28 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Here is a story about how stem cells have been extracted from embryos without destroying them (they can still produce life). It could be a way to get embryotic stem cells without the political and ethical concerns associated. I thought it was interesting.

[caston]

Does this get around any current laws?

[maestro949]

Yes. Now we can get the stem cells without killing the embryo though in this example, they still threw the embryo out. Perhaps they should have frozen it and dropped it off on a church's doorstep.

[Live Forever]

It does not really get around the ethical dilemma in that it can be argued that the extracted cell from the embryo can also develop into an embryo and therefore is potentially a human being..

I am not an expert, of course, but I do not think that is correct. From reading about it, it seems as if they are only extracting stem cells, and not a full embryo that could become life on its own. Stem cells could only previously be extracted by destroying the embryo, but it seems as if this method both 1) extracts the stem cells and 2) leaves the embryo intact.

However, this must also present a dilemma for the religious conservatives..

This is nothing new. [tung] Science in general presents a dilemma for them.

[maestro949]

It does not really get around the ethical dilemma in that it can be argued that the extracted cell from the embryo can also develop into an embryo and therefore is potentially a human being.

Right, so it shifts the debate from stem cells to cloning.

[caston]

So when we have a mole of PS3's simulating stem cells for research purposes are we still in their bad books?

[John Schloendorn]

Right, so it shifts the debate from stem cells to cloning.

This is interesting. In order to have any internal consistency, the religious right would need to advocate the use of this technique for reproductive cloning... Too bad internal consistency does not seem to be their goal anyway ;-)

[John Schloendorn]

By the way, how is this supposed to make any differences those who oppose the derivation of stem cells from blastocysts leftover from IVF? Essentially all ES lines are currently made from these, because they aren't made into babies anyway, but get tossed.

[Live Forever]

So, in effect is is indeed cloning? Interesting. Aren't there laws about cloning humans already on the books?

[DJS]

So, in effect is is indeed cloning? Interesting.

uggh, I despise the term cloning. It amounts to playing ball on our opponent's field, but you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. After all, what's the only valid alternative other than SCNT - and what are the odds of scientifically illiterate people adopting that mouthful?

Regardless, the SCNT aspect that would probably be involved in hypothetical therapeutic applications isn't the pertinent issue when discussing this novel process. Perhaps a better term would be tissue culture?

Aren't there laws about cloning humans already on the books?

Not that I'm aware of. Last time around the conservatives tried to get greedy by pushing the therapeutic through with the reproductive and it blew up in their face.

[Live Forever]

Not that I'm aware of.  Last time around the conservatives tried to get greedy by pushing the therapeutic through with the reproductive and it blew up in their face.

Aah, yes, it appears you are correct.

[Live Forever]

Aah, ok. Well, all of the articles about it saying that it will solve the "political debate" about it are mistaken, because the process still kills a "potential human life" as the fundie sheeple (yes I used both terms back to back, so sue me) would put it.

[phylodome]

However, that single uncommitted blastomere that is removed for the purpose of giving rise to an embryonic stem cell line could also develop into an embryo itself given the right conditions.

"If given the right conditions" is a very broad term. Nearly anything is possible if given the right conditions, though increasing those ratios to within the range of probable still presents many challenges, of course the most challenging of these are again political and ethical.

Interestingly enough, based on some of the information presented in the July issue of SciAm (http://www.sciam.com...umber=1&catID=2), it would seem that these blastomeres could also potentially become possible stem cell-initiated roots of cancer "if given the right conditions"; thus is the diverse wonder and irony of stem cells and embryonic manipulation.

In any case, the short answer to whether this technology can transcend the political and ethical issues surrounding stem cell research in America is a resounding no; this progress has no more effect on radically conservative beliefs than did Galileo's evolving engineering of the telescope. In their eyes, this is not about whether you kill an embryo (evidenced by their complete apathy regarding the disposal of many outdated, yet fertilized, embryos in the days before stem-cell research took flight), it is simply a function of their disagreement with the right of humanity to impart agency upon biological creation. It is about the rage they feel when a blaspheming scientist manages to pull that ever-tangible-yet-out-of-reach white beard of their patron anglo-saxon in the sky right down in front of their hate-filled faces and dissect his ephemeral soul. In fact, it's not even so much them questioning our right of agency as it is a direct threat to those who impart this agency, a storm warning so to speak, foreshadowing the 21st century American equivalent of an Inquisition. ("well if you don't like it, then get the **** out of America, God Damnit!" Sound familiar?)

