Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 24, 2010, 06:57:45 am
-
Will this never end? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38820323/ns/health-cloning_and_stem_cells)
WASHINGTON — A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.
The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.
Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.
"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.
The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy violates U.S. law and takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.
-
If (and I say if) this part:
human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.
is true, this is a valid ruling.
-
If (and I say if) this part:
human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.
is true, this is a valid ruling.
If they are available to be used for research, there's no way they were ever on deck to go on and become people.
Typical pro-birth. So concerned with making sure they get out of the womb, you toss out all concern for the people that already exist.
-
I think you touched on the real reason there, this isn't about Research, it's about 'Pro-Life' exponents trying to claim that scientists will 'kill babies' for this research, and that it would encourage women to get pregnant and have abortions to sell the foetus to science.
The first claim is, of course ridiculous, the second one, well, it depends on how the system works. I think certainly that the donation of such a thing would have to be entirely voluntary and without payment, like willing your body to science. I'm interested to see how research on adult stem cells progresses, but I can't help thinking that it's a strangely third world philosophy to consider number of children over quality of life, that's the kind of thing done in countries where disease is likely to take a large percentage of your family before they reach maturity, ironically enough.
-
If they are available to be used for research, there's no way they were ever on deck to go on and become people.
Typical pro-birth. So concerned with making sure they get out of the womb, you toss out all concern for the people that already exist.
maybe by 'valid' he meant something like 'complies with some set of crazy laws that technically exist', rather than 'is not completely asinine'.
-
Indeed. Whether it conflicts with your worldview or not, that little snippet is law, and until you get it changed, the ruling is valid.
-
HEY! RICH PEOPLE. THE COURT JUST DECIDED TO HOLD BACK A TECHNOLOGY THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU ANOTHER FEW HUNDRED YEARS OF LIFE. WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR LOBBYING MONEY ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS SUBJECT?
There, that should solve it. :p
-
Come to think of it, Going To War puts unborn foetus' at risk in whatever country is being attacked...
-
Eh, this only means that there is no public funding for it. Private funding for this research in the US is, and has been, legal.
-
If you're going to get mad, get mad at the people who made the law the way it is, and/or people who refuse to change it. But don't blame the judge for doing his job correctly.
If you're going to criticize the judge, at least point out why you think the legal ruling is invalid...
-
If you're going to get mad, get mad at the people who made the law the way it is, and/or people who refuse to change it. But don't blame the judge for doing his job correctly.
Fertility treatments involve a huge surplus of technically viable embryos.
They are either disposed of as biohazard waste or given over as research material for, as a good example, stem cell research.
Both options end up in surplus embryos being destroyed. Which of the two options produces greater gains for rest of the world?
Do fertility treatments and associated research receive public funding?
If you're going to criticize the judge, at least point out why you think the legal ruling is invalid...
It's invalid because by far the embryos used in stem cell research already exist (as said byproduct of fertility treatments) and aren't specifically made for stem cell research. If they aren't researched, they'll simply be destroyed - they can't all be stored, it would fill the cryo storage spaces in a very short time if all the surplus embryos were preserved because someone thinks a clump of few cells with human DNA must not be destroyed.
And yeah, I'm criticizing the judge for not using common sense and the law makers for creating an absurd law that doesn't hold water with any sort of logic, it just appeases the so-called "pro-life" block.
-
you are not addressing his point, his point is about the law bing stupid and the judge following the law.
-
The problem with law, particularly when related to technology, is that the Judge is wholly reliant on the testimony of professionals, and if a Pro-Life representative can paint a gruesome enough picture of pregnant women queueing up outside Abortion centres to sell their unborn foetuses to science, then the Judge will inevitably make the 'safe' call, because he/she has to consider things from a social perspective, and the sort of Drama that will be raised outside the courthouse. The fact is that Government is far more led by public perception than by fact, facts are boring, and require digestion, Drama is immediate and provokes an immediate reaction. Hopefully this will go to appeals, where the problem can be viewed from a more dispassionate angle.
-
appeals are only if there was a procedural error in the case. it would have to go to the supreme court to have the effect you want.
