currently suffering the effects of Alzheimers. She can not be left alone for any length of time. She can't cook, clean, remember where she lives or what her phone number is. My seven year old daughter is the only great grandchild out of the 7 that she actually knows and remembers. She has to ask who the others are and who they belong to. That includes my 3 yr old son. We aren't asking for something to make her live longer, just better. Allow her to live out what's left of her life with some dignity instead of sitting away from everyone because she's embarrassed that she doesn't know anything. Until (or if) abortion is made illegal, shouldn't we do something constructive with what's already being disposed of? As much as I want my grandma better (although I'm sure it's too late for her even if a "cure" is found) that wouldn't prompt me to get pregnant just to get rid of it for research. Abortion is an incredibly emotional process that one doesn't just walk into hap-hazardly and anyone who says the can have it done and not lose any sleep over it is lying to you.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 03-Aug-2005, 09:31 AM

First of all, abortions will not become profitable to women beyond the profit they already get, which is the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy. Women must pay for abortions, and doctors aren't going to start paying women to undergo this procedure just to get at the stem cells produced. I suppose you could make this into supply and demand. There is already a large demand for abortions, and doctors are supplying them for a cost. Thus, there are a large number of aborted fetuses simply being destroyed instead of doing any good in stem cell research. There is no NEED to pay women to have abortions. Secondly, the idea of prolonging the decrepit 90 year old grandfather isn't completely out of the relm of reality. However, stem cells are used for far more than this. And besides, this argument's extention is that prolonging life through medicine is a selective thing. Only the young should be allowed to have the best medicine, the old aren't worth it. Now, the one argument that I see that makes sense to me is that by using these aborted fetuses for good, it undermines the argument that abortions are horrible and barbaric, and it threatens the anti-abortion campagn. However, this reminds me of the movie "Liar Liar" where Jim Carey yells out "'Objection your honor.' 'On what grounds counselor.' 'Because it's devastating to my case!'". The antiabortion and proabortion sides are both simply opinions. Both sides have good and bad points. I personally don't believe that there is a right or wrong answer to this debate. Each side has a counterpoint for each of the othersides points. The fact here is that stem cell research could save lives. The other fact is that not only are abortions legal, but they happen all the time. There is no reason not to use these unwanted fetuses for this research, and they should be if some good can come from it.

Posted by: SCShamrock 03-Aug-2005, 12:24 PM

Sean, I love that movie Liar, Liar. And you recited my favorite line from it. This situation does seem to mirror that, however, I don't feel that it is simply "devastating to my case." I just personally believe abortion was wrong. Oh, and another area that I might disagree with. I can't imagine you really believe that abortion was made legal in order to minimize unnecessary deaths through "back alley" abortions. With this line of reasoning, why don't we just legalize cocaine, pcp, heroine, or crack? These cause unnecessary deaths, and it will just continue whether its made legal or not.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 03-Aug-2005, 01:17 PM

I'm glad you like that movie too. There other day my gf and I were watching it on tv and I didn't understand why I didn't own it, so I ran out and bought it. Much better without commercials and editing. There isn't anything wrong with you being against abortions. Personally, I'm neither for or against them, although if forced to vote or take a stand I'd pick the prochoice side. Although I wasn't the one that said abortions were legalized to stop back alley abortions...I have to say I don't beleive that was a sole reason for legalizing them, although i'm sure it was a consideration, no matter how little it contributed to the final judgement. I don't think that bringing the leglization of drugs into this debate is wise. If you would like to discuss this issue, I would be glad to in a different thread, as I disagree with you on it, and am all for legalization of drugs. However, I do not beleive that debate belongs here, as it will simply make things more heated and difficult to discuss. Perhaps it might be more suitable to move the abortion debate over into an additional thread as well, as this one appears from the title to be about stem cell research and yet has become more about abortion. If people agree that two separate threads shoudl be made, one for drug legalization and one for abortion, I'd be happy to make them.

