Full Version: Stem cell research
While looking around the net, I found two competing groups in my state over the issue of stem cell research. 
Nebraskans for Research is a group that calls for the use of stem cells given their promise in treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, as well as playing a role in the creation of the Polio vaccine. This group cites studies and subsequent "go ahead" signals from the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the National Institutes of Health as evidence that this issue has been researched enough and that time is being wasted.
On the other end of this issue, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research holds that embryonic testing is the destruction of human life. From their website:
Questions for debate:
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
Nebraskans for Research is a group that calls for the use of stem cells given their promise in treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, as well as playing a role in the creation of the Polio vaccine. This group cites studies and subsequent "go ahead" signals from the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the National Institutes of Health as evidence that this issue has been researched enough and that time is being wasted. On the other end of this issue, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research
holds that embryonic testing is the destruction of human life. From their website:QUOTE
All human beings (including embryonic and fetal human beings): Should be granted all the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution;Must be protected from research that is harmful or that deprives them of their lives;
Must not be violated or destroyed even if such violation could lead to treatments for other human beings suffering from disease or disability.
Must not be violated or destroyed even if such violation could lead to treatments for other human beings suffering from disease or disability.
Questions for debate:
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely, in theory there are limitless applications to stem cell research as far as wiping out debilitating diseases which the human race constantly battles with. There is also the possiblity that it might be possible to grow organs at some time in the distant future eliminating lots of deaths that happen while waiting for transplants.
All of this stuff is at this point simply theory, but it isn't science-fiction it is very plausible. However, we are only going to find out one way or another by doing the research and experimenting with different techniques.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
I don't see it as destruction of human life, stem cells are no more "alive" than any other cells in our body are. No one gets fired up if single-celled organisms die, this is essentially the same thing. The traits that make these cells a "human life" are not there yet.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Absolutely, it does. If the research proves the theory about stem cells then several of the top causes of death could be eliminated as well as some very serious diseases.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
1) The definition of human life by opponents is flawed, one cannot consider a clump of cells "human".
2) The opposition's argument that this is junk science is not scientifically valid. The theory is sound and only requires research to prove it, not many respected scientists would look at a plausible theory and dismiss it just because they didn't like it.
3) The opposition has its priorities messed up. They are trying to protect the wrong group of people. What about the people that are actively making a contribution to society, have loved ones and could be far more productive if their disease was cured?
4) The opposition falls in line with a well established historical pattern of conservative/religious groups opposing scientific advance. As people have proved time and time again this kind of thinking never ends up being beneficial to society.
Absolutely, in theory there are limitless applications to stem cell research as far as wiping out debilitating diseases which the human race constantly battles with. There is also the possiblity that it might be possible to grow organs at some time in the distant future eliminating lots of deaths that happen while waiting for transplants.
All of this stuff is at this point simply theory, but it isn't science-fiction it is very plausible. However, we are only going to find out one way or another by doing the research and experimenting with different techniques.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
I don't see it as destruction of human life, stem cells are no more "alive" than any other cells in our body are. No one gets fired up if single-celled organisms die, this is essentially the same thing. The traits that make these cells a "human life" are not there yet.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Absolutely, it does. If the research proves the theory about stem cells then several of the top causes of death could be eliminated as well as some very serious diseases.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
1) The definition of human life by opponents is flawed, one cannot consider a clump of cells "human".
2) The opposition's argument that this is junk science is not scientifically valid. The theory is sound and only requires research to prove it, not many respected scientists would look at a plausible theory and dismiss it just because they didn't like it.
3) The opposition has its priorities messed up. They are trying to protect the wrong group of people. What about the people that are actively making a contribution to society, have loved ones and could be far more productive if their disease was cured?
4) The opposition falls in line with a well established historical pattern of conservative/religious groups opposing scientific advance. As people have proved time and time again this kind of thinking never ends up being beneficial to society.
I think cube Jockey's reply covers most of what needs to be addressed. I do however have a question: What is the exact time frame, for fetal development, in which stem cell research is conducted, and what makes a fetus a candidate for this research?
Since the beginnings of empirical science we have taken risks in the name of progress. Research answers questions and even un-eventful research is progress. Regardless of the moral qualms about fetal development, looking at the question from an empirical, harms vs benefits perspective the answer is clear. If stem cell research does indeed hold the keys to the elimination of many deadly diseases, then far more cells would be saved from such diseases than were used in the research. The old "ends justify the means" argument.
This really sums up the nature of the argument, and anyone who argues the conservative stance, and is willing to recognize history, as a several thousand year deep ditch to climb out of first.
QUOTE
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Since the beginnings of empirical science we have taken risks in the name of progress. Research answers questions and even un-eventful research is progress. Regardless of the moral qualms about fetal development, looking at the question from an empirical, harms vs benefits perspective the answer is clear. If stem cell research does indeed hold the keys to the elimination of many deadly diseases, then far more cells would be saved from such diseases than were used in the research. The old "ends justify the means" argument.