-
And yeah, I'm criticizing the judge for not using common sense and the law makers for creating an absurd law that doesn't hold water with any sort of logic, it just appeases the so-called "pro-life" block.
My point is pretty much that the Judiciary's job is to uphold the law, even dumb ones. That's their job.
I'm not as familiar with legal procedures as I would like to be: it's got to be possible to appeal on more than just procedural error, though. Can't you appeal on the basis that a higher law (administered by a higher court) supersedes the ruling?
-
How many of these pro-lifers also support the death penalty?
-
you are not addressing his point, his point is about the law bing stupid and the judge following the law.
The ruling may be legitimate and the judge may be doing his job, but I still don't agree with his ruling.
The ruling says that stem cell research must not receive public funding because it involves destruction of human embryos.
What I'm addressing is the logistical problem and moral duplicity here.
Logistical problem: The embryos used in stem cell research exist with or without stem cell research, and will be destroyed with or without stem cell research. It is not logically sound argument to say that stem cell research is responsible for their destruction.
Which leads us to moral duplicity of turning a blind eye over fertility clinics that produce said surplus of human embryos in the first place.
Is there a ruling that says fertility clinics using in vitro fertilization must not receive public funding?
I would actually support the judge's ruling if he looked underneath the underneath and decreed that if stem cell research can't have public funding, neither can fertility clinics that produce the embryos in the first place.
I would actually love to see what the so-called "Pro Life" block would think of that.
"Okay, I'll ban public funding for stem cell research because embryos are destroyed in the process."
"Whee! Praise the Lord!"
"...of course, by the same standards I'm also going to ban public funding for in vitro fertilization that produces the vast majority of these embryos in the first place. Have fun explaining to childless families why it is bad for them to have children. I guess God doesn't want them to have kids..."
"Gently Caress"
And yeah, I'm criticizing the judge for not using common sense and the law makers for creating an absurd law that doesn't hold water with any sort of logic, it just appeases the so-called "pro-life" block.
My point is pretty much that the Judiciary's job is to uphold the law, even dumb ones. That's their job.
I'm not as familiar with legal procedures as I would like to be: it's got to be possible to appeal on more than just procedural error, though. Can't you appeal on the basis that a higher law (administered by a higher court) supersedes the ruling?
Don't know about the law, but I do know that it's not logically sound to put the blame of the destruction of those embryos on stem cell research.
Can someone find out some actual data whether or not
a. fertility clinics using in vitro fertilization receive public funding
and
b. if there is a ruling that they cannot receive public funding?
-
What does supporting the death penalty have to do with being pro-life? Pro-life comes from the believe that every life should have a chance, and the death penalty is for those that have had their chance and screwed up so badly as to warrant it. I'm pro-choice by the way, mostly for logistical reasons.
-
I'm Pro-choice because of Grammar.
-
I'm Pro-choice because of Grammar.
:wtf:
-
I'm just plain Pro. :pimp:
-
I've given up on the United States as a source of meaningful advancements in stem cell research. The political climate makes it virtually impossible for publicly-funded teams to conduct research.
-
Well, the puritans did come from Europe you know. So it's not all our fault.
-
I've given up on the United States as a source of meaningful advancements in stem cell research. The political climate makes it virtually impossible for publicly-funded teams to conduct research.
I'm not jumping into this lovely den of fire any further than this, but while this comment may hold true for embryonic stem cells, there's all sorts of work being done on adult stem cells, including a multitude of viable treatments in use today.
(Please don't anyone make anything more out of this than it is. I'm going to do my best to ignore this topic's existence, for my own sanity. :p)
-
What does supporting the death penalty have to do with being pro-life? Pro-life comes from the believe that every life should have a chance, and the death penalty is for those that have had their chance and screwed up so badly as to warrant it. I'm pro-choice by the way, mostly for logistical reasons.
Hypocrisy is what; that is, it would come as no surprise if many of the pro-life people are in the pro-death-penalty camp as well... if I'm understanding Locutus of Borg's statement.
-
I'm Pro-choice because of Grammar.