Posted by: stoirmeil 03-Aug-2005, 01:20 PM

You invited me to ask, Shamrock, and I think I would have anyway, what the scenarios are in which you envision the possibility of fetus farming. I am taking this topic and you very seriously. Please tell me what your ideas are about this. Also: I am most interested to hear your reasoning in equating the things you mention in your words: I can't imagine you really believe that abortion was made legal in order to minimize unnecessary deaths through "back alley" abortions. With this line of reasoning, why don't we just legalize cocaine, pcp, heroine, or crack? These cause unnecessary deaths, and it will just continue whether its made legal or not. As CelticCoalition points out, maybe that discussion should be expanded in another thread. But I am very interested in how you tie those things together. I do want to rephrase something, since it seems to have struck you. In your words -- "And that, dear Stoirmeil, is the reason for my loathing of abortion, not some primitive form of species protection, or the instinctual desire to protect my genes". This is not a dichotomous situation. Both kinds of motivation (primitive, as you call it, and more socialized) are in there side by side, or perhaps better, one on top of the other. We, every man and woman alive, have relatively new human forebrains that are very complex, riding on top of older architectures that are far more ancient and hard-wired in the way they express themselves. The whole business functions together, or tries to. Sometimes the newer and older parts function at odds -- and then we have things to explain to ourselves that are not easy to explain. It is really not a question of "I don't have thus and so ideas, because they have been replaced with something uniquely human, and therefore humane." It's trouble looking for somewhere to happen, to deny the pressure of the instinctive foundation and think oneself beyond all but the most consciously determined reasoning. If we understood this about ourselves, these debates would not have the absolute and irreconcilable force they take on. This is getting a little far afield of stem cell research per se. But certainly it is underlying it. I do recognize that if the idea of human evolution is not acceptable, that whole foregoing rant of mine was meaningless.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 03-Aug-2005, 01:59 PM

Alright. I've made a legalization of drugs, and an abortion thread in this category. Let's leave this thread for stem cell research, and take the other topics there. A separate thought that was mentioned earlier, about this being one step closer to genetically specifying our babies...in some ways I don't see what is wrong with this. If I could have a baby with a woman that would be free from genetic diseases, I would do so. As in Gataca, the movie, the babies come from the parents genes, they just make it so the genes mix without diseases. Two brown eyed brown haired people couldn't have a blue eyed blonde haired baby...unless they both had the gene combinations avaliable to do so.

Posted by: stoirmeil 03-Aug-2005, 02:29 PM

Let me make sure I am tracking you right -- there is also a concern that stem-cell research is leading to eugenics, or optimizing fetuses so they will be disease free --but there also might be a concern that people will be looking for other kinds of unnecessary tailoring. So -- would we want to eliminate genetic diseases, but still leave the rest to nature, as a matter of principle? I can see that, because diversity is very important. And how would we make sure of that? Make it against the law to tailor a fetus in any other way except to prevent disease?

Posted by: CelticCoalition 03-Aug-2005, 03:01 PM

I think that genetic alteration beyond simply altering to prevent disease could be made illegal. Perhaps it wouldn't stop tinkering completely...however, we have to question whether this is worth the risk or not. Is surgery worth the risks involved? Are prescription drugs alright, even though they are abused by some? Genetic engineerig is one of those tricky things where the bad is just as obvious as the good. I'm sure there were times where transplants were considered controversial too though. There is also the fantastical idea of splicing human DNA with other animal DNA.

Posted by: Sonee 04-Aug-2005, 08:36 AM

Since I am the one who mentioned deaths from back alley abortions I wanted to pipe in again. I never meant to suggest the those deaths were the sole reason for legalizing abortion. Only that they did play a part in the decision and would probably be part of the reason abortion won't be made illegal again. My point in bringing that up was just what CelticCoalition said. These abortions are going to happen whether we like it or not or agree with it or not. It seems rather foolish and short sighted not to take advantage of a source this plentiful that otherwise would just be 'thrown away". It seems that through stem cell research we could learn a great deal about diseases and injuries that before where mysteries to us. The only arguements I see people making against stem cell research in aborted fetuses are over the issue of abortion itself NOT the stem cell research. Abortions are legal, period. The number of abortions performed every day, week, month, year, are not going to increase by allowing the medical community to use the fetuses for research (at least nobody has given any concrete proof that it will increase). And, lastly, what is so wrong with taking something many consider bad (abortion) and making something good out of it (cures for heretofore uncureable diseases) since abortion itself doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon?