The only hope for the timely (and time is everything with modern tech) implementation of these technologies in America falls upon the re-integration of a rational political dialogue and a relatively educated constituency, two things that have slowly rotted since the inception of the 24-hr news cycle.

The answer to all these problems is so simple; educate, educate, educate. And fight like hell against "Intelligent Design". We cannot let our youth fall to the ignorant biases of their parents or peers (www.creationtours.com). Academics need to grow some balls and truly fight against an ignorant majority. We're going to need another Scientific Revolution if we hope to survive this century.

Though we do have history on our side; all those who stood in the way of scientific progress have at least provided us with very interesting, and viciously comical, footnotes in time.

[knite]

phylo, it seems to me this is only a matter of time, I was reading a poly-sci book and it had statistics naming america as graduating something like 1/3 of its young people with a bachelors, vs 1/5 in europe. I would assume that this is much higher than the baby-boomers (who I believe wield political power now). While writing this I realize that it seems the apex of religous right zealousy, also seems to coincide with the apex of the baby-boomers. And the fact that they are proportionally enormous compared to the younger people may represent some kind of unbalance, which may be the reason for how extreme things seem to be becoming. But anyway, I would expect that as the baby-boomers decline things will come back to normal, so mabye within 30 years we can get some progress? LOL

[maestro949]

Wow, it seems they are really pissed off about this. NewsGoogle "stem cells" and you'll see bishops all they way up to the Vatican pontificating why this is still bad bad bad. This is what they are reduced to though...

"Even if it didn't damage the embryo, it's still an issue of an invasive, unjustified operation on a human being ... You're going in, taking a piece of an embryo's organism to use for yourself," he said.

I think the only thing left is for them to compare scientists studying stem cells to Nazis. Then we win

[jaydfox]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument here... Given the utterly shallow position of the religious right here, I think the fact that the one cell pulled from the 8-cell embryo can potentially develop into a viable embryo itself is irrelevant. It's not an embryo per se; it will be used for therapeutic purposes, so it's potential to become a human is (at present) irrelevant. The religious right can at times become savvy, but it'll be hard to convey this point to the public because, as I said, that one cell is not an embryo per se. Invoking nuanced scientific details is the last thing you want to do when you're the religious right, because it opens up a can of worms you can't hope to contain.

On the other hand, if we're talking about SCNT, then the embryo from which this stem cell was pulled will be a "clone" of the patient for whom this stem cell line was created, and if we are to acknowledge that the embryo was undamaged and can develop normally, then the religious right will have no difficulty in pointing out that if that yet-viable embryo were actually carried to term, it would be a "reproductive clone" of the patient. Those aren't terribly popular right now.

Damaging the embryo via an "invasive, unjustified operation" is a red herring: the emrbyo is still viable, and it saves a patient's life. No pain is inflicted, regardless of the injury. Show me the pain-sensing nerve fibers! Show me the brain detecting the pain! There is none. Even if there is a soul—and we may as well agree to stipulate that for the sake of argument (even if we continue to argue against that outside the bounds of this particular argument)—there can be no pain, no more pain than one feels when under powerful local and general anaesthesia. It's a painless "invasive" operation that saves someone's life. What's the problem? The person who was injured will never even know about it. It'll be like waking from a coma and finding out that you donated blood to save someone's life. Yeah, so?

The only matter I see being relevant in this new procedure is the issue of "reproductive cloning", as it's called. While still a problem, this is a far lower barrier than "killing a human", as previous techniques are often dramatized to be.

[maestro949]

I think you nailed it jaydfox. On a less serious note (or more perhaps)... You mentioned souls. If you use this or any other technique to create a clone, where does that soul come from? Is a new one wisped into existance or does does get split in half?

[DJS]

If you use this or any other technique to create a clone, where does that soul come from? Is a new one wisped into existance or does does get split in half?

This line of challenge is already available via the traditional, albeit exceptional, developmental trajectory of some embryos. For example, in identical twins was there one or two souls at conception? Conversely, in cases of chimeras (usually associated with, but only 50% of which are actually, hermaphrodites), do two souls merge into one?