QUOTE
4) The opposition falls in line with a well established historical pattern of conservative/religious groups opposing scientific advance. As people have proved time and time again this kind of thinking never ends up being beneficial to society.
This really sums up the nature of the argument, and anyone who argues the conservative stance, and is willing to recognize history, as a several thousand year deep ditch to climb out of first.
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely like Cube Jockey has stated, as well as who knows what embronic stem cells might be able to offer that other stem cells are not able to.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
No because if it is embronic stem cells, they are only cells in a petri dish that will never become life if the final steps are not introduced. And alot of the time are thrown away after a couple that created these cells have been able to conceive.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Same as what Cube Jockey has said
Just a little update that I heard about today
Parkinson's advance in stem cell research July 1, 2004
While there still needs to be alot of experiments it does give hope and even if the experiments show that stem cells would not be a good cure in future it might lead to other studies that could find cures.
Absolutely like Cube Jockey has stated, as well as who knows what embronic stem cells might be able to offer that other stem cells are not able to.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
No because if it is embronic stem cells, they are only cells in a petri dish that will never become life if the final steps are not introduced. And alot of the time are thrown away after a couple that created these cells have been able to conceive.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Same as what Cube Jockey has said
Just a little update that I heard about today
Parkinson's advance in stem cell research July 1, 2004
QUOTE
Scientists have succeeded in reversing some of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease in rats by implanting human stem cells in their brains, it was announced yesterday.
The news will bring new hope to those suffering from the degenerative brain disease that currently has no permanent cure. But other experts cautioned that there are reasons to be concerned about the potential side-effects of such treatment.
The research, reported at the European Society on Human Reproduction and Embryology conference in Berlin yesterday, was the first to use human stem cells, rather than those derived from animals.
Stem cells are the body's building blocks which can develop into any part of the body, from limbs to blood to brain tissue. They can be obtained from donated embryos, left over after fertility treatment, or from an embryo deliberately cloned for therapeutic purposes.
The team of scientists, based at Hadassah University hospital in Jerusalem, used stem cells from a cloned embryo. They manipulated them in the laboratory to derive specialist neurons that are missing from patients with Parkinson's disease. Then they inserted the neurons in the brains of rats with the disease, which manifests itself in behavioural symptoms such as continually turning and failing to make side steps when dragged across a surface.
The symptoms were considerably reduced after the transplant, the researchers said. "This study shows for the first time that human embryonic stem cell-developed neural precursors can induce partial functional recovery in an experimental model of Parkinson's disease," Benjamin Reubinoff told the conference.
The news will bring new hope to those suffering from the degenerative brain disease that currently has no permanent cure. But other experts cautioned that there are reasons to be concerned about the potential side-effects of such treatment.
The research, reported at the European Society on Human Reproduction and Embryology conference in Berlin yesterday, was the first to use human stem cells, rather than those derived from animals.
Stem cells are the body's building blocks which can develop into any part of the body, from limbs to blood to brain tissue. They can be obtained from donated embryos, left over after fertility treatment, or from an embryo deliberately cloned for therapeutic purposes.
The team of scientists, based at Hadassah University hospital in Jerusalem, used stem cells from a cloned embryo. They manipulated them in the laboratory to derive specialist neurons that are missing from patients with Parkinson's disease. Then they inserted the neurons in the brains of rats with the disease, which manifests itself in behavioural symptoms such as continually turning and failing to make side steps when dragged across a surface.
The symptoms were considerably reduced after the transplant, the researchers said. "This study shows for the first time that human embryonic stem cell-developed neural precursors can induce partial functional recovery in an experimental model of Parkinson's disease," Benjamin Reubinoff told the conference.
While there still needs to be alot of experiments it does give hope and even if the experiments show that stem cells would not be a good cure in future it might lead to other studies that could find cures.
Slight update here from wired.com on this subject:
I had absolutely no idea that Hatch of all people supported this, and frankly I'm shocked, I think I need to go lie down.
QUOTE
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican supporter of embryonic stem-cell research, said Sunday there is wide support in the Senate to ease the Bush administration's restrictive policy.
Hatch said supporters have more than the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster, but he's unsure whether Congress would act "in this hot political atmosphere."
Hatch said supporters have more than the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster, but he's unsure whether Congress would act "in this hot political atmosphere."
I had absolutely no idea that Hatch of all people supported this, and frankly I'm shocked, I think I need to go lie down.
To begin with, let me say that I can't add too much more to Cube Jockey's excellent analysis of the issue.
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely. The people who are opposed to it should realize that all but the most regressive scientists agree that embryonic stem cells afford much greater research opportunities (as well as discoveries) than adult stem cells.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
No, these are just cells which are doomed to be thrown away. Stem-cell opponents would rather see these embryos die in a trash can than be put to good use saving lives. If they have no chance of ever becoming anything, what's the big deal? If they're going to be thrown away, what's the problem in letting them be used to save lives?