Posted by: Shamalama 04-Aug-2005, 10:07 AM

I'm going to try and refocus on the 'Stem Cell Research' topic. There are two different but conjoined issues: - research coming from stem cells gathered from embryos - federal funding of such research Many people think that life begins at conception, and as such is protected under the same philosphy as an adult - the intentional termination of an embryo is murder. Therefore medical research coming from a terminated embryo, and you must terminate an embryo to extract stem cells, is a product of murder. No matter what the products of such research are (cures of various ailments), they are still products of murder. No one would even dream of forcably terminating an otherwise healthy life of someone's 6-year-old child and using the biological products of that child for medical research. Then you attach the federal funding of such research, and what you get is: QUOTE "Shamalama, I know you do not agree with abortion, which you view as murder.  But, under the authority and full force of the federal government, and under penalty of law, you are hereby commanded to open your wallet and financially support what you view to be legalized murder." That's when you start hearing the complaints from many conservatives. It's not just the embryos, or just federal funding, but a combination of two things that are, generally, at the core of typically conservative philosophies.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 04-Aug-2005, 11:15 AM

Ok, I get that you don't agree with terminating embryos for use in medical research. I also get that you are against funding that research. What about stem cell reasearch in general? If we can get the cells from adults undergoing brain srugery at no harm to them, or the umbylical cord and placenta and no harm to babies, then is stem cell research ok? I guess I want to know if people are ONLY against the research because it uses aborted embryos. because if there are other ways to go about this research, should this research go forward? If the reserach itself isn't objectionable, or is in fact considered necessary for humanity, then at the very least further funding should be given to this research of placental, umbylical, or brain surgery harvested cells.

Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Aug-2005, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 04-Aug-2005, 12:15 PM) If the reserach itself isn't objectionable, or is in fact considered necessary for humanity, then at the very least further funding should be given to this research of placental, umbylical, or brain surgery harvested cells. I think most people would agree with that. The possible exception might be when the stem cells are used in research of what some call "genetic tinkering." There you will get objections that the work is against nature or God's plan, and the results can't be predicted or controlled, or may be for unscrupulous ends and may be dangerous. I may be wrong, but I don't think stem cells are so much associated with cloning and DNA transplant, and such. I think what makes them useful is that they can be tweaked to develop normally into "replacement parts" without interfereing with their DNA content.

Posted by: SCShamrock 04-Aug-2005, 12:01 PM

CC, I think that is exactly at the heart of the whole controversy. There have been no discoveries to suggest that embryos, fetuses, zygotes, or any other form of unborn human life are the lone sources of viable stem cells for the research that has been proposed. It has been speculated, yes. The smartest people on the planet have developed hypotheses, yes. However, research into areas that do not destroy life have not been fully exhausted, and therefore insisting upon obtaining those stem cells from unborn life as a miracle cure-all is a speculative endeavor, and one that begs the question: "why them?" As for the legality of abortion, we all know it to be true. The fact is that eminent domain is also legal under the rule of law. Do we all think that farmer Bill should vacate his home and land, simply to watch a wealthy developer turn it into the next subdivision with some catchy name like Whispering Meadows? No, most of us can agree that, while eminent domain is a part of our legal system, it is nonetheless wrong. And so, roughly 50% of our society also agrees that abortion is wrong, legal or not. So when we are faced with the question of what is so wrong with taking something many consider bad (abortion) and making something good out of it (cures for heretofore incurable diseases) since abortion itself doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon?, the answer is, emphatically, everything. To most of us, this is a devilish, evil enterprise that those who swear an oath to protect and preserve life engage in. The doctors, for no other reason than monetary gain (that would be to protect these poor mommies from rusty coat hangers for many people), turn their back on the true nature of medicine, and practice the art of obliteration. For we who feel this way, no good can come from it, period. That is the reality. Ever hear of N.A.M.B.L.A.? You can learn about them http://www.nambla.org/ This is likely to some people to be way off subject, but to me, its all the same. Taking what is wrong, and trying to make it right. If our country keeps going in the direction its heading, this too will be legal. Does the seal of approval from the government make it right? No. What I am saying is, that regardless of just how magical or miraculous embryonic stem cell research ever became, I, and many people like me, would never agree with it because of our unwavering objection to the methods used to obtain them.

