Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[DeletedUser]

So I learned more about this recently, and so far it sounds like an amazing idea. It can heal previously permanent spinal injuries, making almost all cases of paralysis things of the past. However, it is heavily debated in both political and social circles, mostly because the line between embryonic stem cell research and abortion can get so fuzzy.


Quick facts so no one posts "What's stem cell research?":
1. Stem cells are cells that have not "differentiated" into specific cells yet. Differentiation is when cells develop into heart cells, lung cells, muscle cells, skin cells, etc. that make up the different organs in your body.
2. Adults have stem cells too, but these cells cannot turn into as many different cells as embryonic stem cells can because they originated from a specific type of cell (I'm assuming we all know that cells divide to make more cells).
3. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can turn into any and all types of cells in the human body. They are only found in embryos, as the name suggests.
4. Stem cell research essentially requires the destruction of an embryo to obtain its cells. But before you freak out and cry bloody murder; the embryos used by stem cell researchers are barely 5 days old. That, by many people's standards, hardly constitutes human life.
5. Stem cells can be changed into nerve cells in a laboratory and then planted into an injured person's spine to replace cells that had been damaged or killed in an accident. This, in addition to a certain type of gel that supports the cells' growth, can ultimately heal spinal injuries.

Thoughts? Opinions? Solutions? Be my guest.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Been around for a while and I don't have any problems with it at all, science and medicine working together cutting edge stuff.

Has a darker side of course but dosn't everything ?

 

[DeletedUser]

iPS cells solve the problem <link>

 

[DeletedUser]

As long as you don't have to destroy a human life I don't have a problem with it; however abortion is taking a human life regardless of how old that life is.

 

[DeletedUser]

So an egg is not a human life, a sperm is not a human life, but put them together in a test tube of jello in a laboratory and *poof*, it's immediately a human life? Or are you arguing that sperm is one half of human life and an egg is the other half? Because if that's your argument, we're going to have to have a long talk about the birds, the bees, and looking at Playboy magazines in the bathroom.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

so an egg is not a human life, a sperm is not a human life, but put them together in a test tube of jello in a laboratory and *poof*, it's immediately a human life? Or are you arguing that sperm is one half of human life and an egg is the other half? Because if that's your argument, we're going to have to have a long talk about the birds, the bees, and looking at playboy magazines in the bathroom.

lmfao

 

[DeletedUser]

So an egg is not a human life, a sperm is not a human life, but put them together in a test tube of jello in a laboratory and *poof*, it's immediately a human life? Or are you arguing that sperm is one half of human life and an egg is the other half? Because if that's your argument, we're going to have to have a long talk about the birds, the bees, and looking at Playboy magazines in the bathroom.

AS soon as conception takes place it is a life that is human. Who are we to judge when its okay to end that life. And a side note, just because you do not agree with me you do not have to be condescending!


This is a very relevant point, particularly in this part of the forums... please review the General Forum Rules and particular rules for D&D.

/Edlit

 

[DeletedUser15057]

Oh geeeezz, ...........no more pro vs anti life debates here............ PLEASE !!!

Back on thread - yes stem cell research is a logical and, now, well understood advancement in medicine, ethical considerations not withstanding.
The future of course will not be using actual human embryonic stem cells, but ones that are scientifically cloned or manufactured (see ... no more dead babies ... oops!) to serve the same purpose.
Science is pretty much at point where research is realistically able to understand and clone/copy a number of natures secrets at their most microscopic level, and it has to be said that these are exciting times for the likes of developing cures and solutions for many of human kinds illnesses.

In future stem cell research as such will be looked upon as a brave, but ultimately a primitive step forward in terms of medical development.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

I think for stem cell research to be accepted and move forward it'd have to be synthetic ,governments/policy makers tread very lightly because it's so polarizing, i dont think it'll ever thought as primitive ,it'd always have to be thought of as a breakthrough moment in modern medicene.