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Look, you tell me if the rights of some cells that are destined to be thrown away outweigh the rights of living, breathing, and, most importantly, suffering human beings. Maybe if one of these people who are opposed to it actually had a family member with Alzheimer's, they would realize the urgency in this research. Perhaps if one of of these opponents watched a relative suffer with Parkinson's, they wouldn't care that much about the rights of some cells that are going into the garbage. These people can't see beyond their own narrow-minded view of the world to realize that there are people who are suffering and dying because they have delayed this research. It just saddens me that this has to occur.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
See Cube Jockey's statements because they basically echo what I think.
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely. The people who are opposed to it should realize that all but the most regressive scientists agree that embryonic stem cells afford much greater research opportunities (as well as discoveries) than adult stem cells.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
No, these are just cells which are doomed to be thrown away. Stem-cell opponents would rather see these embryos die in a trash can than be put to good use saving lives. If they have no chance of ever becoming anything, what's the big deal? If they're going to be thrown away, what's the problem in letting them be used to save lives?
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Look, you tell me if the rights of some cells that are destined to be thrown away outweigh the rights of living, breathing, and, most importantly, suffering human beings. Maybe if one of these people who are opposed to it actually had a family member with Alzheimer's, they would realize the urgency in this research. Perhaps if one of of these opponents watched a relative suffer with Parkinson's, they wouldn't care that much about the rights of some cells that are going into the garbage. These people can't see beyond their own narrow-minded view of the world to realize that there are people who are suffering and dying because they have delayed this research. It just saddens me that this has to occur.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
See Cube Jockey's statements because they basically echo what I think.
This research is abolutely worthy, as long as it stays private.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jul 1 2004, 01:16 AM)
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
To make one thing clear, I pretty much agree with CubeJockey, but there may be slight diferentiations
1,) Yes. This sort of research will enable scientists to understand more about the way the human body works and ways that they can help people. Of course at the beginning only the rich folks will be able to afford the fruits of the research, but if you think about it, there was a time when only rich people could afford to take baths! (Medieval times---maybe 300-500 years ago)
2.) No. I have done research on stem cells in the past and there are two forms of stem cells. the main one is embryonic stem cells. These are the stem cells taken from an embryo. These embryos are not fertilized before they are donated to science, and they are not developed into a fetus. they are left in embryonic phase, and therefore really aren't living. The embryos are donated by women who have no wish of getting pregnant, and can therefore be considered as a form of birth control (oh i can tell some people are going to be really mad about that one---sorry1 i hope i don't get anyone toooo mad.
3.) I don't believe that life begins until the egg is fertilized by two humans who copulate (in vitro is acceptable too). An embryo is not a human yet. If you think about it, by having the menstrual cycle, women kill embryos every month, but that is not considered a form of murder is it? To get back to the question, I believe that it is perfectly alright to use donated embryos to further the study of EMBRYONIC stem cells.
4.) I agree with CubeJockey
QUOTE(menachemrogan @ Aug 10 2004, 03:54 AM)
I don't believe that life begins until the egg is fertilized by two humans who copulate (in vitro is acceptable too). An embryo is not a human yet. If you think about it, by having the menstrual cycle, women kill embryos every month, but that is not considered a form of murder is it?
Do you mean women kill off ovum, the largest cell in the human body every month? After an ovum has been fertilized and begins splitting in the zygote stage most people consider that either a life or a potential human life.
QUOTE
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
I honestly don't know. It is morally confusing. First of all, an embryo is a human life; therefore I see it as wrong to discard all of the embryos that aren't used in fertility clinics. And yet, it's not possible to implant all of these embryos and bring the babies to full term.
So I see why scientists would want to use these wasted lives to conduct research and possibly find cures to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and other diseases.
But it was wrong to make these fertilizations take place en masse only to discard most of them in the first place...the issue is beyond my ken. So I'll bow out of this debate.
I don't really know enough about stem cell research to make a truly informed decision, but from what I do know, and from what I believe, I support it. It must surely be able to do more good than harm, and the moral question from the conservative side is weak in the face of science.
But I do take issue with the supporters propaganda in that they make the average American think that Bush has banned stem cell research. When in fact it is ongoing as we speak, Bush has merely denied federal funding.
But I do take issue with the supporters propaganda in that they make the average American think that Bush has banned stem cell research. When in fact it is ongoing as we speak, Bush has merely denied federal funding.
It should also be noted that going after embryos is not the only way to get stem cells. Stem cells can also be obtained from the placenta which comes from each birth and is basically thrown away.
I think the viability of these cells may still be a little questionable, but if scientists could make it work then essentially they would have a limitless supply of stem cells and they wouldn't have to use embryos.
I think the viability of these cells may still be a little questionable, but if scientists could make it work then essentially they would have a limitless supply of stem cells and they wouldn't have to use embryos.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 10 2004, 07:00 AM)
I don't really know enough about stem cell research to make a truly informed decision, but from what I do know, and from what I believe, I support it. It must surely be able to do more good than harm, and the moral question from the conservative side is weak in the face of science.