Posted by: Shamalama 04-Aug-2005, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 04-Aug-2005, 12:15 PM) What about stem cell reasearch in general? If we can get the cells from adults undergoing brain srugery at no harm to them, or the umbylical cord and placenta and no harm to babies, then is stem cell research ok? I --WISH-- someone could harvest a pint of my stem cells and have them ready for me if I get cancer, or Parkinson's, or liver failure. I have no problem with research using cells from adults. I --WISH-- there would be replacement parts waiting for me when I need them. I --WISH-- research with adult stem cells progresses at such a rapid pace that any further research of embryonic cells is no longer needed. My only objections are: - killing an embryo to harvest their stem cells - the federal funding of killing an embryo to harvest their stem cells

Posted by: CelticCoalition 04-Aug-2005, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (Shamalama @ 04-Aug-2005, 11:07 AM) My only objections are: - killing an embryo to harvest their stem cells - the federal funding of killing an embryo to harvest their stem cells I think there needs to be a distinction made here. I do not think anyone (and by anyone I mean so far in this thread) is saying that abortions are good because the embryos can be used in this research. I do not think that anyone is saying that we should kill ebryos for their stem cells. I do not think anyone is saying we should fudn the killing of embryos for their stem cells. What is being said is that abortions happen. I don't know about the numbers, 50% on both sides or not. There hasn't been a law to make it illegal voted on in this country, that I know of, recently, so i can't say one way or the other. I guess I see this as two separate arguments now. ONe argument about abortion, where stem cell research has little to do with anything other than being bad because it is connected to something that is bad. The other is about stem cell research itself, which has kind of drifted into the background. IF abortion were to be made illegal, then yes, it would be horrible to use these ebryos to further research. However, it isn't. What I think is wrong is allowing these embryos to go to waste. I don't really see where else the right or wrong about stem cell research has to go here. It's more about abortion here anyway, and there's another thread for that. I would ask this. Lets say there is a child who will die. The only thing that could sae this child is a cure found from stem cell research. Now, living in the situation we are in, right now, would you deny that child the cure and let all those aborted embryos just sit in disuse? Knowing that abortions are continuing, whether you like it or not, would you deny a child life simply because that cure comes from something that happens, but you don't agree with? What if the child was your own?

Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Aug-2005, 07:46 PM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 04-Aug-2005, 01:01 PM) Ever hear of N.A.M.B.L.A.? You can learn about them http://www.nambla.org/ This is likely to some people to be way off subject, but to me, its all the same. Taking what is wrong, and trying to make it right. If our country keeps going in the direction its heading, this too will be legal. Bit much, and equating or associating things like this and abortion is kind of extreme alarmism. There will be no legalization of pedophilia (they can call it "man/boy love" all they want, it's still pedophilia) in this country. This is a group-proactive site -- of course they are gong to report rulings they way they want to believe them. If it's any comfort, even the worst elements of society detest pedophiles. Ask any prison guard. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be legal. To come back on topic -- CC my man, asking someone "What if it were your own child?" is a good question, and you will probably get the protest that NOTHING justifies it, own child or no own child. But the only proof of that pudding is if it actually happens, and since we can't wish this on any of our friends here or anyone else, we can't know definitively, it's all theoretical. I had the experience once years ago of asking a woman I know, just a friend, who is strongly against any and all animal testing (she follows a vegan diet, no leather shoes) a very similar thing -- what if your child could only be saved with a pharmaceutical that HAD to be tested on animals first before the human trials could begin? (Personally, I support animal research for medical purposes, but not for cosmetics, which are not needed.) Same story -- nothing is worth that, she said. Then it happened. At first she wanted to have that particular treatment withheld while they tried alternatives. The boy's father intervened when the kid got sicker, and it almost cracked the marriage in half. Me, I felt like a ghoul for ever asking, though I had no way of knowing and certainly never wished it. I don't say it to support the side of the research, but only to show, and agree with, what a passionate and painful issue it is to people with strong convictions. It's between potentially saving a life that is in the future, and affirming a life that is in the here and now by refusing to benefit from its being killed. Well. Stem cells. I am curious what the up-to-date deal is with any superiority being ascribed to the fetal variety over those harvested from adults. It is worth finding out. If there really is no difference, then the argument vanishes, on the basis of necessity anyway, if not on taking advantage of what is already there and just going to be wasted.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 05-Aug-2005, 10:12 AM

