Stem Cell Research

[Achilles]

Actually, I do care about those things, and if they'd quoted crap sources, I wouldn't have bothered with that link. All of those studies were published in highly regarded medical journals for those fields, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and Ophthalmology, both of which I've read (Ophthalmology on a pretty regular basis). Articles don't make it into those journals, or the others cited, without significant scholarly review. Ophthalmology is _the_ scholarly journal for the ophthalmology field, and the New England Journal of Medicine comes out of the Harvard Medical School. The other journals are likewise the scholarly journals for their particular specialties. If those are not acceptable sources, then nothing is.

My point is that without reading each of those articles, I have no way of knowing if the authors of your source were quoting studies out of context. If the source you quoted wasn't blatantly biased, I might not be as concerned, however I'm highly suspicious of anything it says.

 

If the conclusions offered in that article (not the sources it cited) are sound then surely you can find a similar academic source to cite. If not, then I think it would further my reasons for being skeptical of your source.

 

Look up any of the articles cited in that PDF on Medline.

I could, but I don't think my request for a non-biased source is unreasonable. I don't see why I should be required to do the legwork necessary to back up your speaking points. Just trying to be fair

 

The NIH would not have said that if it was true outside the US, otherwise they'd have been guilty of misleading the public.

The NIH would be guilty of misleading the public if their audience was international or if the purpose of the paper was addressing international stem cell research. I don't see evidence for either case. Furthermore, the "National" part of National Institutes of Health would seem to indicate that their scope is limited to the U.S.

 

Please let me know if I'm missing something.

 

The fact remains that there are treatments using adult stem cells, but not embryonic stem cells. From both an ethical and financial standpoint, we should be putting the research dollars into something that's actually working. The malleability of embryonic stem cells is irrelevant if you can't do anything useful with that feature.

I'm not denying that fact. I'm questioning the reasoning behind the argument that adult stem cells are better than embryonic stem cells. So far the logic is circular.

 

You assume that EST aren't useful, but have not yet offered any intellectually rigorous sources that support that claim.

 

I agree that from an ethical and financial standpoint, it makes sense to support the line of research that appears to offer the best return on investment. If EST research hadn't been hamstrung by our Federal government, then we would have a chance to truly evaluate both lines of research on their individual merits. This has not been allowed to happen in this country and the reasons behind it are entirely religious (i.e. not ethical, scientific, safety-related, etc).

 

Then why aren't we hearing about such things from other countries that allow embryonic research?

We are (per an earlier link I provided for DI).

 

Certainly there's potential, however, there appears to be far more potential with adult stem cell research, and it doesn't have the same ethical concerns.

Repeating it doesn't make it true

There appears to be far more potential in the U.S. because it has an inequitable, artificial advantage.

 

Additionally, there are no ethical concerns. The only concerns that have been voiced are religious. The "ethical concerns" don't hold up to scrutiny and are quickly revealed to have their basis in religious thinking.

 

And they can live with the fact that they're doing human experimentation, apparently.

Depends on how you define it. Using the same emotionally-laden term that you did, I guess an argument could be made to discontinue the human trials that the FDA requires before approving new medications. That would be closer to human experimentation than embryonic stem cell research, wouldn't you agree?

[Jae Onasi]

Have a few links.

By the way, just because a source is conservative doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

 

Peer-reviewed references

 

Some are articles, some are abstracts, I'm not purchasing the articles for you, too.

 

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/46/9/1651

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12756590&dopt=Abstract

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/abstract/blood-2006-08-042820v1

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1346535814k6511/

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/106/5/1755

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16126798&dopt=Abstract

http://www.springerlink.com/content/jg54m6m226734241/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k300j413l05v4038/

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/18/3256

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/3527

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/105/9/3749

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/24/1/145

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/350/13/1287

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/133/7/555

http://www.euchromatin.org/Childs01.htm

http://www.ophsource.org/periodicals/ophtha/article/PIIS0161642003002586/abstract

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/75501747/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t342qp84h035q30p/

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioo/research/daniels.htm

http://www.revophth.com/archive/newsletter/ro_092704.htm#Article1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15949330&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16086277

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WW3-441P55W-7&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e41d58b8456d911290cb9ed436a3fbcf

 

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I figured 23 of them would keep you busy for awhile.

 

Your link to DI shows experiments on rats, not humans. There is a lot of animal research going on, but nothing that's been applicable to humans yet.

 

Worldwide, there's plenty of research funds flowing to both adult and embryonic stem cell research, so the lack in the US is not relevant. It's still clear that adult stem cell research has produced benefits for humans, embryonic research has not.

[Achilles]

By the way, just because a source is conservative doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

No, it absolutely does not. But bias does hurt credibility and therefore biased sources cannot be taken a face value. Non-biased sources will always be preferable to biased sources (unless one is looking only looking for viewpoints that support their own). This is why academic institutions insist that students use peer-reviewed sources rather than wikipedia when writing papers, etc.

 

Peer-reviewed references

I think we might not be on the same page anymore.

 

If you go back to post #4, you'll see that I'm asking for a source that supports your argument that ASCs are superior to ESCs. I had assumed that your citations in post #20 were an attempt to provide that source. My first sentence in post #22 was an attempt to clarify this.

 

I think at post #25, we went off in separate directions. I'm not looking for sources that show that ASC research is beneficial (a point that I've never argued), rather I'm looking for a source that supports your original argument: That adult stem cells are superior to embryonic stem cells.