But I do take issue with the supporters propaganda in that they make the average American think that Bush has banned stem cell research. When in fact it is ongoing as we speak, Bush has merely denied federal funding.
But I do take issue with the supporters propaganda in that they make the average American think that Bush has banned stem cell research. When in fact it is ongoing as we speak, Bush has merely denied federal funding.
Actually, there is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on an existing set of cell lines. Feds spent $25 million on embryonic stem cell research in 2003, with another increase in 2004. Plus there is something like $180 million in federal funding for non-embryonic stem-cell research, where the cells come from the spinal cord or even the placenta as noted by Cube Jockey. All Bush and Congress did was ban the creation of new embryos for the purpose of making new lines of stem cells.
Seems like a non-issue to me, and the thought of creating human embryos only to harvest the cells freaks me out. Ever read Brave New World?
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 10 2004, 12:31 AM)
This research is abolutely worthy, as long as it stays private.
Why? Why must it be only private? Don't you think that public health issues, infectious diseases, and the like are important enough for us to spend public money on? We can spend public money on weapons of mass destruction, but not on medical research?! Your position is frankly quite baffling. And beyond the pure research angle, publicly funded research is very important to the scientific community - which thrives and improves most in an atmosphere of data-sharing in the public sphere, not in the narrow, self-interested and proprietary environment of private labs.
QUOTE(dontreadonme)
But I do take issue with the supporters propaganda in that they make the average American think that Bush has banned stem cell research. When in fact it is ongoing as we speak, Bush has merely denied federal funding.
Hmm. And I take issue with detractors' propaganda, in which they make average Americans think that Bush's denying federal funds for stem-cell research is somehow NOT stifling research, when it really is. Researchers agree that the lack of federal funding is stifling research.
QUOTE(International Society for Stem Cell Research)
Today , ISSCR sent a letter to President Bush asking for a relaxation of his current restrictions on federal funding, which are effectively stifling rapid scientific advances in human stem cell research. The letter was created as an outcome of ISSCR's second annual meeting in Boston, where the data presented made it clearer than ever that research on all types of stem cells should be pursued with the goals of reducing human suffering and better understanding human physiology.
QUOTE(coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research)
Lifting Bush's restrictions on stem-cell research is critical, supporters say, because cuts in funding and bans on research often affect science even years after they are reversed.
After President Clinton overturned the ban on fetal tissue research instituted by Reagan, for example, eight years passed before the first trial of government-approved fetal tissue transplants yielded results that were reported in medical journals.
After President Clinton overturned the ban on fetal tissue research instituted by Reagan, for example, eight years passed before the first trial of government-approved fetal tissue transplants yielded results that were reported in medical journals.
DTOM, while appreciate your personal support of stem-cell research, it is a bit disingenuous to deride one side for its 'propaganda' by using the opposing sides own propaganda.
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely!!! There are so many things that stem cell research can help, and the only argument against it is religious morality,
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
No, because there is no life being destroyed... Life is being created from cells. This is embryonic where the eggs aren't even fertilized....
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
YES!!! This technology can cure/help tons of diseases that in the long time will reduce health care costs.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
See CJ
EDITED for spelling and to include the link to the image I scanned, a brochure promoting stem cell research.
here
Absolutely!!! There are so many things that stem cell research can help, and the only argument against it is religious morality,
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
No, because there is no life being destroyed... Life is being created from cells. This is embryonic where the eggs aren't even fertilized....
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
YES!!! This technology can cure/help tons of diseases that in the long time will reduce health care costs.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
See CJ
EDITED for spelling and to include the link to the image I scanned, a brochure promoting stem cell research.
here
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 10 2004, 01:06 PM)
Seems like a non-issue to me, and the thought of creating human embryos only to harvest the cells freaks me out. Ever read Brave New World?
I know what you mean, Carlito. Although I wholeheartedly support stem-cell research for medical use, I have this vision in the back of my mind of walking into a barn one day and finding it filled 95 human arms in tanks. Or driving by the government leg factory one day. Kinda nuts, I know...but you still think about it. Actually, maybe I need to take an aspirin and rest for a bit outside of the sun.
Great question Nebraska29. It's helped me to research the issue for myself to since it's been talked about alot in the news. These are some of the points that I've come to accept after reading about it.
1.
2. After some googling I've been reading that conception as an individual human life's beginning has been accepted as such by the medical community, and by leading embryologists in particular, since the 1850s. It's currently the standard teaching of medical schools world wide. There simply has been no credible disputing of this accepted scientific fact.
(For me, if all the leading embyrologists have accepted this as a fact for over 150 years and it is still taught world wide without dispute, thats good enough for me, an average joe, to buy it.)