This last post brought something else ito my head. I agree that it can be a difficult and horrible when you are faced with either saving a life or sticking to what you believe in. But what I over looked in my question was this: do any of us have the right to deny that choice to someone else? Perhaps we don't agree with the methods of attaining a cure. Perhaps we believe so strongly we would let out child die rather than use medicine we didn't believe in. But should our beliefs deny the cure to someone else who doesn't believe in the same way? here is a site I found very interesting related to stem cells. http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp It amazes me how far we have come with medicine and technology in general, and how far the possibilities are for us to go.

Posted by: stoirmeil 05-Aug-2005, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 05-Aug-2005, 11:12 AM) But what I over looked in my question was this: do any of us have the right to deny that choice to someone else?  Perhaps we don't agree with the methods of attaining a cure.  Perhaps we believe so strongly we would let out child die rather than use medicine we didn't believe in.  But should our beliefs deny the cure to someone else who doesn't believe in the same way? here is a site I found very interesting related to stem cells. http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp Well, when people deny their child the right to a treatment, let's say, it gets incredibly sticky. I know there's a whole history about that, though I haven't researched it myself, because of various religious minorities that forbid, for example, transfusions (so that surgery becomes a bigger risk from blood loss) -- right up to "no medical treatment at all except prayer." Sometimes the state takes the child away, after a fight, and sometimes they don't. I'm pretty sure that is state by state. It's all in that same issue of who makes choices for a child? So legally, maybe some of us have the right, at least for a while. But ethically is another matter. I don't know what we can work with practically except the law, unless we want to get into the realm of civil disobedience to protest the law. But -- isn't that what the parents who want to keep their child from receiving blood are doing too, if the law says they have to let him get it? That is a FABULOUS site! Good job finding it!! (I think I'm going to save the whole thing to my hard drive as a teaching reference.) One question we had is clearly answered. Adult and embryonic stem cells do not usually have the same degree of pluripotency, or versatile ability to become many other types of cells -- embryonic cells are more primitive and still much more flexible. Adult stem cells can sometimes become different types within the same category -- there are several different kinds of brain cells, for example, depending on their function or where they are, and the neuron stem cells could take any of their forms theoretically. But you could not take a non-neuronal adult stem cell from some other place in the body and make it turn into a brain cell. Apparently the embryonic cells can do much more extensive shape-shifting, even to brain cells, because they have never yet been differentiated. These are from much earlier in the development -- if they were from a more developed fetus, they would already be differentiated into systems, and they would not be so shape-shifty. The article Shamalama was citing has adult neuronal stem cells being "trained" into desired brain cell replacements, within the same category. So you still can't say they are exchangeable, based on that research, and the NPR statement he refers to still seems to be correct. (It's late.)

Posted by: CelticCoalition 07-Aug-2005, 09:38 PM

I wanted to clarify what I said, because your response made me believe, that although unteresing and relevant, that you misunderstood me. I did not mean do parents have the right to deny their children. I meant do others have the right to deny parents the choice? Do those that disagree with it have the right to take the technology away from those who do believe in it and woulld use it to save these live?