 

Your first source in post #20 claims to be able to show this, but does not. Furthermore, the bias of the authors calls into question the rigorousness of their research, hence why I disputed the source and asked for something academic.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to provide the other links. Unfortunately, they appear to support an argument that I haven't questioned.

 

Your link to DI shows experiments on rats, not humans. There is a lot of animal research going on, but nothing that's been applicable to humans yet.

I could be mistaken, but I thought it was common practice to experiment on laboratory animals (commonly rats) before experimenting on humans. A breakthrough in a laboratory is typically taken as a good sign that the results can be reproduced in human test subject later in clinical trials. Was that not your understanding as well?

 

Worldwide, there's plenty of research funds flowing to both adult and embryonic stem cell research, so the lack in the US is not relevant. It's still clear that adult stem cell research has produced benefits for humans, embryonic research has not.

I appreciate the tenacity of your thoughts on the matter, but I'm not sure how repeating this statement is going to move the conversation forward. I haven't seen anything yet that attempts to refute the points that I raised in regards to this particular argument, so I see no reason to assume that my thinking is flawed or my conclusions incorrect.

 

I raised several other points in my last response to you. Can I assume that you will address those later (when you have more time) or should I assume that you're conceding them?

 

Thanks again for your reply.

[Jae Onasi]

Oh, yeah. I do think we ended up in different spots.

 

However, you asked for a source showing ASC is better than ESC--I provided a bunch of sources on the medical advances and direct human benefits from ASCs, and there are none from ESC, and I think the conclusion becomes pretty clear.

 

You're going to find proponents on both sides, obviously, but here's a few more that I haven't researched extensively so please don't give me too much grief about it.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php

 

The results quoted in this article are the salient part: http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

 

The financial side, not terribly scholarly but money's always a concern: http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/index.htm?section=money_latest

 

On your link--there's plenty of research on adult stem cell research on animals as well--it doesn't refute the argument that no successful human treatments have been developed from the embryonic side of the equation.

 

So why do you believe embryonic stem cell research is superior? If various adult stem cells can differentiate to create every body tissue that embryonic stem cells can, what's the point, other than just to learn something at the expense of someone else? Why are we diverting research funds from successful treatments to fund something that hasn't shown a lot of progress?

 

Post 4--questions answered in no particular order....

The soul question is unanswerable, and irrelevant to the actual human benefit of the research. What we do know is that at conception that new cell has a unique DNA pattern and so is a unique creation that will develop into a person. Other than that, it's about as thrilling as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and about as useful. Do you have a soul? Yes. Do you believe it? No. Is that going to get us anywhere in this discussion? No.

 

Since that embryo cannot give consent to be killed, while adults can give consent for being experiments in medical trials, you're comparing 2 different things entirely.

 

'The embryo's life is more/less important than a Parkinson's victim's life'--all life is important, and we shouldn't be killing one for the other. Should we kill children and harvest their organs for adults? Is that somehow different from sacrificing an embryo for an adult? A life is a life.

 

Embryos aren't 'destroyed vs. experimented on'--they end up in storage indefinitely, and actually sometimes get adopted by people who can't get pregnant by other means. Since in-vitro technology is evolving, there's not nearly as many embryos being created anymore for implantation. The eggs can be stored frozen, thawed, and fertilized fairly soon before implantation so there are fewer lost to the technology.

 

Do I like my tax dollars going to the military? Not for wars we've gotten into because of idiotic reasons. Do I want a military to protect our country in legitimate ways? Yes, and I'll gladly pay taxes for that. Of course, I'm going to pay taxes regardless--I rather like not being in jail.

[Achilles]

However, you asked for a source showing ASC is better than ESC--I provided a bunch of sources on the medical advances and direct human benefits from ASCs, and there are none from ESC, and I think the conclusion becomes pretty clear.

I don't share your confidence in the conclusion. Conservatives tend to favor free-market conditions, that is: let the market decide which product is better. If we applied the same model to the stem cell debate, it would be apt to say that this is communism.

 

We have no way of knowing how much further along we could be with ESC research because ESC research has not been allowed equitable conditions to operate within. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the philosophy, you can surely acknowledge that this much is true, can't you?

 

In regards to whether or not ESC has anything is store for humans, I think it would be foolish to conclude that because there aren't any (published) right now means that there won't be. Especially in light of articles like these (same study as before but different source...with video).

 

You're going to find proponents on both sides

Both sides of what, Jae?

 

Can you find one legitimate (e.g. not funded by ultra-conservative special interest groups or think tanks) scientist out there saying that ESC research is a bad idea?

 

Yes, there are two sides. The first side is comprised of true scientists that want a chance to do some research and the other side is comprised of religious people ("scientists" and non-scientists) that don't want to let them.

 

but here's a few more that I haven't researched extensively so please don't give me too much grief about it.

Fair enough.

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php

Do a Google search for the author's name (Mae-Wan Ho) and then let's talk

Because you have to pay to see the cited version of the study, I can't say much more beyond that other than, "she's clearly biased".

 

The results quoted in this article are the salient part: http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

 

1) This is a pro-life web site (clear bias)

2) The first sentence contains emotionally-laden wording which makes it clear that objective discussion about the facts is not its goal.

3) The article is an editorial, not a scientific publishing.

4) The "salient part" that you wanted me to look at wasn't published by a scientific journal, rather a financial magazine. Interestingly, the owner of said magazine is a signed member of the PNAC, along with other prestigious scientific contributors including "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush.