:wtf:
In other words, the word 'Choice' means the ability to say Yes or No, which is a fact Pro-lifers tend to gloss over ;)
-
Well duh. If they could, the pro-lifers would have us call the alternative "pro-death", and the pro-choicers would have us call the alternative "pro-force-women-to-do-something-against-their-will"
-
I suppose the difference is that the first description is not in any way accurate, whereas the second description could be.
-
I suppose the difference is that the first description is not in any way accurate, whereas the second description could be.
Yeah but it's not very appealing, then again the truth seldom is in these kinds of debates.....
-
Most pro-lifers I know call pro-choicers "pro-abortion."
-
Funny thing is, the only reason Pro-choicers exist is to defend women from Pro-Lifers. If a woman is pregnant, and wants to keep the child, neither side has a problem with that, they are happy for the mother, if, however, the mother feels the need to terminate the pregnancy, then only the Pro-lifers have a problem with that, the reason the Pro-choice movement was formed was in order to defend those women from being forced into having the child. If there were no Pro-lifers, there would be no need for a Pro-choice movement. So, quite frankly, the fastest way for Pro-Life groups to get rid of Pro-Choice groups is to disband...
-
The only kind of abortion I really oppose is the kind that isn't necessary.
If there's a medical reason, okay.
If someone has been raped, so be it.
If the mother's life is in danger, fine.
If the person getting one just doesn't want to deal with having a kid, put it up for adoption. Abortion shouldn't be an after-the-fact contraceptive.
-
Agreed, Abortion is NOT birth control, that's certainly one idea that should be strongly discouraged, but it does require a lot more focus on the teaching of proper contraception to American youth, instead of the totally untenable 'abstinence' thing that seems to be common.
The fact is, the number of Abortions that take place, at least in part, boil down to the fact that sex-education in the US seems to be of a pretty low level in some areas, if peope want the number of Abortions to go down, then the level of Sex education needs to go up by an equal value.
-
The only kind of abortion I really oppose is the kind that isn't necessary.
If there's a medical reason, okay.
If someone has been raped, so be it.
If the mother's life is in danger, fine.
If the person getting one just doesn't want to deal with having a kid, put it up for adoption. Abortion shouldn't be an after-the-fact contraceptive.
Abortion shouldn't be birth control, but frankly I fail to see how shoving yet another kid into an overburdened adoption system is any better, especially given the horror stories we've heard from it.
-
Oh yay abortion debate, man couldn't see this coming at all...
*sigh*
-
That's the REAL issue behind the stem cell debate, this isn't about science, it's about religious dogma and people trying to shove it down our throats.
-
Pro-life and pro-choice are both terms that imply the opposite sounds much worse, that being anti-life or anti-choice.
Many would argue that the adoption lists are quite long, but some would be confused as to how that is when there are adoption centers full of children. The problem is, no one wants that have already been imprinted upon by another mother, etc. They don't want 'damaged goods', they want a brand new baby. Well, I say tough ****, if you want to adopt, take one of the kids that needs a family. I agree with Kosh that we don't need to keep giving these picky parents the choice of a new born baby when there are still so many homeless kids out there.
Also, black children make up the bulk of the adoption centers, and yet are less likely to be adopted, whether it be because of less demand, or race-matching practices in some areas. There are far less black parents willing to adopt, so many of these children get stuck in a horrid system leading to them never beind adopted and ending up put out on the streets never having known what it's like to have a good family. As you can see, this can easily become a self-feeding system.
So let the black women get abortions? Well that's racist. :P We have to open it up to everyone if we open it up to anyone, now don't we
Another argument I hate: What if the aborted child was going to be the next Einstein, or cure cancer? Well that's a moot point, he's equally likely to be a jackass, a murdering rapist, or the next Hitler (how many posts till Godwin's?). So it doesn't really work to argue with hypotheticals like that.
-
Another argument I hate: What if the aborted child was going to be the next Einstein, or cure cancer?
:lol:
That's a funny argument, I like it.
-
If someone has been raped, so be it.
How come the fetus's life suddenly doesn't matter when it's a rape baby? Come on, does a fetus's right to life trump the mother's right to not share her reproductive organs or not?