Posted by: Sonee 08-Aug-2005, 07:48 AM

Just for the record, so everyone is clear, I am completely against abortion. For myself or anyone else but I would never force my beliefs on another person. If asked my opinion I would definately give it without question, but it isn't my place to decide that for another, only to guide through my own convictions. However, as against abortion as I am, I don't think we should abandon the research, and possible cures, that could come from fetal/embrionic stem cells. Just because I support stem cell research does not mean I support abortion. But I, grudgingly, accept that abortion will happen no matter how much I oppose it.Do you think that by taking funding away from stem cell research you can stop abortions? They are not interchangeable. Abortions will still happen with or without stem cell research, but cures for certain diseases and injuries can NOT happen without research. In other words, the only thing you hurt by not supporting embryionic stem cell research is the research itself. I also have to agree with CC. If my child were dying and the only thing that would save him/her life was a cure found by aborted fetuses you bet your ass I would use it. The aborted fetus was lost already, but my child wasn't. A paralell situation is organ donation. The only way to donate an organ is to die. The donar is going to die whether they give their organs or not. Is it right for another person to benifit from this inevitable death? I'm not trying to change the subject here, just show the similarity to something everyone feels is right. In order to remove the healthy organ the donar must, for all intents and purpouses, remain alive. Their hearts must still be beating when that organ is removed. Their brains may not be working, just as an embryos brain isn't functioning, but does that mean they are any less alive than an embryo? Again, I'm not trying to turn the subject to a debate about organ donation, I just don't understand why people argue so hard AGAINST the 'lost' unborn children being used to help someone else and so hard FOR the 'lost' already born being used to help someone else. Both are going to be 'lost' regardless. What makes the difference?

Posted by: Sonee 08-Aug-2005, 08:25 AM

I just realized how similar this thread is to the abortion thread and why. There is NO real discussion to be had over stem cell research. I think everyone, except perhaps certain religious factions who disagree with medicine entirely, would agree that medical research is a good thing and support it completely. What they DON'T agree with is the manner in which that research is conducted. In this case, abortion. As was stated earlier, getting this "research" from a source that doesn't include abortion would be just fine with everyone, so the only arguement I see in THIS particular thread as about abortion. Nobody is discussing stem cell research from adult cells, which was the initial basis for this thread. It's disolved into the pros and cons of abortion, which is on another thread. In an attempt to bring this conversation back to it's original topic: Is Sweden the only contry that is researching the possible use of adult stem cells? And if so, why isn't the US trying it too? And, if they are, why have we not heard anything about it? Forget about abortion, and embryonic stem cells for a moment. Let's discuss the possibilities surrounding the use of adult stem cells.

Posted by: SCShamrock 08-Aug-2005, 08:40 AM

Sonee, That is a very good question. I have been an organ/tissue donor for my entire adult life, and would like to think that should I die healthy, as in a violent accident or something, that doctors would take what they need from my body to help anyone living. That includes any and all cells for research, or therapy, or anything else that promotes advancements in medical technology. Are there any researchers attempting to make discoveries with adult stem cells in America? I hope so!! Why haven't we heard anything about it? That is an excellent question. Perhaps it is because stem cells, regardless of their source, have failed to live up to the expectation of their most outspoken proponents, and so they are just keeping their mouths shut until they have something substantial to report.

Posted by: stoirmeil 08-Aug-2005, 10:07 AM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 08-Aug-2005, 09:40 AM) Are there any researchers attempting to make discoveries with adult stem cells in America? I hope so!! Why haven't we heard anything about it? That is an excellent question. Perhaps it is because stem cells, regardless of their source, have failed to live up to the expectation of their most outspoken proponents, and so they are just keeping their mouths shut until they have something substantial to report. This is a standing problem and has been for many years. Researchers are in a fix sometimes over this, because of the political issues, and because of funding, and also because of the "publish or perish" nature of the academic and scientific community and the hunger of competing media for new stories to break. By and large, most researchers would very happily wait until they have something much closer to a watertight conclusion, but there is pressure from a variety of directions to make announcements as soon as something looks reasonably promising. It's confusing to the public, at the very least, and I think it goes a step further than that into a certain suspiciousness or even an erosion of trust. When you say "stem cells have failed to live up to expectations," it seems like a fair example of that unhappiness the public has with getting whiplashed between promise and disappointment.

Posted by: Sonee 08-Aug-2005, 10:25 AM

QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 08-Aug-2005, 10:07 AM) By and large, most researchers would very happily wait until they have something much closer to a watertight conclusion, but there is pressure from a variety of directions to make announcements as soon as something looks reasonably promising. I, personally, don't want them to wait until they have a watertight conclusion. I want to know what kinds of things they find 'resonably promising'. How else are we going to know if we are going in the right direction? Just because scientist say they are making progress in something doesn't, to me anyway, signify an absolute. All it means is that they are at least working on it. For example, I would hope that the US is trying to make adult stem cells work as that would negate the entire embryonic research/abortion debate but by not coming out and publicly saying 'we understand certain people don't agree with embryonic stem cell research and, because of that, we are trying to find an alternative that will effectively be agreed upon by everyone', it appears that the US is isn't trying at all. After all, if Sweden can make adult stem cells work, why can't we. At least Sweden is TRYING.