 

You asked me to go easy, so I'll stop there. I have additional commentary on the "salient part". Please let me know if you would like for me to share it.

 

The financial side, not terribly scholarly but money's always a concern: http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/index.htm?section=money_latest

Taken from your source:

Embryonic stem cells might hold the secrets to curing paralysis and brain damage, but they've also garnered plenty of controversy with the anti-abortion lobby because they're harvested from embryos.

President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would loosen federal restrictions on funding for embryonic stem cells, and some analysts fear that as a result the best developments in this area will be made overseas.

 

But work with adult stem cells isn't being held back by funding restraints and political opposition, analysts say.

Emphasis mine.

 

Kudos to CNN Money for attempting to cover both sides. They largely gloss over the implications of the two sections that I quoted, but at least the author mentioned them.

 

On your link--there's plenty of research on adult stem cell research on animals as well--it doesn't refute the argument that no successful human treatments have been developed from the embryonic side of the equation.

If one completely ignores the implications that the existing published research has on the future of stem cell-related treatments, then one might be able to agree with your argument.

 

So why do you believe embryonic stem cell research is superior?

I'll quote directly from the NIH page that you referenced earlier:

Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.

They are much more polite about it than other sources I've read, but essentially it comes down to the malleabilty of the cell lines. Despite breakthroughs with ASC, they still aren't as flexible as ESCs.

 

Another (important) factor that isn't mentioned here is the investigative nature of the research. Working with ESC allows researchers to understand what causes certain cells to eventually become heart cells, brain cells, big toe cells, etc. ASC research can't address this as well because it's like trying to investigate a crime scene based on 20 year old testimony instead of secuity camera film footage.

 

If various adult stem cells can differentiate to create every body tissue that embryonic stem cells can, what's the point, other than just to learn something at the expense of someone else?

But they currently don't. You can't take a stem cell from bone marrow and turn it into a nerve cell in the spine. You can turn it into a few things based on which classification of ASC it is, but they aren't nearly as undifferentiated as ESCs.

 

Furthermore, the research isn't done at the expense of another person. Saying that it is is a red herring.

 

I don't know if I've raised this question before, so I'll do it now: What do you think is the motivation of a ESC research proponent?

 

Why are we diverting research funds from successful treatments to fund something that hasn't shown a lot of progress?

I've addressed this several other places. I can't tell if I'm just not communicating well enough or if my points are being ignored intentionally.

 

Let me try another question to see if I can break the impasse: Do you think that ESC research would have made just as much, if not more, progress than ASC research if not subjected to the limitations imposed by the Federal government? Why or why not?

 

The soul question is unanswerable, and irrelevant to the actual human benefit of the research.

I agree but I doubt for the same reasons.

 

What we do know is that at conception that new cell has a unique DNA pattern and so is a unique creation that will develop into a person.

We don't know that. Many pregnancies are aborted naturally for no discernable reason. If conception takes place in vitro, then the fertilized egg could spend eternity in a freezer or destroyed at the donor's request. Therefore we can't say that we know that fertilized egg will make it the gestation period and become a person.

 

This is the same thing as the soul argument, you just opted to use different words.

 

Other than that, it's about as thrilling as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and about as useful.

Depends on whether or not you believe in angels (68% of Americans).

 

Do you have a soul? Yes. Do you believe it? No. Is that going to get us anywhere in this discussion? No.

I agree that we're probably not going to get anywhere with this, but I disagree that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

The existence of souls is central to arguments of anti-abortion/anti-hESCR proponets.

 

Since that embryo cannot give consent to be killed, while adults can give consent for being experiments in medical trials, you're comparing 2 different things entirely.

Right, so you can agree that referring to ESC research as "human experimentation" is probably not accurate? Can't have it both ways.

 

'The embryo's life is more/less important than a Parkinson's victim's life'--all life is important, and we shouldn't be killing one for the other.

Except blastocysts aren't alive. Therefore the argument doesn't hold up. No "killing" takes place.

 

And if you want to argue that blastocysts are alive, then you have to accept that the skin cells that are sacrificed every time you take a shower or wash your hands are alive to. You can't have it both ways.

 

Should we kill children and harvest their organs for adults? Is that somehow different from sacrificing an embryo for an adult? A life is a life.

See points above. Blastocysts aren't children. Nor are they alive. Pick any definition for "alive" or "life" that you would like to and we can debate the point further if you would like. As I have said before, I'm willing to go whereever the evidence leads. At this point, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would encourage me to change my current views.

 

Embryos aren't 'destroyed vs. experimented on'--they end up in storage indefinitely, and actually sometimes get adopted by people who can't get pregnant by other means.

I would encourage you to double check your sources.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_inco.htm (I would encourage everyone viewing this post to read this source entirely).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/20/MN58092.DTL

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06072105.html (this one is a particularly biased editorial. I thought I would include it so that you could take pot-shots at me for a change )

 

In conclusion, not all embryos are stored indefinitely. Also, your conclusions regarding adoption appear to be rather generous in light of the evidence.

 

Since in-vitro technology is evolving, there's not nearly as many embryos being created anymore for implantation. The eggs can be stored frozen, thawed, and fertilized fairly soon before implantation so there are fewer lost to the technology.

But losses won't be negated entirely correct? Doesn't that still pose a problem?

 

Do I like my tax dollars going to the military? Not for wars we've gotten into because of idiotic reasons. Do I want a military to protect our country in legitimate ways? Yes, and I'll gladly pay taxes for that. Of course, I'm going to pay taxes regardless--I rather like not being in jail.