The only way to deal with this conundrum is to pull out the omnipotence trump card (OTC). God, through precognition, knew that the final outcome of embryonic development would be one (or two) unique individuals and in his infinite wisdom provided the necessary number of souls. The OTC is also the way Christian apologists can address R Bailey's commentary on the growing level of absurdity that comes with a sanctity of life argument in light of the fact that millions of viable embryos are flushed down the toilet every year. Pull out that OTC you dumdums! "Well, God knew they were going to get flushed down the toilet so he didn't bestow them with life." [huh]

Okay, okay, we'll go with the OTC. It seems like a very useful ethical tool afterall. ) If God has precognition then, in his infinite wisdom, he would also know ahead of time which embryos were going to be used in therapeutic research and he would hold back on the soul juice. Wow, all of our problems are solved. Everyone can stop worrying! Go home ladies and gentlemen, God's got the whole stem cell thing under control.

[maestro949]

Ahhh, the ole OTC. Clever but again their argument works against them as you so elequoently point out.

So here is the latest stammering, er I mean arguments...

--Each cell at the eight-cell stage is "totipotent," meaning it could develop into a human embryo but instead would be destroyed after it is extracted for development into stem cells.

Bzzt. They missed the point. Partial credit for using the word totipotent though.

-- The embryo left after a cell is removed may be implanted and produce a healthy baby at birth, but it is uncertain what the long-term effect is on these embryos who have lost part of their genetic material.

Oh, so simply demonstrate that they will be fine and this argument goes away. Bzzt.


-- The procedure requires the creation of embryos through in vitro fertilization, which could result in excess embryos who will be either destroyed or frozen.

lol.

Cover your eyes, here comes the Nazi reference...

Duke, director of the Research Institute, said, "The promise of stem cells is vast. God has put at our discretion the ability to develop a set of tools to help us fix some of humanity's most devastating maladies. To sacrifice the most vulnerable of our species for the benefit of the rest is too high a price to pay. Today's scientists must move forward on a solid ethical footing or they risk falling into the same pit that doomed many of Nazi Germany's scientists to a legacy of disgust and moral outrage. We do not need to destroy, or even put at risk, human embryos in order to achieve the wonderful promise of stem cell therapy."

ding. ding. ding. We have a winner.

Link

[john_shade]

If it's unclear, the religious right does not hold a technical grudge against stem cells; it's progress, cultural and scientific, that scares them. When you deny the 'theory' of evolution and put your faith in the literal biblical interpretation of the universe's creation, you don't care about 'science' or 'technology,' you're comfortable in the past and want to stay there. Solving a scientific ethics dilemma with more science will only confuse and anger them further.

[mikelorrey]

They aren't even comfortable in the past. If they were, they'd be happy to read the original version of Genesis, which included stories of Adam copulating with ape women, and note where Cain, after fleeing the region due to his slaying of Abel, takes up a wife in another country. Where did she get created? The good book has been edited so much that its accuracy to its original version is about the same as Disney's Bambi is to real deer hunting (and given the Bambi story is a similar mythology of the harmony and peacefulness of forest critters promoted by the left, I'd say the right doesn't have a monopoly on self deception).

Solving the problem by eliminating the need to destroy embryos removes it from the arena of religious ethics as a valid venue for debating its moral justification. With no embryos being destroyed, there is no issue of life being destroyed, and the stem cell issue is able to extricate itself from the abortion quagmire.

Of course, the pro-abortionists on the left don't want it extricated from the abortion quagmire, because they view it as an entrypoint to hijack the debate and push their agenda.

So which is the bigger threat to scientific advances with stem cells: the religous right who simply doesn't want to be forced at gunpoint to pay their tax dollars for the destruction of embryos that they consider lives, or the pro-abortion movement that has hijacked the stem cell debate to push their political agenda.

[maestro949]

Now this has turned into a political football.

Scientists defend "ethical" stem cell experiment

President elect Romney is looking to build his platform around this...

Massachusetts Gov. Romney Reiterates Supports State's New Embryonic Stem Cell Research Regulations

[maestro949]

Advanced Cell Technology’s Dr. Robert Lanza Testifies Before U.S. Senate Subcommittee. Sounds like it was a McCarthy-esque style lynching.

