Stem Cell Research

[TheSpacePope]

I just wanted to know what you guys thought about this:
"British researchers have been able to grow stem cells without using animal products, it has been revealed.
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to become any kind of tissue, and scientists hope they can one day be used to treat a range of diseases.

But there has been concern that the animal products used in stem cell development could contaminate them.

However, New Scientist reports scientists at the Roslin Institute successfully used human cells instead.

In the procedure currently used, embryonic stem (ES) cells are cultivated in "feeder layers" consisting of a nutrient material derived from live animal cells.

Animal derived serum has also been used.

But this means there is a theoretical risk of viruses and other harmful agents being transmitted from the animal cells to the stem cells, and thus on to patients who receive stem cell therapy."

The south Korean's are ten years ahead of us in theaputic stem cell research also.

"UK researchers have successfully made cloned human embryos, following in the steps of South Korean scientists who created 30 human embryo clones last year. "
"South Korean scientists say they have made stem cells tailored to match the individual for the first time.
Each of the 11 new stem cell lines that they made was created by taking genetic material from the patient and putting it into a donated egg.

The resultant cells were a perfect match for the individual and could mean treatments for diseases like diabetes without problems of rejection.

The study, published in Science, has been hailed as a major advance."

These advances could possibly mean the end of all disease on the planet. This is a nesesary field of research and I think that the United States should get going on it, otherwise in 10 years we will be too far behind to catch up without major help from eveyone else.

It seems like every other country is making advances in the field except for us. The United States stubbornly refuses to do research on these artifical life forms. THEY ARE CREATED IN A LAB. THEY DO NOT QUALIFY AS HUMAN BEINGS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CREATED NATURALLY.
The benefits are obvious, the cure for parkinsons, MS, other brain and spinal injuries, as well as diabetes and cancer. There is no reason that we shouldn't be involved in the research for the betterment of mankind right?

This is what your government has to say:
"Bush 'would veto' stem cell bill

I am against science that destroys life to save life: Bush
US President George W Bush has said he will veto any legislation that would ease funding restrictions on embryo stem cell research.
He was speaking a day after South Korean scientists announced they had made stem cells tailored to the individual for the first time.

"I'm very concerned about cloning," said Mr Bush. "I worry about a world in which cloning would be acceptable."

Next week, the US Congress is to discuss funding for such research.

The House of Representatives is to debate legislation to expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally-funded research.

Supporters of the bill believe the vote will be close.

"Human cloning is essentially inevitable, and we would do well to embrace its great prospects " Robert Yang, California, USA


President Bush said he was a strong supporter of adult stem cell research, but using material from human embryos was a different matter.

"I've made it very clear... the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," he told reporters.

"If the bill does that, I will veto it," Mr Bush said, threatening to use his presidential right for the first time in almost five years that he has been in office.

'Major advance'

South Korean scientists made headlines by announcing they had made 11 new stem cell lines by taking genetic material from the patient and putting it into a donated egg.

The resultant cells were a perfect match for the individual and could mean treatments for diseases like diabetes without problems of rejection.

STEM CELL MILESTONES
1960s: Research begins on stem cells taken from adult tissue
1968: Adult stem cells used to treat immunodeficient patient
1998: US scientists grow stem cells from human embryos and germ cells, establishing cell lines still in use today
2001: Embryonic stem cell turned into a blood cell
2004: South Korean scientists clone 30 human embryos and develop them over several days
2005: Korean team develops stem cells tailored to match individual patients


Head-to-head: Patients' views

The study, published in Science, has been hailed as a major advance.

But experts warn that there is a risk the cells could become cancerous.

And the Korean team admits much work is needed before stem cell techniques can be perfected.

The stem cell lines produced by the Koreans from patients with disease will likely also display some of the characteristics of that disease.

Professor Chris Higgins, from the UK Medical Research Council, said: "It really is an advance. It offers the possibility of stem cell therapies without rejection.

But Julia Millington, of the ProLife Alliance in the UK, said: "Cloning for research purposes, which involves the manufacture of human embryos destined for experimentation and subsequent destruction, is profoundly unethical.

"Experimentation upon human life at any stage of development has no place in a civilised society." "


TELL ME WHAT YOU GUYS THINK
All materials cited from BBC News
THE|SPACE|POPE
question everyting
:bmage: :thief:

[Patrat]

*sigh*
It's really sad why bush refuses to deny stem cell research. But the reasons are clear.
1. Church and state separation has been known to be ignored by bush, thus, Since stem cell research is "un-holy", he refuses to go with it.
2. My dad has diabetes. If stem cell research would happen, he could be cured. Unfortunatly, big buisnesses hate that becuase once they don't have anymore diabetics, they go out of buisniss.

It's sad to know that people will put down a life saving feat, just so they can have their money's worth of it. That's just like tobacco companies with thier ciggerettes. "Hey, they kill people, but we make money off of it, so we don't care"

[Meister]

Less religion, more... general ethics. Walk the thin line, people. ^^ Also less propaganda vibes if you please.

question everyting

But why should I? =P

[Lockeownzj00]

because otherwise you're not thinking. and that's not fundamentally wrong--but if you want to think and consider yourself interested in, well, anything, you should question everything. Question everything doesn't mean reject everything. It means question the motives.

I don't know how you can't relate religion to it, it's the foremost argument against it. "alright kids, now let's argue about god, but dont bring religion to it" would be just as effective.

but even besides that. folks who have compassion for a cell might as well put themselves in suspended animation, because every thing that a human being does involves killing irrelevant organisms in some way.