Posted by: stoirmeil 08-Aug-2005, 11:20 AM

Well, I hear what you are saying, but that's a bit of an example of what I mean by pressure. Nobody thinks research is done in a complete ivory-tower vacuum any more, but public opinion can really yank the progress of the work around in ways that don't help the process. Also -- I know it's a lot to read, but the great informative site that CC provided the link for above helps a lot to sort out why both kinds of research are productive (and why one is not a simple replacement for the other), and why it's totally not a simple matter of "if the Swedes can get that kind of results, why can't America?" And of course American scientists are working on every kind and pursuing every avenue, just as the Swedish researchers are. I'm not sure what you mean by "Why haven't we heard anything about it?" meaning adult stem cell research in America. You have heard about it, it's been going on for a long time -- this was how they perfected bone marrow transplants for the treatment of leukemia, among many other things. Researchers in the United States have never made a choice to abandon adult stem cell research in favor of the newer embryonic cell type (which is only about 7 or 8 years old). Nor have the Swedes rejected embryonic cell research. At this point, both kinds of research are being conducted. They are not interchangeable, and for now it still seems quite clear that embryonic cells have far more power to transform and therefore represent a greater range of applications, because they never specialized in the first place. It is a separate issue whether we WANT to use them, for whatever the reason. They have more potential regardless; so far that fact has not changed, and I doubt it will. You see what I mean, though? Look what this single announcement of one Swedish set of results has sparked at this one site that's mainly about Celtic music and culture. "Now maybe we can leave the embryos alone." That's the kind of political pressure that people trying to do good science and report results when they solidly have them ( and not before) have very bad dreams about.

Posted by: sorbus 11-Aug-2005, 02:43 PM

Here `s something not generally known These Anti Aging Lotions contain cells extracted from human placenta (afterbirth) Ain`nt Science Wonderful

Posted by: Sonee 12-Aug-2005, 08:57 AM

QUOTE (sorbus @ 11-Aug-2005, 02:43 PM) Here `s something not generally known These Anti Aging Lotions contain cells extracted from human placenta (afterbirth) Ain`nt Science Wonderful As far as I'm aware, nobody is arguing the use of afterbirth in cosmetics. This thread was, and is, about stem cell research. FYI sorbus, most Americans have been aware for some time now that placenta is being used in numerous products, not just anti aging lotions. Back to the subject at hand.... I apologize for my rash statements. You have heard about it, it's been going on for a long time -- this was how they perfected bone marrow transplants for the treatment of leukemia, among many other things I was not aware of that. I think perhaps I need to do more research on this subject before I make any further comments. The point of my comments was that public opinion of America is low right now and to have Swedish scientists announce certain breakthroughs while we sit and bicker amongst ourselves over abortion doesn't help that public opinion. Perhaps my views are narrow and short sighted, that will have to be seen with further research. Thanks for the enlightening response stormeil, you have given me "food for thought"!

Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Aug-2005, 12:03 PM

QUOTE (Sonee @ 12-Aug-2005, 09:57 AM) The point of my comments was that public opinion of America is low right now and to have Swedish scientists announce certain breakthroughs while we sit and bicker amongst ourselves over abortion doesn't help that public opinion. Personally, I would rather continue to bicker over something as morally divisive as abortion than to just throw caution to the wind, and say "whatever it takes." To me, that is one of the more beautiful things about our country; that we will have these debates as to the rights and wrongs of issues close to our hearts.