Recently a full heart was grown (although it was done on a donor heart where the muscle cells were removed leaving a ‘skeleton of connective tissue' , it's a possibilty that in a close future where people waiting on organ donation could have thier organs grown for them ,it's also a possibilty that because of the moral issues the prospects been brought back decades.

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright, research has already found reasoned alternatives via adult cells being stressed to revert to embryonic stem cell equivalence (pluripotent), the result being referred to as iPSCs (see the link provided by Rice Farmer).

As to creation of organs, as Scampy indicated, they have already succeeded. I would like to point out that they've gone much further than that Scampy. They were able to create organs (lungs, etc) virtually from scratch, through a revolutionary discovery that organs have skeletons comprised of "proteins." The magic comes next, which is happening now.

The two big obstacles being overcome are insufficient donor organs and immunogenic responses (rejection). For example, if I were to need a new liver, I would have to get on a rather long waiting list. And if I'm lucky to receive a donor liver before complications set in and kill me, there's still the underwhelming 75% chance that my body will reject that liver within the first five years, despite the use of "very unhealthy" immuno-suppressors (that's not even considering whether I might have a hyper-immune system, i.e., prone to allergies, forcing a much higher dose of immuno-suppressors for a marginal decrease in the likelihood of rejection).

Back to solutions --- Utilizing particular proteins that are 100% free of immuno-rejection potential, scientists are able to pair it up with a cell derived from the patient's organ, "healthy" cell removed from the person needing a new organ, which is then cleaned and used as a template. The proteins read that organ cell's dna and reproduce that particular organ's skeleton! (seriously, this is some cool sci-fi magic happening today)

So, once this organ skeleton is created in the lab, they then induce some iPS cells into the mix and, once again reading the clean cell dna, we have *poof*, the damn little buggers build all the muscles and matters of that respective organ "around" the protein skeleton!

The magic part? Besides the fact this organ was created virtually from scratch?!? The magic part is that it is 100% compatible with the patient, precisely because it is derived from the patient's core dna using neutral proteins and cells.

Once again, this is happening "now."

Their present chore is to make it both cost-effective and streamlined, but the big job of "how" has already been achieved. It's no longer a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when" it will be available mainstream.


Of course, then we have the problem of overpopulation and the fact we can't readily erase the "stupid" from Man's tendency to be self, and environmentally, destructive... even if we were able to recreate their brains from scratch.

Let's face it, stupid is as stupid does, and the vast majority of Man is just plain stupid... because they put short-term self-satisfaction (and self-serving, ignorant, religious mantra) ahead of long-term species survival.

Yay for Man... meh

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed, I am a Man, with all the dangly accoutrements and short-term satisfaction agendas.

But enough about me, let's talk about you... so... embryonic stem cells, it's nice to know we don't have to rely on them to get anything done. We can now get it done via "real" men.

(( lol, okay that was just too fun, let's move on ))

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Pistols at dawn was so much more civilised don't you think ? :shootout:

 

[DeletedUser]

Cleaning break...

...done, for now!

/Edlit

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Let's face it, stupid is as stupid does, and the vast majority of Man is just plain stupid... because they put short-term self-satisfaction (and self-serving, ignorant, religious mantra) ahead of long-term species survival.

Yay for Man... meh

i was looking to say similar sentiments , but it got too long winded because i was trying to be sensistive in case people werre overly religious right to life etc , but id have to really agree , our own worst enemy is ourselves in a lot of cases ,this bieng a big example.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let's face it, stupid is as stupid does, and the vast majority of Man is just plain stupid... because they put short-term self-satisfaction (and self-serving, ignorant, religious mantra) ahead of long-term species survival.

Yay for Man... meh

Yes man is self centered, that is where stem cell research comes in. This research is not for the long term survival of mankind as a species. Business only exists to make money. Business finds a want and fills that want for a profit. Fixing up some of the people who are paralyzed or missing limbs or dying from an organ failing does not ensure the long term survival of mankind. I'm not saying this in it self is a bad thing but you need to make sure the cost is not paid by the death of others. The movie "The Island" is illustrative to this point.