3. It follows then that there is no potential benefit to this society in destroying the weaker individuals for the purposes of the privileged. Just as it is abhorrent to kill a 5 year old to take his kidneys for those needing transplants, it is unacceptable in our society to steal essential elements of the lives of developing human beings.
4. I noticed the first web site - Nebraskans for Research - offers no direct answers as to the ethical concerns nor anything that would lead to skepticism of the accepted fact of human life beginning at conception. It is completely ignored.
Thanks and I enjoy the discussion here.
1.
QUOTE
Every human embryologist, world-wide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. Thus, obtaining stem cells from "spare" embryos, or a therapeutic clone, kills that human life. C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D, Chairman of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission. http://www.all.org/abac/cwk002.htm
2. After some googling I've been reading that conception as an individual human life's beginning has been accepted as such by the medical community, and by leading embryologists in particular, since the 1850s. It's currently the standard teaching of medical schools world wide. There simply has been no credible disputing of this accepted scientific fact.
QUOTE
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes a termination of a human life.” Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)
(For me, if all the leading embyrologists have accepted this as a fact for over 150 years and it is still taught world wide without dispute, thats good enough for me, an average joe, to buy it.)
3. It follows then that there is no potential benefit to this society in destroying the weaker individuals for the purposes of the privileged. Just as it is abhorrent to kill a 5 year old to take his kidneys for those needing transplants, it is unacceptable in our society to steal essential elements of the lives of developing human beings.
4. I noticed the first web site - Nebraskans for Research - offers no direct answers as to the ethical concerns nor anything that would lead to skepticism of the accepted fact of human life beginning at conception. It is completely ignored.
Thanks and I enjoy the discussion here.
QUOTE(njs6 @ Aug 10 2004, 01:53 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 10 2004, 01:06 PM)
Seems like a non-issue to me, and the thought of creating human embryos only to harvest the cells freaks me out. Ever read Brave New World?
I know what you mean, Carlito. Although I wholeheartedly support stem-cell research for medical use, I have this vision in the back of my mind of walking into a barn one day and finding it filled 95 human arms in tanks.
Ok, let's clean up some misperceptions here.
Sitting in cold storage, waiting for possible implantation OR destruction, are literally thousands and thousands of embryos. When a couple goes in to get assistance with conceiving, the doctor harvests as many eggs as possible (figure up to a dozen), fertilizes as many as possible using the guy's semen, and then inserts a set of them (figure a half-dozen) into the uterus and waits to see if any of those "take". The woman beforehand makes a decision how many of those that "take" she wants to keep (just because if the whole lot somehow takes hold, all of them would be at higher risk of problems) and the doctor works with the proud parents (of a growing set of embryos) to cull the weakest of the litter. Can't think right now of a better way to put it, sorry.
Anyway, remember the remaining embryos that were fertilized? Well, if the first set doesn't take, the doctor doesn't have to harvest more, they just take from the batch already processed. But if the first set DOES take, those embryos sit in cold storage until the parents decide what to do with them.
Most people wait until they no longer want more kids (ever have twins or triplets? It makes you NOT want more
) and then they tell the doctor or the lab to go ahead and destroy those frozen embryos.So why can't those embryos instead be used for federally funded stem-cell research? If you have a choice between the embryos being destroyed (you can't force anyone to keep them in storage forever or to get pregnant with them, sorry) or using them for research to cure some nasty diseases, which seems like the most "moral" choice? I know which choice seems the most "logical".
Next misperception I've read: that not federally funding stem-cell lines outside the ones that existed when Bush made his decision a few years back is somehow NOT slowing down progress.
Although the pharmaceutical firms do a HUGE amount of research, so do universities. And university research need and use lots of federal grants. Except in the case of using stem cells from "unapproved" sources. So it shuts down that option for research. And, by the way, who exactly controls most of those "approved" sources of stem cells?
I don't have the answer to that either, but I can certainly guess.
I find it interesting that the stem cell question has become so politicized. IMHO science, particularly science with the possible potential as stem cell, should not become a political football.
This week Laura Bush weighed in on the matter. Her words had Chris Matthews scratching his head and wondering why she would become involved.
Laura Bush's actual words in red.
Debating the issue with Matthews are Steve Elemdorf, Deputy Commissioner Kerry/Edwards and Terry Holt, National Spokesperson Bush/Cheney 04.
Hardball link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5683405/
This week Laura Bush weighed in on the matter. Her words had Chris Matthews scratching his head and wondering why she would become involved.
Laura Bush's actual words in red.
QUOTE
LAURA BUSH: I hope that stem cell research will yield cures and therapies for a myriad of illnesses. But I know that embryonic stem cell research is very preliminary right now. And the implication that cures for Alzheimer‘s are around the corner is just not right, and it‘s really not fair to the people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease.
The president‘s policy makes it possible for researchers to explore the potential of stem cells, while respecting the ethical and moral implications associated with this research.
The president‘s policy makes it possible for researchers to explore the potential of stem cells, while respecting the ethical and moral implications associated with this research.