Stem Cell Scientist Slams Senate

Senators Gang Up at Hearing

[Lebombo]

Well, after all these years, it looks like the religious right has won the battle.  The embryonic stem cell industry has just been will soon be leaving the United States.  Japan just bought the entire industry for pennies because the religious right succeeded in scaring away all legislatures from the field.  Japan, please be kind enough to throw us some crumbs from your soon-to-be most advanced, innovative, and effective therapies and cures.  Thank you.

 

 

http://www.bizjourna....html?ana=yahoo

 

https://www.bostongl...ZROK/story.html

[Multivitz]

They really want to have research into the virgin cells. Why have the religious sides of the debate have so much weight to this debate? Does religion know something the researchers don't know? Most religions explain life rather well, maybe in a way with words that some can't contextualise.
It seems the religion side of this has more confidence in its view. Law is based on logic and comes from religious logic. I think most people are highly nieve, unlawful unsanctioned research happens all over the world. Results of the unlawful research get passed onto the people who run the unlawful research and they then personally prompt corperate overseers that draft methods to get change, for thier own benefit mainly.
The method of change here is the morals of people, with regards to the violation of an embryos biological potential. It's potential is to live, taking a little bit is ok, but I think alot of them will die or have shortened life in the process. Has someone lived a good life after they had stems taken?? So this ain't my path of logic here.
Blurring the lines between what is naturally sustainable (us), and the ability to create an unnatural biological system. They pushed Pharmalogical practices onto the population, and what a load of tosh that still is.
People can heal themselves FACT, there are people who have very good systems of healing for others (health practitioners).
The body makes it own stem cells when it's conditions allow, throughout life.
The stem cell research promises things that gene research did many moons ago. We all know that DNA is a product of its environment, and some of us know the cell wall controls the cell. DNA is a library of molecular information(for protein) amongst other functions involving photons.
So the TRUE biological functional of stem cells is going to be debated in a court room. WHATEVER gets decided in court is NOT a reflection that stem cell research is Ok and we are all going to get brand new organs everytime our own environment diminishes said organs.
What a lot of people don't realise is the power of potential and karma. They don't, when karma rebalances it does it regardless. That's a big reason why we all want to get along.
The ones who want the freedom to do stem cell research feel they are exempt because of their accomplishments of monetary wealth.
They devised an organised mentality through high profile advertising of thier ideas, which are your BS hopes that have flawed logic.
Maybe a treatment of stem cells needs a cocktail of drugs to work, will the repairs last a lifetime? What is a life time?
A novel treatment at best, say a cream that could be used in surgery?
All my best to the industry, but I wonder if the people, who keep fooling the masses and think they are exempt from karma, are worthy to be privileged to the ability to master the stem cell and all it's POTENTIAL it offers.
Remember Karma rebalances, a logic of righteousness protects, ignorance is no excuse. Is everyone involved being kept ignorant of stem cell researchs final use goals of the corperations. What group of people need the benifit? The ill, the medical workers, the poor, the healthy?

Edited by Multivitz, 22 December 2015 - 03:34 PM.

[Multivitz]

I'll have to use this thread to give another example of this kind of hysteria! lol
We all know the story of Mad cow disease, NO WE DON'T.
Cow fall over, cut its head open, its brain protein grows holes like a sponge.
Moral idiots stop feeding brains to the grass eaters, brain still gets holes like a sponge, blame was made to a protein. There was a protien, it was a result of the acidic properties of a GMO oil used in the cow's feed, THEY COULDN'T TELL YOU THAT, so a load of spin was pushed throuht the media to protect the reputation of an industry that has breached the logic of life. Ok the genetically modified oil in question has been bred safer, and has use somewhere, can anyone help me find where??

Meanwhile theres panic of contagious things comming to get us lol. The only contagious thing is the Corporate BS. They have their place. When are people going to wake up thier morals because thats whats being put to sleep, by your diet, by your main media, by the confused misinformation, parasite load, copied presumptions, poor education, etc.
The agument goes, if you could have this, to, life teaches this is wrong on many levels. But it could be what we're looking for, to, who's looking for what?
I have my own stem cells, they are an important part of me, I haven't needed some grown for me, I can see the benifits of doing things that science says enhances these stem cells. Why would someone else need stem cells??????????????? It wouldn't be for thier benifit, even if it gave people something to do with thier spare time. Forget money, it's a 'constuct'.

Edited by Multivitz, 22 December 2015 - 04:39 PM.