So unintended result of military funding = creation of weapons technology = destruction of fully formed human beings = ok, but intended result of research funding = destruction of blastocysts = creation of life saving treatments = not ok?

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-military, I'm just trying to better understand your thinking on this one.

 

Thanks.

[JediMaster12]

Non-biased sources will always be preferable to biased sources (unless one is looking only looking for viewpoints that support their own). This is why academic institutions insist that students use peer-reviewed sources rather than wikipedia when writing papers, etc.

Give one un biased report to explain. Truth of the matter is Achilles there are no perfectly objective people. Everything has some hint of bias, with some being good at hiding it. I have read some articles as examples for food taboo and they differed significantly and often reflected the personality of the author. One was on the sexual politics of meat and even by not reading the preface, you can tell that the author was a feminist vegetarian. Yeah I scorn wikipedia myself because the information can be changed and I find it incredible that some people could take it as truth. Truth be told, there is always going to be some form of bias. Look at history texts.

 

As to materials regarding stem cell research, it is out there. Probably the best place to look is a scientific journal where the writers are usually the ones involved in the research. In scientce it is probably easier to present in a non biased manner but it is still there.

[Achilles]

Give one un biased report to explain.

Sure. How about the religioustolerance.org site that I referenced above. It seems to be completely free of any emotionally-laden terms, it is well-sourced, and even goes so far as to use the preferred labels of the groups it references ("pro-life" and "pro-choice", opposed to "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion").

 

Truth of the matter is Achilles there are no perfectly objective people.

I agree that objectivity is tough. That's why it should be valued when found and sources that abandon it should be avoided.

 

No one is perfect, which is why I find many conservative opinions to be unrealistic, and in some cases, hypocritical (Rush Limbaugh's stance on drug abuse, for instance). No one is arguing this. But it's not as though these writers just jot stuff down without checks and balances. There are editors, fact-checkers, etc that all have to review each article (not to mention peer-review for academic quality work), so the problem is systemic, not isolated.

 

Everything has some hint of bias, with some being good at hiding it.

Absolutes are a tough thing to defend.

 

Yeah I scorn wikipedia myself because the information can be changed and I find it incredible that some people could take it as truth.

Wikipedia is a great source for information in the cases where articles are well-cited. It's also a good idea to get into the habit of checking sources from articles that you read. Keeps you from getting burned when conducting research (at least that's been my experience).

 

Truth be told, there is always going to be some form of bias. Look at history texts.

Another good argument for checking multiple sources and familiarizing oneself with basis for the "opposition's" arguments. I feel comfortable defending my stance on stem cell research because I'm fairly well-read (for a layman) on both sides of the debate.

 

As to materials regarding stem cell research, it is out there. Probably the best place to look is a scientific journal where the writers are usually the ones involved in the research. In scientce it is probably easier to present in a non biased manner but it is still there.

Yep, but as shown elsewhere in this thread, only looking to science journals can influence what information you have access too. My initial citation from the NIH probably won't appear in a science journal because it's not a research paper.

 

As for bias in science journals, the peer-review process (when followed correctly) will catch that. This is why you don't see pseudo-science (ala intelligent design, paranormal stuff, etc) in legitimate science journals.

[Achilles]

Two news stories (and one interesting link) regarding the stem cell debate:

 

Senate plans stem cell vote in April

States Take Lead in Funding Stem-Cell Research

Q&A: Embryonic Stem Cells: Exploding the Myths

[Achilles]

Hi all. More new information. Not necessarily specific to the (seemingly dead) debate, but interesting nonetheless.

[Jae Onasi]

Meh, NPR is a bastion of left-wing liberalism and is hardly an unbiased source.

 

Furthermore, the research isn't done at the expense of another person. Saying that it is is a red herring.

Since when is truth a red herring?

The objections to ESC are inconvenient for those who want to pursue research without examining the ethics of their experimentation, and using a term like 'blastocyst' to make human experimentation more palatable semantically is a red herring itself.

The embryo is a separate life--has its own DNA and cell processes. Just because it cannot yet live out of the womb doesn't mean it is not another person. The embryo cannot give consent either for its own death or to be experimented on, and killing an embryo to service another person is blatant disregard for that embryo's fundamental right to life.

 

Adult stem cells cannot turn into as many tissues as embryonic stem cells can, true. However, there are enough different types of adult stem cells that any type of tissue can be developed from one type of adult stem cell or another. The biggest problem they're having with ESC right now is tumorgenicity--the embryonic cells reproduce just fine, but the mechanism that turns them off from dividing at the right point doesn't work or is not present, and so they grow out of control and form tumors. Adult stem cells have the mechanism that turns them off from dividing at the right point so tumors don't form.

 

And to clarify--I don't object to ESC research itself, I object to embryos being killed for that research. If there's a way to harvest stem cells without killing the embryo (and I believe in the NPR article it mentions one company has figured out how to take one cell out for research before an embryo is implanted ), then my objection is answered. The experimentation on embryonic stem cells they can harvest from amniotic fluid or cord blood is fine with me.

 

On a more practical side of things, I'd rather have my tax dollars paying for something that's going to show more effectiveness, which currently appears to be adult stem cell research right now.

[Achilles]

Meh, NPR is a bastion of left-wing liberalism and is hardly an unbiased source.

Right-wing rhetoric is hardly an argument. I'm glad you're making an attempt to recognize bias though.

 

Since when is truth a red herring?