Debating the issue with Matthews are Steve Elemdorf, Deputy Commissioner Kerry/Edwards and Terry Holt, National Spokesperson Bush/Cheney 04.
QUOTE
MATTHEWS: When Mrs. Bush, who everybody likes, went out the other day and basically said that stem cell research isn‘t as promising as some people say it is, was that a good political move for her to be the one to deliver that bad news? Terry?
HOLT: Well, there has—there has been some discouraging news in the embryonic stem cell research...
<snip>
HOLT: Look, the first lady...
MATTHEWS: ... to deal with those diseases ?
<snip>
MATTHEWS: You guys write the speeches! What are you kidding me! You didn‘t send her out there for—whatever you want to talk about, bring up, just—you think there wasn‘t strategy behind sending her out there to dampen hopes for stem cell research?
HOLT: The first lady said it best. The stem cell research issue has advanced. This is the first president to have provided money for embryonic stem cell research, and he did so with a very careful decision. What‘s been dishonest about this is the framing of the issue by the Kerry campaign, who said that the president opposes science. What a ridiculous statement! This president...
HOLT: Well, there has—there has been some discouraging news in the embryonic stem cell research...
<snip>
HOLT: Look, the first lady...
MATTHEWS: ... to deal with those diseases ?
<snip>
MATTHEWS: You guys write the speeches! What are you kidding me! You didn‘t send her out there for—whatever you want to talk about, bring up, just—you think there wasn‘t strategy behind sending her out there to dampen hopes for stem cell research?
HOLT: The first lady said it best. The stem cell research issue has advanced. This is the first president to have provided money for embryonic stem cell research, and he did so with a very careful decision. What‘s been dishonest about this is the framing of the issue by the Kerry campaign, who said that the president opposes science. What a ridiculous statement! This president...
Hardball link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5683405/
EDITED - to conform cited article with forum Rules. Specifically, §B. Prohibited Items, V. Posting full or partial texts of copyrighted materials, regardless of ownership. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article. Please note that posting copyrighted images is prohibited.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jul 1 2004, 03:16 AM)
While looking around the net, I found two competing groups in my state over the issue of stem cell research. Nebraskans for Research is a group that calls for the use of stem cells given their promise in treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, as well as playing a role in the creation of the Polio vaccine. This group cites studies and subsequent "go ahead" signals from the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the National Institutes of Health as evidence that this issue has been researched enough and that time is being wasted.
On the other end of this issue, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research holds that embryonic testing is the destruction of human life. From their website:
Nebraskans for Research is a group that calls for the use of stem cells given their promise in treating juvenile diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, as well as playing a role in the creation of the Polio vaccine. This group cites studies and subsequent "go ahead" signals from the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the National Institutes of Health as evidence that this issue has been researched enough and that time is being wasted. On the other end of this issue, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research
holds that embryonic testing is the destruction of human life. From their website:QUOTE
All human beings (including embryonic and fetal human beings): Should be granted all the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution;Must be protected from research that is harmful or that deprives them of their lives;
Must not be violated or destroyed even if such violation could lead to treatments for other human beings suffering from disease or disability.
Must not be violated or destroyed even if such violation could lead to treatments for other human beings suffering from disease or disability.
IMPO, I believe stem cell research should get federal funding and be allowed to continue. Scientists and researchers in other countries are continuing their research, and the ones that are privately funded have no compunction to share their findings with the rest of the world.
I also believe religion and science do not make good bed partners.
I also doubt any of the Religious Right who are so dead set against this research for moral reasons would refuse treatment with the resulting medicines if it would save or prolong their life.
My belief tells me that all life is a gift of God. But, who is to say that this gift in the form of an embryo that was developed in a petri dish is not in His plan also?
Common sense tells me that life begins when a fetus has developed enough to survive outside the womb; the fetus can breathe.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, so if one group condones and supports this research and the other doesn't, who am I to say either one is wrong.
I have something to say 
First of all, is conception to birth always nine months to the nano second? I dont think so. Why i bring up this point is because its hard to reach an opinion on something like this involving fact over fiction in regards to basing the decision. The field of biology is rather diverse to say the least, this is shared on an individual level in some ways. In regards to the how to define when something is its own human, conception would be the start for anything living that uses sexual reproduction i would imagine lol. I guess its more to the regard of when development takes it to the point of it being human in how we would think, which i imagine is rather objective, but i will say when the anatomy and function of a human starts to appear and or is there for this topic and my post. Development will not be the same across the board, so from stem cell research to abortion, it would be on an individual base in regards to any "ethical" standards that are set in stone
If you make it illegal is that going to make it go away, or what of other countries that may decide to go ahead with it. In a sense i see some of the problems with it being legal in a sense as i do with making a law stating conception starts a human in regards to human rights in america. Do you not think someone could then get a fetus insured to make money from its death, per say how much could someone pay for stem cells??? I guess the ethical in a sense would require the ecology its in. Also on the note of ecology, much like the food chain, humans kind of dominate their ecology, with more success then other living things.This allows for genes that probably would not make it save living like primates for example, recombine with others during reproduction, making bad eyesight, for example, live on and much more common.This in regards to mutation, which exists in all living things, means that some kind of defect and or weakness is bound to come about, some new rare form of cancer or retardation. I would aim for better understanding of genetics overall, but then people would opt for genetics to do most likely what ecology would do and other. Overall on just the balance beam, more lives will profit, but i never liked the cost benefit model myself. I imagine such research is the only current way to gain such a biological snapshot maybe? Ethical wise, its something that will be viewed differently. Different groups will have different banners and reason for ya or na on it. I guess it would be nice to hear all those points in this debate.
