• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Stem Cells Rejuvenate Old Cows


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 randolfe

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 05 July 2005 - 07:53 PM


In this Internet Wired Magazine news story, stem cells taken from a gestating embryo has greatly reinvigorated aged cows.

I have long maintained that once embryonic stem cell research really gets going, someone will decide the easiest way to get desired cells from a cloned embryo is to simply "allow nature to take its course".

The first thing to develop are heart cells. I see no problem with harvesting those. However, where do we draw the line? Lung tissue, which develops in the last couple months of pregnancy, could also be "harvested". However, this would clearly be killing an unborn human being for the benefit of a living one.

This is what ethicists call a "slippery slope".

One might argue that taking an unborn human life to save an existing valuable human life is justified. Would sacrificing a mentally-retarded unborn fetus to save Albert Einstein be justified?

I don't worship at the altar of egalitarianism. However, there is something important to be said about the value of every human life. Equality stands as a safeguard for every one of us.

I'll post the link here in this posting and attempt to copy and paste the entire article in the next.

http://www.wired.com...w=newsletter_to

#2 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:21 PM

However, this would clearly be killing an unborn human being for the benefit of a living one.


Hi Randolfe, I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but you are using stacked terminology here.

The above statement, to be fair, should read, "However, this would killing unborn human life for the benefit of a human being."

I personally do not make a distinction between "harvesting" and the traditional debate over abortion/reproductive rights. Women both donate eggs and destroy fetuses on a daily basis with the clincher to the argument being -- Its my body.

If, however, a viable fetus becomes external to womb, then the ethics change dramatically...don't have much time to type right now, but will dialog more later if this chat takes off.

To be quite honest though, I do not think that the puritanical ethic that has gained a strong hold in the US will hold any sway whatsoever in East Asia. I am confident that, regardless of the legality or morality, the type of practice you have highlighted above will begin to become common place in the developing world. As the saying goes, "To the highest bidder." I imagine that there will be millions of impoverished women in asia and the third world willing to go into the second trimester for a cool hundred grand -- and just as many affluent westeners willing to foot the bill.

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 06 July 2005 - 02:50 AM

I found it funny that this bioconservative ethicist deems it "very implausible that they could be moving from (cows to humans)" -- Boy, they're a company! All they're doing is because it is the shortest route to sell human stuff.

The point of this fetal liver thing is that the techniques to culture embryonic stem cells in cattle are not well established. Cattle is not used often in research, and it's not worth the investment for ACT to develop such techniques for cows specifically. When they will finally be going humans, they are of course aiming to use bona fide human embryonic stem cells, for which such techniques do exist. (They will make hematopoietic cells from embryonic stem cells in vitro, without the need of a mum to do it)

Btw, I did not like the way Wired hyped precisely one macrophage colony forming assay as bringing "renewed youthful vigor to aged cows". Nonetheless, this single result is certainly encouraging.

Posted the original paper in resource sharing.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 06 July 2005 - 03:13 AM

those who are powerful will always displace the less so, and squander the resources intended for thier use. This has happened since time immemorial, and will continue to occur until augmentation is realized and feeble primitive minds begin to truly expand. Life is defined by those who have a voice. Personally, I am willing to volunteer for similar research, although randolfe, your opinions are well taken.

don, your argument for economic disparity providing fodder for debauched westerners is quite convincing , and I agree with the premise. although, the wayfarer for opulence and profligacy is usually the lack of religious ideals, so the asian model would have to be reconsidered.

#5 justinb

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 06 July 2005 - 06:30 AM

Rational individuals define a human being as someone who is conscious. The problem is, I can't prove anyone is conscious. I am only conscious of myself. We don't know what forms consciousness, although we do know that neurons are required, of course. Therefore we should be weary of destroying a fetus once it starts to develop a brain. The more we know about consciousness the more we can differentiate between the brain and mind and thus be able to properly assess what a human being is. I believe that the safe route here is to assume that once the centers of the brain that are incharge of preception start to develope, then we should not destroy the fetus since we don't know if it is in anyway conscious or not.

#6 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 06 July 2005 - 06:35 AM

I can't prove anyone is conscious. I am only conscious of myself.

Yes yes, zombies always say that :)

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:59 AM

Hopefully John is right and embryonic stem cells can be used, thus avoiding most of the ethical issues brought up by this story. What I will say though is that if it did come to harvesting cells from a 120 day old human fetus I would have no problem with it. A 120 day old fetus is no more "conscious" than a lab rat (probably less so), thus its ethical status should be no greater either. To say other wise, would be to resort to arguments based on continuity and potentiality; all of which play right into the hands of the bioconservative position.

#8 randolfe

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 06 July 2005 - 04:52 PM

I like justinb's comment about consciousness. I believe the brain stem begins forming around 90 days. Who is to say when consciousness and personhood commences?

Unborn twins play with each other in the womb.

John is right about Advanced Cell Technology being a master at making a publicity blitz out of nothing--as happened about three years ago where an egg that had not even divided enough to create stem cells was heralded (by a taken-in reporter) on the cover of USNews&World Report as the world's first cloned embryo.

Nell Boyce, who was then in charge of USSNWR's science reporting, distanced herself from that story--saying it "had not been run by me" and that she felt the reporter sent to cover the story had been a bit guillible to Michael West's hype.

This raises the question of using hype and propoganda to achieve your social and political ends.