-
Does a fetus' right to life trump anything? Is there a fetus' right to life at all? There's the crux of the argument I think.
-
Another argument I hate: What if the aborted child was going to be the next Einstein, or cure cancer? Well that's a moot point, he's equally likely to be a jackass, a murdering rapist, or the next Hitler (how many posts till Godwin's?). So it doesn't really work to argue with hypotheticals like that.
Given the state of the care system it's more likely that he'll rob and kill the next Einstein anyway. :p
-
If someone has been raped, so be it.
How come the fetus's life suddenly doesn't matter when it's a rape baby? Come on, does a fetus's right to life trump the mother's right to not share her reproductive organs or not?
Because the victim has absolutely no control over it. If you get pregnant you didn't feel like using contraceptives, that's when I'd say "tough ****." If you got pregnant because some random person raped you in an alley, I don't think you should be penalized for it.
-
What if you did use contraceptives and they didn't work? Is the morning after pill okay in your book? This is where things get a little fuzzy...
-
You're still assuming they qualify as victims, again ignoring the question I asked. A victim is a living being that was sacrificed, but the fetus has a right to life that it doesn't have yet? It can't be both alive and yet to be alive. Pick one.
Redsniper, that basically highlights the fact that some people can't decide where their morals will let them sleep at night. It's like the guy that walks up to the lady in a bar, and asks if she'll sleep with him for $1 million. She says yes, then he says, ok, how about $50? She says of course not, what kind of lady do you think I am, and he says we've already established that, now we're just negotiating.
My point is, you have to be able to clearly define solely in the terms of the development of the fetus, where it does and does not make sense to be ok with birth prevention. To me, it would be before any detectable level of consciousness, and as we can get a fairly good idea of where that begins, generally after the first trimester, then that to me makes completely logical sense to be the cutoff date for an abortion. The only acceptable cause to put it up for debate again is when there is a clear and present threat to the life of the mother.
-
You're still assuming they qualify as victims, again ignoring the question I asked. A victim is a living being that was sacrificed, but the fetus has a right to life that it doesn't have yet? It can't be both alive and yet to be alive. Pick one.
What are you talking about? The only person I referred to as a victim in that entire post is if someone is a victim of rape. I apologize if that seems unclear, but I was replying to zack's question about rape victims.
As to the 'morning after pill,' I don't know enough of how that works to form a defensible opinion on it.
-
Oh snap my bad, thought you were referring to the fetus as a victim :P
I believe the morning after pill is a hormone overdose that causes your body to flush out the possibly fertilized egg.
-
Is it even possible to confirm whether the egg is fertilized or not?
However, that seems to me to be an acceptable form of contraception.
-
Is it even possible to confirm whether the egg is fertilized or not?
AFAIK, within the time frame a morning after pill is used for, no.
-
Well, then, _can_ the egg be fertilized yet? Either way, it's still just drawing the line at an arbitrary point.
-
You know, I don't really care if it's all that arbitrary. Sometimes an arbitrary setting can help one live with themselves (not saying this is the case here, since I'm not likely to ever be in that predicament).
-
If you're only willing to define an arbitrary point because it's where you're comfortable, seems like it would be kind of hard to legislate a particular point. There has to be more thought put into why you'd pick a certain spot to try to put it into law.
-
I've never promoted a law for or against anything, only my opinion.
-
If you got pregnant because some random person raped you in an alley, I don't think you should be penalized for it.
But it's not a penalty; every soul is a gift from the Lord! And fertilized eggs have souls, yo. It says so in the Bible.
-
The Bible says a lot of stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ).
-
Anyone ever hear of an abortion doctor being struck by lightning?
Priests? Yes. Statues of Jesus? Yes. Abortion Doctors? Nope. ;)
The something wonderfully ironic about that, either God is trying to tell us something, or lightning is nothing more than a discharge of magnetic potential and is entirely unaimed...
-
Is there a fetus' right to life at all?
Biology, specifically developmental biology and/or developmental genetics, says "no." As the vast majority of conceptions end in natural abortion, it would seem that nature doesn't support a fetus' right to life. Hell, nature doesn't support anything's right to life - you have to earn it (natural selection at work).