When it's not the truth, but red herring. We're dealing with blastocysts, not people. Referring to it as a "person" is just as misleading as referring to the anti-abortion movement as "pro-life".

 

The objections to ESC are inconvenient for those who want to pursue research without examining the ethics of their experimentation, and using a term like 'blastocyst' to make human experimentation more palatable semantically is a red herring itself.

I've repeatedly invited you to examine the ethics and thus far you've declined. Calling your religious objections "ethics" is disingenuous. Repeating this argument is not going to make it any more true.

 

The embryo is a separate life--has its own DNA and cell processes. Just because it cannot yet live out of the womb doesn't mean it is not another person.

It has to be able to metabolize on its own to meet the textbook definition of life. I find that definition a little cold and would much prefer to use the same criteria for life that I would for death: heartbeat and brain activity. Neither of these are present in 3-day old embryos.

 

The embryo cannot give consent either for its own death or to be experimented on, and killing an embryo to service another person is blatant disregard for that embryo's fundamental right to life.

How could an embryo give consent? It doesn't have a consciousness, let alone self-awareness. Nor a fully formed brain which is prerequisite for both of these things.

 

Perhaps we could clear this matter up if you could provide a sound argument for why an embryo has a fundamental right to life.

 

Adult stem cells cannot turn into as many tissues as embryonic stem cells can, true. However, there are enough different types of adult stem cells that any type of tissue can be developed from one type of adult stem cell or another.

Source? Everything I've read would indicate that ASCs are limited in source, difficult to harvest, and extremely limited in what they can be manipulated into becoming. If ASCs are so flexible, why is the lion's share of nerve research being done with ESCs is laboratory rats instead of human test subjects with ASCs?

 

The biggest problem they're having with ESC right now is tumorgenicity--the embryonic cells reproduce just fine, but the mechanism that turns them off from dividing at the right point doesn't work or is not present, and so they grow out of control and form tumors. Adult stem cells have the mechanism that turns them off from dividing at the right point so tumors don't form.

No one is denying that this is a problem with ESCs or an advantage of ASCs. Are you taking the position that ESC research will never be able to overcome this obstacle? That would be the only way I could see this argument having any significance at all. It would be similar to saying that a child will never run because it's too young to crawl.

 

And to clarify--I don't object to ESC research itself, I object to embryos being killed for that research. If there's a way to harvest stem cells without killing the embryo (and I believe in the NPR article it mentions one company has figured out how to take one cell out for research before an embryo is implanted ), then my objection is answered. The experimentation on embryonic stem cells they can harvest from amniotic fluid or cord blood is fine with me.

I've repeatedly invited you to discuss the embryos that are available from fertility clinics and cloning, but you've declined. You offered that all extra embryos are successfully frozen forever and that a lot are adopted out. I provided sources that refute all these points and you did not respond. Rather, you repeat step 1, seeming to ignore steps 2-10 (or whatever). This loop is very frustrating for me.

 

On a more practical side of things, I'd rather have my tax dollars paying for something that's going to show more effectiveness, which currently appears to be adult stem cell research right now.

Jae, you seem to be ignoring my point that ASC is being given an artificial advantage. Please address my comment that ASC research cannot be rationally shown to be more effective because ESC research has not been provided an equal opportunity to compete.

[Totenkopf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_go_co/stem_cells_23

 

No doubt this will make some breathe a little easier...

 

We're dealing with blastocysts, not people. Referring to it as a "person" is just as misleading as referring to the anti-abortion movement as "pro-life".

 

Or the pro-abortion movement as "pro-choice"

[SilentScope001]

Yes.

 

It always will take a long, long time for it to actually work, and the scientists don't want their research to interfere with funding problems. It does sort of side-step the issue, but I guess in the long run, why not side-step the issue? Why bother bringing up very conterversial topics?

 

My best bet is that we need to create Frankenbunnies

as a way to deal with the issue. These brand new bunnies are 99% Human, but also 1% Bunny (this is because that 1% Bunny is the cytoplasm of the cell), meaning that they are not able to have the potential to actually become humans, and do not have the ability to rationalize or think. It's okay to kill bunnies for meat, after all, few Pro-Lifer are going to start protesting butcher shops because of their disrepsect for life. Why not butcher an "1% Bunny" for research purposes?

[Darth InSidious]

It seems there's good news all round:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

 

 

So much for the necessity.

[SilentScope001]

DI, that's the exact same "good news" Totenkopf posted.

[Jae Onasi]

It bears repeating that researchers have found a way to create ESCs without killing embryos.

 

Achilles--I didn't say 'a lot of embryos are adopted out'. Many, if not most, are not adopted out. I just said it's available. A person is a person as soon as they have independent DNA in a living, independent cell. Saying a child isn't living because it needs to be sustained in a uterus for awhile is like saying someone on a ventilator isn't alive because they need machines to breath for them. You can't have it both ways.

 

The reason I haven't addressed the 'where would ESC research be without the restrictions' is because it's sheer speculation. We don't know where it would be at. We could divert all money from ASC in favor of ESC and still have absolutely no effective treatments derived from ESC, or we could have a lot. So that question is not very relevant--it's a crap shoot and that's it.

 

Where would adult stem cell research be at if we had diverted those research dollars to ESC research? That I do know--we would not be nearly as far ahead as we are now in effective medical treatments. With all the embryonic stem cell lines we do have in the US and all the research going on in the rest of the world, if it was going to have some kind of beneficial outcome, we should have seen _something_ by now.