The reason I am against aborting is not just religious. I believe you are denying the potential life of a person by eliminating them in the womb. I would be equally against traveling back in time to make sure the parents of some one that you don't like never conceives them. To me this is morally wrong. What if you sterilize a populace because you don't want them breeding, is that okay? What is the government decided that every one who was below the poverty line was to be sterilized is that okay? If you think about this logically you can connect the dots. We do not have the right to say who is allowed to be born or not.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Im gonna sit on the fence on this one. Although we cant really say an embryo aint life I can also see the need to use it. I guess there is some kind of long term baby pods(mothers) that just breeds embryos in exchange for money so by embryo 200 you cant argue that , that would have been a potential human anyway. Ok I dont know guess we will let God decide when they all make it to heaven /hell.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Yes man is self centered, that is where stem cell research comes in. This research is not for the long term survival of mankind as a species. Business only exists to make money. Business finds a want and fills that want for a profit. Fixing up some of the people who are paralyzed or missing limbs or dying from an organ failing does not ensure the long term survival of mankind. I'm not saying this in it self is a bad thing but you need to make sure the cost is not paid by the death of others. The movie "The Island" is illustrative to this point.

The reason I am against aborting is not just religious. I believe you are denying the potential life of a person by eliminating them in the womb. I would be equally against traveling back in time to make sure the parents of some one that you don't like never conceives them. To me this is morally wrong. What if you sterilize a populace because you don't want them breeding, is that okay? What is the government decided that every one who was below the poverty line was to be sterilized is that okay? If you think about this logically you can connect the dots. We do not have the right to say who is allowed to be born or not.

Willy you are full of contradiction and misunderstanding as is most of the world in fact but besides the point. ill keep it simple

First medical application tho a business is a benefit to mankind things cannot and would not be discovered without investment. One is dependent on the other so try to see the basics before making silly statements.

Aborting I will not debate here this is not about abortion

No one ever complained about helping life survive with medical help so why not termination ? it is only the opposite application and is no less immoral than forcing someone to stay alive who wishes to die or cannot live without artificial aid when that aid will never be weaned off. This is a knee jerk reaction not a thought out one. Its folly to try to put the building blocks in the argument of a life when in fact they are just materials at that stage.

By your own words you should also be saying forget medicine entirely...... We do not have the right to say who is allowed to be born or not nor who lives or dies so medical aid is not allowed either.

In your morality argument you fail to address the suffering caused by over population in unsustainable areas or maybe abuse metered out on a child forced to live in an environment of careless or worse unstable parents. Is that moral ? there are many things immoral about allowing procreation to run rampant yet thats never talked about by certain groups only the specific problems they wish to pick out.

This is about stem cells not who is born and who is not...... much of the fringe contingent wish it to be looked at like this so sensationalize it........ It is how it's applied not that it is

 

[DeletedUser]

The argument of birth at conception is missing the boat, and it's a false sell:

• Embryonic stem cells are not obtained from abortions. They were created in a laboratory, in a test tube.
  
• If you really have issues with all this, you should have an issue with invitro-fertilization, as they create unused embryos that are destroyed if not used.
  
• If you wish to push this further, you should have an issue with women, as less than one-third of zygotes are implanted after conception.
  
• Embryonic stem cells are obtained from blastocysts (the earliest embryonic stage), which is as "life" as your skin cells.
  
• If you think skin cells constitute "life," then you would have reason to argue, but otherwise you're just being silly.
  
• As it is, no new embryos are being used for research in embryonic stem cell research. They are using the same embryos as years back.
  
• Finally, as previously indicated, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells are presently turning out to be viable alternatives to embryonic stem cells.

So, once again -- babies aren't being aborted for this research to take place, they also aren't babies. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate gross ignorance on this issue.