Can't wait to see how this turns out... =)
-
Is there a fetus' right to life at all?
Biology, specifically developmental biology and/or developmental genetics, says "no." As the vast majority of conceptions end in natural abortion, it would seem that nature doesn't support a fetus' right to life. Hell, nature doesn't support anything's right to life - you have to earn it (natural selection at work).
Can't wait to see how this turns out... =)
Quite so. If abortion is a new Holocaust, as some demagogues would have it, then whatever's been happening inside the human womb for millions of years is an ongoing, unending Black Plague of apocalyptic proportions...but nobody seems to be in a rush to stop it.
The failure rate is something like 85-98% (depending on whether you include failure to implant, as I recall).
-
The word "intent" does come to mind here...
-
The word "intent" does come to mind here...
Sure, and from some philosophical standpoints it's a valid one, but if you want to get upset over the deaths of fetuses, the magnitude of one slaughter so dwarfs the other that you can't ignore the greater one on that point alone. It'd be like ignoring a disease killing millions in order to pursue a murderer killing dozens.
-
If the disease in question is just about impossible to treat at the present time, though, there really isn't anything that one can do about it; in contrast, the murderer killing dozens can be stopped with relative ease. And tying into the whole question of intent, I wouldn't even label the former case as a "slaughter," since at least to me that term implies some sort of conscious act of murder.
I guess my point here is that, from a purely functional standpoint, there's no difference at all between an 80-year-old man dying in his sleep of old age and an 80-year-old man being shot to death by a burglar. However, there's obviously a massive difference from a legal or ethical standpoint. In this case, spontaneous abortions/miscarriages represent a completely natural occurrence, whereas surgical abortions are a conscious premeditated action.
-
I suppose that's a fair point.
-
The Bible says a lot of stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ).
Wow, that was awesome.
-
I'll just leave this here. (http://www.scienceinseconds.com/blog/The-Empire-Strikes-Back)
And yes, I'm the commenter.
-
So that should make the judge's ruling completely meaningless then, as long as we can harvest cells without destroying the fetus, it doesn't apply. Yay. Now let's get on with curing everything so we can overpopulate the planet even faster!
-
Eh, this only means that there is no public funding for it. Private funding for this research in the US is, and has been, legal.
This.
Also, I've never heard of anything beneficial coming from Embryonic lines, unless you count cancers and such as beneficial.
All this really does is prevent a government that is operating a trillion dollars in the hole from burning more money they don't have.
-
Yeah I've heard a lot better stuff about adult stem cell research, but ESC still sounds promising at least.
-
Yeah I've heard a lot better stuff about adult stem cell research, but ESC still sounds promising at least.
Not according to this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/17/tech/main6216487.shtml)
-
That article is from February, but I remember hearing much better news more recently, like just over the summer. Can't find any links really but there was something I remember on Digg.
Actually this (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/advances-in-adult-stem-cell-research-could-repair-body-parts) might be the article. It may be that adult and embryonic cells both have their advantages.
For the TL;DR, "What makes adult stem cell research even more promising is the fact that they seem to stimulate tissue repair without the body rejecting the new tissue, because the cells come directly from the patient."
-
Eh, this only means that there is no public funding for it. Private funding for this research in the US is, and has been, legal.
This.
Also, I've never heard of anything beneficial coming from Embryonic lines, unless you count cancers and such as beneficial.
All this really does is prevent a government that is operating a trillion dollars in the hole from burning more money they don't have.
This just goes to show public ignorance. By far the majority of game-changing research is publicly, not privately, funded. This is because private research dollars go to projects with practical end results (drugs, primarily) while public money is frequently allocated to long-term methodological studies that often as not change how we even look at the field. PCR and microarrays, two of the biggest game-changers in genetics, were both invented by researchers who were publicly funded. Bush, in imposing the ban, knew this - which is why that no regulations were drafted to ban ES research in the USA entirely, simply because the field could be basically shut down by turning off the public-funding valve.