 

Adult stem cells are easy to harvest--it's done routinely in bone marrow transplants all the time. Other types of adult stem cells are likewise relatively easy to obtain. While 1 adult stem cell can't differentiate into every single kind of cell, the combination of different adult stem cells will differentiate into all the different cell types.

 

The point is moot anyway if they can derive ESC without killing an embryo. I don't have an objection to ESC research itself, I have an objection to killing embryos to get those stem cells.

[Totenkopf]

DI, that's the exact same "good news" Totenkopf posted.

 

Not exactly. The first article was about the politics of the funding issue and the second about a new possible breakthrough at the scientific level that could render the political battles moot by obviating the "need" to destroy embryos to continue research on potential cures.

[Emperor Devon]

A person is a person as soon as they have independent DNA in a living, independent cell.

 

Pish posh. They have literally no intelligence, don't have a heart rate, are incapable of feeling pain, and are for all intents and purposes about as human as a clump of dirt only a few days after conception.

 

Before you bring up how its "soul" makes it human - we're dealing with science, not religion. If something cannot be seen, felt, touched, heart, or sensed in any other way, I do not believe it should have any place in a field of study that revolves completely around the physical. Science is a field independent of Christianity. I think it seems utterly ridiculous to attempt to force Christian values upon it when the people participating it aren't even all Christians. Strikes me as violating the separation of church and state (and the Constitution) when laws are passed solely for religious reasons.

 

Saying a child isn't living because it needs to be sustained in a uterus for awhile is like saying someone on a ventilator isn't alive because they need machines to breath for them.

 

Biased way to put it. See my above statement on the lack of any human characteristics...

[Jae Onasi]

Pish posh. They have literally no intelligence, don't have a heart rate, are incapable of feeling pain, and are for all intents and purposes about as human as a clump of dirt only a few days after conception.

 

Before you bring up how its "soul" makes it human - we're dealing with science, not religion. If something cannot be seen, felt, touched, heart, or sensed in any other way, I do not believe it should have any place in a field of study that revolves completely around the physical. Science is a field independent of Christianity. I think it seems utterly ridiculous to attempt to force Christian values upon it when the people participating it aren't even all Christians. Strikes me as violating the separation of church and state (and the Constitution) when laws are passed solely for religious reasons.

Since when is respect for life limited to the religious? I would think atheists would be even more respectful of life or its potential and not want to rob someone of their chance to experience it.

 

 

Biased way to put it. See my above statement on the lack of any human characteristics...

Guy in a coma on a respirator--doesn't feel, doesn't communicate, doesn't have any functioning intelligence--has about as much a heartbeat as a 10 week old embryo--how is that different?

[Emperor Devon]

Since when is respect for life limited to the religious? I would think atheists would be even more respectful of life or its potential and not want to rob someone of their chance to experience it.

 

With that logic it's murder to use condoms when having sex, or even not yelling "Want to give someone the gift of life and have a good time?" to strangers. A person can't miss what they won't ever experience (life).

 

No, I think it's quite clear in the mindset of most atheists that it isn't murder to use totally non-sentient and non-living clumps of cells to save lives. Since most of us don't consider embryos humans (or even animals) it's not even murder.

 

However, there is no doubt as to the fact that the main reasons Christians and other religious folk consider it "murder" is because of this mysterious, immeasurable and undetectable "soul." It's only because of the whole "babies get souls the minute mommy and daddy have sex" idea that they don't consider abstaining from sex a form of murder.

 

I highly doubt you'll deny that physically and mentally a 3-day old egg has nothing in common with humans. If you go along with the whole "it's a potential life" idea, that can be applied to the "birth control prevents potential lives" idea (which you disagree with) and would contradict your other opinions. The only logical reason you can feel the embryo is a human is because of its "soul," clearly a religious reason that has no place amongst an nonreligious field with nonreligious practitioners. My previous post on separation of church and state and why religion-based laws are bad...

 

Guy in a coma on a respirator--doesn't feel, doesn't communicate, doesn't have any functioning intelligence--has about as much a heartbeat as a 10 week old embryo--how is that different?

 

Other than the fact that he has loved ones who don't want to see him die, not much. Clearly that isn't the case with women giving away embryos by their own free will.

[GarfieldJL]

To be completely blunt, isn't there brain waves in an embryo before the tenth week? Seems to me one could argue the embryo is alive once there is brain waves.

Because signs of motor functions occur earlier than week 10, while measurable brainwaves are sometime later, one has to bear in mind that one is trying to measure brainwave activity through the mother's womb.

 

Another argument against embryo stem cell research is that it has been shown that umbilical cords from a newborn also have stem cells that can be used instead of embryonic stem cells. That means there are other ways to get stem cells without having to go out and kill embryos. So I am completely against harvesting stem cells from embryos and aborted fetuses (in many cases done after it can be done legally barring danger to mother has been discovered now occur still by abortion clinics) we're looking at the possibility of people getting pregnent and get paid to have abortions so people can harvest stem cells. So in all honesty I'm going to go for an actual complete ban of harvesting embryonic stem cells, there are other ways to get stem cells in large amounts without destroying life.

 

Before anyone accuses me of not caring about people with debilitating conditions that stem cells could be possibily used to cure, I had a grandfather with Parkinsons whom passed away a few years ago. While I would have loved to see him cured, he wouldn't have wanted unborn infants to die which is arguably what an embryo is, while they can't survive on their own, a newborn can't either without someone taking care of it are we going to say next that babies aren't people? One could then argue this about toddlers, and then children under 10.