It's rooted in fear: fear of advances.

[Meister]

Well, yeah. Just a little joke. very little. I agree, it's just that I had to think of this comic and couldn't hold myself back. Sorry.

Anyway, that's off topic, the topic being stem cells. And again I agree: it's difficult not to bring up religion, and by all experience this thread will end prematurely, but it never hurts to try.

[Lockeownzj00]

Well I guess you could take the religiously-rooted concept of sanctity of life and somehow make it secular, even though a secular person wouldn't bring it up in the first place:

is it right to kill "any" "life?"

define the words as we go.

[TheSpacePope]

:thief: I don't want to bring religion into it and anyone that thinks that cellular life is sentient should never shower, move, blink, anything.

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

but even besides that. folks who have compassion for a cell might as well put themselves in suspended animation, because every thing that a human being does involves killing irrelevant organisms in some way.

Patrat made a good point about the personal level that the lack of stem cell research can affect us.
Meister made a good point about the religious aspect of the argument
and lockownzj00 made a great point about the futility of the argument from the religous side.

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

It's rooted in fear: fear of advances.

That is probably the most poingant point I have ever seen on the topic.
We fear what we don't understand and we use religion as the crutch to prop ourselves up on.
There just does not seem to be any good reason why we shouldn't
Does anyone have a good reason why the lives of millions shouldn't be saved?
If you are religious, shouldn't your goal be to help people?

And if religious people eat eggs then their argument is moot, because according to thier logic, the egg is a living chicken. oooooooohhhhh Burn

It just seems foolish to deny ourselves the research.
*sigh*

THE|SPACE|POPE

[Meister]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

I don't want to bring religion into it...
==========
and lockownzj00 made a great point about the futility of the argument from the religous side.
... and we use religion as the crutch to prop ourselves up on.
And if religious people eat eggs then their argument is moot, because according to thier logic, the egg is a living chicken. oooooooohhhhh Burn

As much as I'm inclined to agree with you on the usefulness of stem cell research, we do take the "no religion" rule pretty seriously; not because we like to make rules, but because the topic itself leads to flame wars fairly quickly. So please, everyone, don't bring it up anymore, okay? If there's one more mention of religion* we're gonna have to close this thread.


---------------
*Yes, even in aside remarks, because it takes just one guy to latch on to, say the 'religion as a crutch' remark, and off we go.

[DarthZeth]

You can be non-religious and have morals. I consider myself to have some pretty strict morals, but I never say "because God said so", which I think is the vital part in turning a moral discussion into a religious one.

"I believe in the sanctity of life." I don't think it is correct to murder people. This is not a religious statement.

"Life begins at birth." "Life begins at conception." "Life begins at some other point in between." These are also not "religious" statements, although they may have religious motivations.


Here's another one for you: "Stem cells should be used to save lives". Is this a religious statement? or just a moral one? I don't think the Pro-stem cell people consider it "religious" when they say that lives should be saved. But aren't they also believing in the sanctity of life, as well? If we were in a non-moral/religious discussion, no one would care about the sanctity of life for the living.

see? no religion here!


Anyway, this is pretty damn cool. Although I was listening to the radio, and they said that the downside to this treatment is that the stem cells inherit the negative genetic qualities of the person they are "cloning" as well. So they have to do some genetic manipulation before they use the stem cells, most likely.

Either way, I'm not sure how this will be viewed by Bush. I've heard it touted as "getting around the controversy of using discarded embryos." I'm not sure if that Bush was reiterating his position, or if he was referring specifically to this development.

But either way, if Americans would have to travel to South Korea to get medical treatments in the future, I don't think Americans would stand for that. I wouldn't expect stem cell obstruction to continue for more then three years.

Besides, Congress could do what they always do. Put in funding for stem Cells on as a rider to a omnibus spending bill!

[Kikuichimonji]

**I had a very sarcastic remark here against some of the people here, but I decided to be a good little poster and let Meister's comments suffice**

The argument against stem cell research, or at least Bush's argument, is rooted in the belief of the sanctity of human life. I fully agree with what he said on this- if you believe that something intrinsically sets humans above animals, you can't disregard that in any way. I doubt that any rational person would say that a 9-month baby, about to be born, is not a person in the womb. So where would you draw the line? How can you look at something and be, 100% sure, that it's not human? If you do draw a line (eg, 6 months or whatnot), then look just a little past it. Is there really that much difference between a 5-month 3-week baby and a 6-month baby? The point is, there is no way to determine if something is really human. Anything you choose is subjective, except DNA. But anyway, the fear is not of hurting cells - it's of killing a person for the pursuit of science. Part of the reason stem cell research is so tempting is that it's very easy to rationalize that the stuff used isn't human, or that their sacrifice is for a good cause. It's not out of fear that people reject this research - it's out of compassion. We respect life in all things, but life needs consumption. One cannot live without eating, a very destructive act. So the continuation and creation of life requires the destruction of other life. So even though we respect it, we are human beings, meant to live life. This means that, obviously, we will have to consume. This does not, however, mean that we should take more than we need. Destroy what is neccessary, preserve the rest.

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

but even besides that. folks who have compassion for a cell might as well put themselves in suspended animation, because every thing that a human being does involves killing irrelevant organisms in some way.

People die violently every day as an unavoidable part of normal society - does that mean we should stop caring? Every human action does destroy, I won't deny that, but apathy alone brings around the loss of all morals and ethics.