Stem cell research is still in its infancy - ES cells are truly totipotent cells, unlike adult iPS cells, and are much more suitable for growing complex and diverse tissues. iPS have a whole series of problems (not the least of which is stability due to the induction process) that make them less than ideal. It also happens that as the bulk of research dollars in the US are focused on iPS, more labs are focussed on them. Funny how that works.
The failure to fund ES cell research with public dollars is the biggest tragedy in modern science in the United States, and is solely because of religious ideology. Absolute shame.
I find it ironic that many conservative-minded people like yourself love to trumpet the medical technology and R&D in the United States, while simultaneously criticizing public expenditure of funds on it. Private corporations only fund research which will make them money in the short term, which is why public research dollars are an absolute necessity.
-
I suppose it has nothing to do with the idea that it's immoral?
I mean seriously, let's say they find a cure to cancer, or an immortality formula or some other mythical bull****. All of a sudden the current generations will become the biggest mass murderers ever because you have to kill babies to get the cells. I don't understand how you can possibly think that would be OK on some level.
-
Those embryos never would have become people in the first place. I think that's been well established by now.
-
In my hypothetical scenario, it is implied that there would be sanctioned baby farms with mass abortions going on.
-
In my hypothetical scenario, it is implied that there would be sanctioned baby farms with mass abortions going on.
Well then the scenario makes no sense. That would never happen.
-
Ahh, yes, discussing hypotheticals when facts don't suffice to fit in your predetermined worldview.
This thread is heading straight into lockville.
-
I suppose it has nothing to do with the idea that it's immoral?
I mean seriously, let's say they find a cure to cancer, or an immortality formula or some other mythical bull****. All of a sudden the current generations will become the biggest mass murderers ever because you have to kill babies to get the cells. I don't understand how you can possibly think that would be OK on some level.
Seriously, let's say they find a way for childless couples to have children or some other mythical bull****. All of a sudden the current generations will become the biggest mass murderers ever because the in vitro fertilization method produces a huge surplus of embryos and only one per treatment ends up living, rest being discarded.
I don't understand how anyone can possibly think that would be OK on some level.
...wait. Except all the couples who actually have a chance of having a child by this method.
I am still stupefied about how I have not seen much resistance at all against in vitro fertilization, but actually utilizing the surplus embryos for a potentially very useful research results in something like banning public funding for said research.
I suspect the reason is that openly critizising fertility treatments is something even the most rabid religious groups know they couldn't get away with a massive public outcry...
EDIT: Oh wait, they have! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Religious_objections) :lol: Though not for the same reason as why embryonic stem cell research is apparently immoral... it seems they oppose it because it disassociates sexual act from reproduction and this seems to be bad.
-
I suppose it has nothing to do with the idea that it's immoral?
I mean seriously, let's say they find a cure to cancer, or an immortality formula or some other mythical bull****. All of a sudden the current generations will become the biggest mass murderers ever because you have to kill babies to get the cells. I don't understand how you can possibly think that would be OK on some level.
You do understand that current IVF fertility techniques create vast amounts of spare embryos, right? Which as it stands just get...left around? Or discarded?
I'm not necessarily for embryonic stem cell stuff when other alternative sources of stem cells are involved, but if research is done with these embryos it's a moral improvement.
-
My friend works for a genetic research company downtown, and it's kind of a similar issue there. They are very open with their work, but they have to constantly fight with private companies in the same field because they are all trying to 'patent' the human genome. If they think the court will let them put their name on something, they'll do it. ESC research should be publicly funded to prevent this kind of bull****.
-
lib, if imortality is found from this, THEN you can argue about this. you are kneecapping science that can help millions of lives because it might lead to a situation that you think could maybe result in abortions which in your opinion is murder. do you see how self centered this whole line of thought is?
question who knows more about stem cell research a stem cell researcher? or Sean Hanety? who are you listening to primarily when forming your opinions? I'm sure he's goit four or five people on there who claim to be researchers who use words like "never" or "can't", well if ESC research was such a dead end then why are so many researchers interested in it?
here is a scenario for you, lets say that ESC are more flexible than adult ones, lets say a treatment is found for spinal cord injuries using ESC, lets say it would have been an order of magnitude more difficult or virtually imposable to have found this treatment due to some technical complication that is beyond your or my understanding, lets say that after this is found moving the treatment back over to adult cell turns out to be not too difficult.
but then again, if you don't mind Europe or China taking the technological edge away from us just so you can avoid some sort of 'maybe' boogieman 'abortion farm' fiction, then go right ahead.