 

So I'm going to support President Bush's decision to veto this latest House bill, because quite frankly there are other ways to get stem cells like a newborn's umbilical cord that has to be cut off after birth anyways.

[Jae Onasi]

With that logic it's murder to use condoms when having sex, or even not yelling "Want to give someone the gift of life and have a good time?" to strangers. A person can't miss what they won't ever experience (life).

Using birth control controls my own cells (eggs) or Jimbo's (sperm). They haven't yet combined to become 'someone else different from us.' Therefore, it's not murder.

No, I think it's quite clear in the mindset of most atheists that it isn't murder to use totally non-sentient and non-living clumps of cells to save lives. Since most of us don't consider embryos humans (or even animals) it's not even murder.

Actually, the cells _are_ alive. If they were non-living, they wouldn't split, change, and develop into people.

However, there is no doubt as to the fact that the main reasons Christians and other religious folk consider it "murder" is because of this mysterious, immeasurable and undetectable "soul." It's only because of the whole "babies get souls the minute mommy and daddy have sex" idea that they don't consider abstaining from sex a form of murder.

That may be for others, but it's not exclusively that issue for me. I don't like the slippery slope that develops of using someone else's life, or potential life, for my gain. I'm not comfortable with those ethics. Where do you draw the line at stopping experimentation? I mean, Barbara Boxer says it's not a baby until you take it home. Someone like that would consider experimentation even after the baby's born acceptable, because they aren't a person yet. Since the embryo is a separate entity from conception, it's a definitive starting point. I'm not comfortable with the start of life being determined wherever the 'general consensus' determines it should be.

I highly doubt you'll deny that physically and mentally a 3-day old egg has nothing in common with humans.

Yeah, I will say the embryo has something in common with humans--he or she has his/her own DNA and functioning cell processes.

If you go along with the whole "it's a potential life" idea, that can be applied to the "birth control prevents potential lives" idea (which you disagree with) and would contradict your other opinions.

See discussion above--what I do with my own eggs and what a guy does with his own sperm is one thing--that's our own genetic material and our own cells. They've not combined into a separate person.

The only logical reason you can feel the embryo is a human is because of its "soul," clearly a religious reason that has no place amongst an nonreligious field with nonreligious practitioners. My previous post on separation of church and state and why religion-based laws are bad...

The 'separation of church and state' is very specific, and says that the state will not endorse a specific religion. Jefferson never intended for his letter to be used as it is today, which is to try to stomp religion out of public life because radical atheists 'don't like it'. My definition of life is pretty basic and doesn't have anything to do with religion. It's just not as 'convenient' for some whose ethics on this issue are far looser than mine.

 

Other than the fact that he has loved ones who don't want to see him die, not much. Clearly that isn't the case with women giving away embryos by their own free will.

So what if he's a hermit with no family and friends? Does that devalue his life more?

[True_Avery]

Now, I will say upfront that I am not of a very valuable opinion at all for a few reasons.

1# I care little about human life but those I choose to care about.

2# I have never had children and do not plan to.

3# I believe women should have abortion rights and women should have control over their own body legally, including the baby inside them.

 

Now, onto stem cells.

 

I don't have a full understanding, but from what I gather it is using the cells in embryos to further scientific research. The main debate is wether to use them for science, or let them live as humans.

 

I find this debate odd for a few reasons. The thousands, if not millions of embryos that are being kept from being used for stem cells are just sitting, frozen in labs around the world. If we choose to not use them, they get destroyed. If we use them, they go to a purpose. The pro-life debate on this is flawed for that reason.The embyos will be destroyed either way. You cannot put all of those embryos into women, it is just not possible. Or rather, it is possible but you can't get that many volunteers. You make it illigal or just stop it, they die anyway. Please, put their "lives" to use instead of destroying them for no reason.

 

Some believe it will lead to mass abortions or something stupid. I personally believe that the law has no right to a womans body and a baby is apart of her body until the baby is out or at least in advanced development. She wants to get an abortion? Fine by me, its not my baby or body and if you feel you cannot handle something as VASTLY, and I mean VASTLY, complicated and hard as a baby then go ahead. I have seen enough people raised by idiot parents.

 

As for my view, I consider an embryo in the same category as a -severely- retarded or person in a vegitative stage. All three have no concept of reality, have no way of communication, and have limited to no brain power. You can argue with me that an egg is a human once fertilized, but I care for an embyo in the beginning stages as much as I care about the egg that is destroyed during my period.

 

You care about babies and embryos so much? I really hope you don't eat chicken eggs or the eggs off of any other birth. I have not had termites or ants killed and their eggs destroyed. Problem with this? People consider humans to be above or not even animals. Laughable statement. Humans are animals, we just don't like other animals. If you care so much about a baby, then STOP eating, killing, or adopting the babies of other animals. Period.

 

Should all humans, embryo or not, live a full life? From a humane perspective, yes. All people deserve the right to live, regardless of circumstance. I know a few people who have said that their parents considered abortions who are great friends to this day. Using people as puppets for science seems cruel, but then again we do use animals as puppets. Fancy that.

 

From a natural perspective, which is the one I mainly follow, nope. The world is overcrouded with humans anyway. We spread like a virus everywhere and are slowly destroying this world, a few less of us being born would be a good thing. A problem is we consider ourselves to be above other animals, humanity's and many Religion's greatest fault. We are animals by all definition, the only differences between us is the fact we know we are going to die and we have sex for pleasure. Having sex for pleasure I think makes us more animal like, not less.