Posted by: stoirmeil 18-Aug-2005, 08:44 AM

OK! This is potentially wonderful news, and seems to be real progress. Still, everyone in the research community is not in agreement. The point here is that the wonderful news is trumpeted in the headline and beginning of the article, and the warnings are down in the foot of it. As I think we've talked about before, there may be more to that presentation order than just happiness at announcing the breakthrough -- it may be subtle skewing of the reportage, since the demands, by people from both sides of the political debate, on the research people to produce something are so high. The pressure to announce prematurely is good for politics but not good for honest, methodical science, as I said before. But of course, people want to know. . . This is not a position statement on the use or non-use of embryonic cells -- just a reminder that the issue is so non-neutral that it's a good idea to read everything critically and right to the end. http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/08/17/hscout527476.html http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1791412005

Posted by: stoirmeil 22-Aug-2005, 12:26 PM

This is in from today's Scotsman. This is mostly a report on the public demand for more assistance from the national health service in Scotland for fertility treatments, in part in light of Scotland's declining fertility rate. The full article is here:\ http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1818052005 But the thing that jumps out for this discussion is the pro and con dialogue about continuing in vitro fertilization at all, whether or not it is funded by the government: Should it be made easier to get free IVF fertility treatment on the NHS?YES Sheena Young Scottish organiser of the Infertility Network UK INFERTILITY is a devastating and isolating illness which affects every aspect of a couple's lives. Their pain and distress is significantly added to when they find themselves unable to access treatment for their illness. Worse still is to find that others in a different health board area can access the treatment you are being denied. We still have inequality that causes an enormous amount of anger among patients, adding to their pain and misery at what is already a dreadfully emotionally distressing time. This is totally unacceptable and is something that must be rectified. There is sound medical evidence for making the changes to the current criteria. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority statistics were originally used when these criteria were set. These statistics showed that after age 38, the chance of conceiving dropped considerably and that after three previous embryo transfers the chance of success also dropped significantly. The National Consensus Group has since heard new evidence, which showed that these statistics have changed. Waiting times vary across the country and in some areas couples are waiting four to five years for treatment. For some, by the time they near the top of the list they no longer meet the criteria for treatment. The definition of a cycle of treatment also varies across Scotland and this, too, must be clearly defined. In some areas we are seeing embryos being created and frozen, but with the health board refusing to pay for the placement of these embryos into the uterus. Couples then are left with two alternatives: pay to have the embryos replaced or allow them to perish. Can you imagine how that feels? The Scottish Parliament must make sure that when the new recommendations are published, they include waiting time guarantees and that health boards implement them in full within a reasonable timescale. Those providing treatment across Scotland must adhere to the guidelines fully, ensuring every couple in the country is treated equally and fairly. We deserve no less. NO Ian Murray Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Scotland ETHICALLY we oppose IVF treatment due to the loss of large numbers of embryos that are involved in the process. Life begins at conception and these embryos having been created should have the right to life. Fertility treatment is also not without its dangers. Women risk irreversible damage from the hyper stimulation of the ovaries used to produce eggs. Then there is the psychological pain of undergoing such treatment for the women. It also puts such a lot of strain on couples. We see a lot of relationships break up after cracking under this pressure. There are also other things that can go wrong, such as the extremely distressing cases where gametes (sperm or eggs) have been mixed up. Ultimately the whole issue goes back to how we view childlessness. Having a child isn't necessarily a right and not everyone is entitled to have children. There is a tendency to view childlessness as a disease. For a procedure with a less than one-in-five success rate, we have to look sensibly at the resources the health service put in. Is it the best allocation of the limited funding available to the NHS when there are other illnesses that can be treated with much greater success? Ultimately, IVF too often raises false hopes in couples only for them to be taken away when the treatment fails. As a father of four children, it is easy for me oppose IVF treatment, but it does not mean I don't have sympathy with people who would love to have children but are unable to. But there are lots of other ways of improving the chances of having children without going down the IVF route too soon and with lots of children just waiting for adoptive parents. This is another aspect of the whole ethical question that has arisen due to the rise of this available technology. Should medical intervention be creating embryos at all, whether they are going to be used to attempt to treat an infertile couple, or ultimately whether the surplus be used to extract stem cells from? Should anyone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research also refuse in principle to have in vitro fertility treatments? And again, the placement of the elements of the article may be politically meaningful. We start out with the testimony of a beaming mother and her beautiful, hard-won baby boy, and we end with the words of a father of four who never had a fertility problem, doesn't approve of the process, and would see all the funding cut from it if he could.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)