First of all, is conception to birth always nine months to the nano second? I dont think so. Why i bring up this point is because its hard to reach an opinion on something like this involving fact over fiction in regards to basing the decision. The field of biology is rather diverse to say the least, this is shared on an individual level in some ways. In regards to the how to define when something is its own human, conception would be the start for anything living that uses sexual reproduction i would imagine lol. I guess its more to the regard of when development takes it to the point of it being human in how we would think, which i imagine is rather objective, but i will say when the anatomy and function of a human starts to appear and or is there for this topic and my post. Development will not be the same across the board, so from stem cell research to abortion, it would be on an individual base in regards to any "ethical" standards that are set in stone
If you make it illegal is that going to make it go away, or what of other countries that may decide to go ahead with it. In a sense i see some of the problems with it being legal in a sense as i do with making a law stating conception starts a human in regards to human rights in america. Do you not think someone could then get a fetus insured to make money from its death, per say how much could someone pay for stem cells??? I guess the ethical in a sense would require the ecology its in. Also on the note of ecology, much like the food chain, humans kind of dominate their ecology, with more success then other living things.This allows for genes that probably would not make it save living like primates for example, recombine with others during reproduction, making bad eyesight, for example, live on and much more common.This in regards to mutation, which exists in all living things, means that some kind of defect and or weakness is bound to come about, some new rare form of cancer or retardation. I would aim for better understanding of genetics overall, but then people would opt for genetics to do most likely what ecology would do and other. Overall on just the balance beam, more lives will profit, but i never liked the cost benefit model myself. I imagine such research is the only current way to gain such a biological snapshot maybe? Ethical wise, its something that will be viewed differently. Different groups will have different banners and reason for ya or na on it. I guess it would be nice to hear all those points in this debate.
Questions for debate:
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely. A piece of sub-atomic goo that will be thrown away in a few years if it does not go to help diseases.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
Absolutely not. These women have donated these stem cells and do not intend to use them again. They have been discarded from the woman and then are put in freezers, just waiting until they get thrown out.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Yes. juvenile diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons are serious diseases and should be at least attempted to be stopped.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
[/quote]
SUB-ATOMIC GOO IS NOT HUMAN. MICHAEL J FOX IS HUMAN. SOME LITTLE CLUMP OF CELLS CAN HELP CURE MICHAEL J FOX AND CREATE ANOTHER BACK TO THE FUTURE.
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
Absolutely. A piece of sub-atomic goo that will be thrown away in a few years if it does not go to help diseases.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
Absolutely not. These women have donated these stem cells and do not intend to use them again. They have been discarded from the woman and then are put in freezers, just waiting until they get thrown out.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
Yes. juvenile diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons are serious diseases and should be at least attempted to be stopped.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
[/quote]
SUB-ATOMIC GOO IS NOT HUMAN. MICHAEL J FOX IS HUMAN. SOME LITTLE CLUMP OF CELLS CAN HELP CURE MICHAEL J FOX AND CREATE ANOTHER BACK TO THE FUTURE.
1.)Should human embryonic stem cell research be conducted?
People forget that there are THREE TYPES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH...
[1] Embryonic... retrieved from aborted embryos
[2] Cord Blood... retrieved in large quantities from umbilical cords immediately after birth
[3] Adult... stem cells from human adult bone marrow
The real questions should be...
[1] Which type of stem cell research is the most donor compatible (least likely to be rejected by the recipient)?
[2] Which type of stem cell therapy has the least frequency of downstream tumors?
[3] Which type of stem cells are the easiest and most cost effective to harvest and deploy?
[4] Which type of stem cells can be deployed the quickest?
[5] Where is the private sector putting their money? (investors tend to put their money where they think the largest payoff will be)
Moral questions that should be asked are:
[1] Will the overall benefit be worth the potential loss of morality on the issue of human life... or, in other words... does the use of embryonic tissue devalue human life across the board? Do potentially healthy children pay the ultimate price for our own search for the magic solution for our woes?... not so unlike the rich exploiting the poor for their own gain and purpose.... using the poor and then discarding them when they are no longer needed for their own selfish purposes.
[2] Are we encouraging the use of voluntary abortions in order to glean embryonic stem cells and what will be the price on society for cheapening the value of life?