 

How does this tie in? We use baby animals and animals all the time for scientific gain, fun, pleasure, pets, etc. A baby is just another animals from a natural perspective. A carnivor is not going to look at a baby alone and say "nope it's a human baby. Better not touch it." No, it eats the baby just as many animals eat their young.

 

Humans care vastly VASTLY about babies. It's a little funny how much we care. The incredible irony of this is that once the baby is born and out of the mother, people other than the family don't give a damn about it anymore and move onto raving about the next baby.

 

It's just an embryo. I probably sound really cruel saying that, but it's just that. It is an egg that has been fetilized, on its way to becoming a human but not quite there yet. It has no brain, and thus no "soul" in a scientific perspective to a degree in my opinion. I feel no need to consider an embryo as anything special until it at least devops into something resembling a human, and even then I only care about humans I choose to care a about. I am far too jaded about the world to see people as anything less than the ants I see walking around everyday.

 

I feel that Jae is going to use the "little bit pregnant" thing on me. I got nothing much to say to that but that she is right. So, it is a life. I still don't really care about it, and I wont pretend like I will. The woman has as much control over that baby as she has over her own body, and I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to be refered to as an incubator if I ever get pregnant. If she wants to give it up to science, go ahead. Chances are you and I will have never met the person anyway if they had grown up and they would simply be another person using up space... as we all are. Terrible mind I have, don't I? Never did understand the unconditional love that people like to have for all other people, especially when they think the world can be defined in "good" and "bad".

 

Maybe if I consider having a child my view will change, maybe not. But for now, regardless of what I think, all of those embryos are going to die regardless, making this entire arguement revolving around the fact if we should kill them outright or use them for science and possbly save millions of lives in the process.

 

Oh, and don't feel bad for using humans for personal gain. We have most of our medical information due to the holocaust and World War II anyway. Proving that all actions have an equally "good" and "bad" reaction.

 

Anyway, thats my 2 cents. I wrote this at 4 in the morning, so feel free to tell me what I said wrong or overstepped in.

[Emperor Devon]

Using birth control controls my own cells (eggs) or Jimbo's (sperm). They haven't yet combined to become 'someone else different from us.' Therefore, it's not murder.

 

How? With the cells feel any pain when they die? With they feel emotionally unsettled? No. It's just as much a form of murder as swatting a fly, if not less of them. At least the fly can miss existence since it's experienced it.

 

Actually, the cells _are_ alive.

 

When they are incapable of thought or emotion I would hesitate to label them alive in the same manner we are.

 

That may be for others, but it's not exclusively that issue for me. {baby murder} I'm not comfortable with the start of life being determined wherever the 'general consensus' determines it should be.

 

Irrelevant to this topic. We're talking about embryos the donors likely had no intention of turning into children.

 

Yeah, I will say the embryo has something in common with humans--he or she has his/her own DNA and functioning cell processes.

 

So do houseflies and vermin. It's their sentient mind that makes humans humans, not the fact they're composed of organic material.

 

See discussion above--what I do with my own eggs and what a guy does with his own sperm is one thing--that's our own genetic material and our own cells. They've not combined into a separate person.

 

Arguably it's still as much a form of murder as using condoms or taking a morning afterpill. You've caused the fetus just as much emotional land physical pain, and you've gotten rid of a potential life.

 

The 'separation of church and state' is very specific, and says that the state will not endorse a specific religion.

 

That's definitely hard to do when nearly all members of the state are followers of that religion and a good number of them fundamentalists. Quite easy to pass a religious law for a non-religious matter when that happens.

 

Jefferson never intended for his letter to be used as it is today, which is to try to stomp religion out of public life because radical atheists 'don't like it'.

 

What do you mean by 'stomping it out of public life'? If it's things like having monuments to Christ erected on public public property, I would agree with the atheists.

 

So what if he's a hermit with no family and friends? Does that devalue his life more?

 

Unapplicable situation. How would a friendless and family-less hermit go into a coma and get put on life support?

[Pavlos]

How? With the cells feel any pain when they die? With they feel emotionally unsettled? No. It's just as much a form of murder as swatting a fly, if not less of them. At least the fly can miss existence since it's experienced it.

 

Well, when one considers the fact that the fly as no ability to realise that it is alive - its sensory perceptions are for living, surviving, and reproducing... just as our own ones are (but that's beside the point) - it has no ability to miss being alive .

 

When they are incapable of thought or emotion I would hesitate to label them alive in the same manner we are.

 

Your definition of life is obviously a very... unscientific one, ED. The cells respire, they replicate, they do all the wonderful things that living things do.

 

If I may take the risk of entering this discussion?

 

I understand where you come from on this matter, Jae, but I also disagree with a lot of what you are saying - perhaps having children of my own, one day, will change my perspective; I don't know. I think that stem cell research is very, very important to enhancing our understanding of genetic disorders and how to treat them successfully - and as far as I have gathered, you agree with this assessment.

 

However, I do have to ask the question: what is the difference between an undifferentiated, totipotent zygote and an undifferentiated, totipotent umbilical cord cell is? Surely, because both the cell types are non-specialised, they both have the potential to be a human being - both given the right conditions? And the business of turning normal body cells into stem cells: surely that is creating the potential for a new, human life then destroying it?

 

My understanding of this area, however, is limited so feel free to strip away the illusion of knowledge and throw a book/source/site at me .