Back to the question of consiousness, those opposed to abortion have pro0duced a very touching film called "The Fetal Scream". A fetus which is about to be aborted by being pulled out of the womb with a hook can be seen with ultra-sound as pulling the leg up from the hook and opening its mouth as if screaming (unheard) in pain. It is very disturbing.

Those defending abortion argue that the fetus is just having a muscular reaction to the hook (like your leg going up when tapped by a physician). They say that portraying the fetus as attempting to scream inside the womb is visually misleading.

Don's idea that money controls everything is a bit cynical. Yes, money is power and can often be abused. However, we do not have a worldwide market in the trafficing of human organs. Yes, there is a small market but not on the scale that would be possible if there were no moral or legal controls.

The real issue raised by this story is this: If we can get matching heart cells for an ailing adult by gestating a cloned embryo for a few weeks in a womb, what would be wrong with that? I personally would have no objection to that.

However, as I pointed out in my original comment, what about taking lung tissue from a seven or eight month old unborn fetus to save an adult life? That would be a very morally troubling issue from my point of view. At that stage the unborn child would have the possibility of life outside the womb and would have the consciousness of an about-to-be baby.

#9 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 06 July 2005 - 05:26 PM

Hey Randolfe :)

Randolfe

Who is to say when consciousness and personhood commences?


Don

A 120 day old fetus is no more "conscious" than a lab rat (probably less so), thus its ethical status should be no greater either. To say other wise, would be to resort to arguments based on continuity and potentiality; all of which play right into the hands of the bioconservative position.



#10 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 06 July 2005 - 05:40 PM

A true "selfhood" does not form until well after birth. However, upon achieving separation (externalization) from the symbiotic relationship a fetus has with its mother, its well being then becomes in the interests (and falls under the jurisdiction) of the state. IOW, a potential human being well on its way to fulfilling its potential has a latent value to society, but this value should not and can not take precedent over the autonomy of actual human beings (ie, a woman and her body).

Upon separation, the ethical dynamics related to potential beings change dramatically because the mother's autonomy is no longer the over riding factor.

#11 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:00 PM

A true "selfhood" does not form until well after birth


Is that a fact? :))

This is a bold assumption to make.

#12 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:36 PM

So says you. :))

#13 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:55 PM

While I am not true pro-life, I would put the cut-off for abortions quite early in the pregnancy. Soon after the brain stem forms, or some sort of contiuous electical activity (associated with higher level thought) is present in the developing brain.

I don't buy Don's argument that a fetus is part of the woman's body, like a leg or an arm. That line is at least 50 years old. Scientifically speaking, the fetus is no more an appendage of a womans body that a toaster is an appendage of a house. The developing human does not share the same DNA or blood. All it gets through the placenta is energy and oxygen. It is "plugging-in" to an energy source.

#14

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 10 July 2005 - 01:33 AM

Don and I agree on this issue. My position changed over the duration of the recent Abortion thread.

A baby doesn't appear to qualify for personhood "until well after birth".

However, upon achieving separation (externalization) from the symbiotic relationship a fetus has with its mother, its well being then becomes in the interests (and falls under the jurisdiction) of the state. IOW, a potential human being well on its way to fulfilling its potential has a latent value to society, but this value should not and can not take precedent over the autonomy of actual human beings (ie, a woman and her body).


At this time, I accept birth as that artificial seperation point.

#15 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2005 - 06:24 AM

A 120 day old fetus is no more "conscious" than a lab rat (probably less so), thus its ethical status should be no greater either. To say other wise, would be to resort to arguments based on continuity and potentiality; all of which play right into the hands of the bioconservative position.


As a vegetarian, the ethical status of a rat warrents its freedom from being killed by me. Bioconservatives are not alone on this front.

#16

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 10 July 2005 - 09:43 AM

As a vegetarian, the ethical status of a rat warrents its freedom from being killed by me.  Bioconservatives are not alone on this front.


This would entail an ethical argument for increased animal rights. Any animal capable of consciously experiencing pain, one could argue perhaps, should not be subject to inordinate pain even if we choose to kill it. So if we choose to kill such animals, let their deaths be as painless as reasonably possible.

Ideally, we wouldn't need to kill them and that may be the case in the future. Though I don't mistake their value as being equal to that of human people (qualifying for personhood), so while unfortunate, I think we can justify their continued use in ethical medical research and as food for much of the world's population. The beginning of a shift toward simulations in medical research may address the large need for animals subjects, something brought to my attention by Reason of Fight Aging! not long ago.

Edited by cosmos, 10 July 2005 - 10:03 AM.


#17 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 10 July 2005 - 10:11 AM

Finally it seems that we are not all that far away from reaching a consensus:

(A) Do not cause suffering to anything that looks like it can suffer. But killing such creatures painlessly is OK, when it is for a good reason.
(B) Do not kill anything (not even painlessly) that shows person-like cognitive features, such as interocular learning or success in mirror experiments.

That begins to make some sense to me. But I would still be curious just how well human infants fare at these cognitive tasks. References anyone?

#18 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 July 2005 - 03:55 PM

Gallup 1977

#19 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2005 - 04:05 PM

Here's an informative paper that I read a while back.

The Intentional Stance: Developmental and Neurocognitive Perspective

#20 olaf.larsson

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 21
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:01 PM

Does anyone have a real scientific report about this cow rejuvenation?

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#21 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 26 August 2005 - 01:37 PM

http://www.imminst.o...583 Wolfram, per chance this is by the non-university associated company ACT ;-)

Edited by John Schloendorn, 26 August 2005 - 01:52 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users