People also have to understand that THERE IS NO BAN IN AMERICA ON PRIVATE INVESTMENTS INTO EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH... only on FEDERAL funding of embryonic stem cell research. There is a large chunk of Americans who feel that their tax dollars should not be supporting abortion in any fashion.
Also, prior to George W. Bush taking office there were ZERO FEDERAL DOLLARS going into ANY form of stem cell research. He essentially opened the governments wallet for research into any form of stem cell research with the exception of embryonic.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
Yes. This is why the female body changes drastically in order to protect the life of that child. Even the human body knows what it is carrying and makes all necessary changes in order to protect and nurture that embryo.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
This is highly arguable. Particularly since embryonic stem cells are unique in the fact that they suffer from a large amount of downstream tumors... something that neither cord blood or adult stem cells have suffered from. There is also much speculation within the scientific community as to whether any form of stem cell research can cure things such as Alzheimer's... especially since Alzheimer's is an entire organ based issue, not just limited to a portion of the brain.
Currently the big bet is on cord blood stem cells.... just look where the bulk of private investment money is currently going. It is the most compatible of all stem cells, the easiest to harvest, cheapest and simplest to deploy and already has over 90 diseases that are known to be treatable by this type of therapy. In fact, in current studies Sickle Cell Anemia is completely curable in 90% of all cases! This is amazing! In fact, the FDA is looking to approve cord blood stem cell therapy as early as next spring. This opposite of embryonic stem cells that are predicted to turn out real functional results in 10-20 years from now... if at all.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
The biggest issue I see at hand is the lack of education to the public on stem cell research. Most people get their information in 30 second sound bites on CNN... not hardly enough information for a person to make any real definitive conclusions on the subject. The emotional sell of embryonic research is VERY strong, however, the facts are not being truly represented in this case.
People forget that there are THREE TYPES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH...
[1] Embryonic... retrieved from aborted embryos
[2] Cord Blood... retrieved in large quantities from umbilical cords immediately after birth
[3] Adult... stem cells from human adult bone marrow
The real questions should be...
[1] Which type of stem cell research is the most donor compatible (least likely to be rejected by the recipient)?
[2] Which type of stem cell therapy has the least frequency of downstream tumors?
[3] Which type of stem cells are the easiest and most cost effective to harvest and deploy?
[4] Which type of stem cells can be deployed the quickest?
[5] Where is the private sector putting their money? (investors tend to put their money where they think the largest payoff will be)
Moral questions that should be asked are:
[1] Will the overall benefit be worth the potential loss of morality on the issue of human life... or, in other words... does the use of embryonic tissue devalue human life across the board? Do potentially healthy children pay the ultimate price for our own search for the magic solution for our woes?... not so unlike the rich exploiting the poor for their own gain and purpose.... using the poor and then discarding them when they are no longer needed for their own selfish purposes.
[2] Are we encouraging the use of voluntary abortions in order to glean embryonic stem cells and what will be the price on society for cheapening the value of life?
People also have to understand that THERE IS NO BAN IN AMERICA ON PRIVATE INVESTMENTS INTO EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH... only on FEDERAL funding of embryonic stem cell research. There is a large chunk of Americans who feel that their tax dollars should not be supporting abortion in any fashion.
Also, prior to George W. Bush taking office there were ZERO FEDERAL DOLLARS going into ANY form of stem cell research. He essentially opened the governments wallet for research into any form of stem cell research with the exception of embryonic.
2.)Is the use of stem cells nothing more than the destruction of human life as opponents claim?
Yes. This is why the female body changes drastically in order to protect the life of that child. Even the human body knows what it is carrying and makes all necessary changes in order to protect and nurture that embryo.
3.)Does the great potential that exists for this research outweigh considerations as to when life begins?
This is highly arguable. Particularly since embryonic stem cells are unique in the fact that they suffer from a large amount of downstream tumors... something that neither cord blood or adult stem cells have suffered from. There is also much speculation within the scientific community as to whether any form of stem cell research can cure things such as Alzheimer's... especially since Alzheimer's is an entire organ based issue, not just limited to a portion of the brain.
Currently the big bet is on cord blood stem cells.... just look where the bulk of private investment money is currently going. It is the most compatible of all stem cells, the easiest to harvest, cheapest and simplest to deploy and already has over 90 diseases that are known to be treatable by this type of therapy. In fact, in current studies Sickle Cell Anemia is completely curable in 90% of all cases! This is amazing! In fact, the FDA is looking to approve cord blood stem cell therapy as early as next spring. This opposite of embryonic stem cells that are predicted to turn out real functional results in 10-20 years from now... if at all.
4.)What flaws do you see with any of the above cited groups and their arguments?
The biggest issue I see at hand is the lack of education to the public on stem cell research. Most people get their information in 30 second sound bites on CNN... not hardly enough information for a person to make any real definitive conclusions on the subject. The emotional sell of embryonic research is VERY strong, however, the facts are not being truly represented in this case.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.