-
I suppose it has nothing to do with the idea that it's immoral?
I mean seriously, let's say they find a cure to cancer, or an immortality formula or some other mythical bull****. All of a sudden the current generations will become the biggest mass murderers ever because you have to kill babies to get the cells. I don't understand how you can possibly think that would be OK on some level.
Notwithstanding the fact that your scenario is ludicrous and there are already massive numbers of human embryos from IVF clinics being discarded as waste that would meet the demand for cells required to produce ES lines (did I mention that embryos are used to establish cell lines from which many thousands of other stem cells are grown, and are not a 1-embryo-1-product exchange?), I've already pointed out that embryo destruction isn't an absolute requirement of ES cell line production. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=71138.msg1407746#msg1407746)
As usual in biological debates, you are significantly out of your depth. Take the opportunity to educate yourself instead of spouting nonsense which will just be refuted by numerous people.
-
In my hypothetical scenario, it is implied that there would be sanctioned baby farms with mass abortions going on.
Phew, for a minute there i thought your argument might have been based in some form of reality.
-
You guys go on and on about how the private sector is raping this, that or the other thing and is basically evil incarnate with no basis in reality. And then when the shoe is on the other foot and it's at least a possibility that things could go horribly, horribly wrong you laugh and point fingers. This confuses me greatly and troubles more than a little.
-
You guys go on and on about how the private sector is raping this, that or the other thing and is basically evil incarnate with no basis in reality. And then when the shoe is on the other foot and it's at least a possibility that things could go horribly, horribly wrong you laugh and point fingers. This confuses me greatly and troubles more than a little.
Instead of making up a new fantasy to talk about and then claiming that we've bought into it (by the way, I want specific quotes to back up your claim that we're accusing the private sector of being a rapist incarnate evil), could you please respond to the responses to your previous point?
Are you here to discuss or just troll?
-
You guys go on and on about how the private sector is raping this, that or the other thing and is basically evil incarnate with no basis in reality. And then when the shoe is on the other foot and it's at least a possibility that things could go horribly, horribly wrong you laugh and point fingers. This confuses me greatly and troubles more than a little.
When you've finished your foray into that warped fantasy you've created, kindly respond to this post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=71138.msg1408809#msg1408809). Until then, I'm not wasting my time on your silliness.
-
Until you get past the notion that you have to kill babies to get the cells, you're going to fundamentally misunderstand the basics of this debate, Liberator.
-
I actually did target parts of the private sector with my post, but Liberator, are you saying you agree with patents on the human genome? Or that the private sector has a track history of openness with its medical achievements in general? That was all that's been pointed out so far.
-
You guys go on and on about how the private sector is raping this, that or the other thing and is basically evil incarnate with no basis in reality. And then when the shoe is on the other foot and it's at least a possibility that things could go horribly, horribly wrong you laugh and point fingers. This confuses me greatly and troubles more than a little.
Public research will reduce costs of end products, make them accessible to wider target group and improve competition between multiple companies, as opposed to a situation where one company had done all the research privately, patented all research results and then demanded royalties for any company who would want to enter competition on that particular field and develope products based on such research. That only benefits the single company's shareholders, it makes the end product more expensive, and reduces the fairness of the competition.
In addition it's ridiculous what sort of things are "patented" on continuous basis.
As an example, patenting entire genomes or their parts is just as silly as if Enrico Fermi had patented fission reaction.
As far as I'm concerned, nothing that appears in the nature should be possible to "patent". Transgenetic plants are a good example - typically, genes aren't made from scratch. Grossly simplified, if you want a cold-resistant, high-yield type of the plant, you look at what parts of the genome make the cold-resistant variant cold-resistant, extract those, insert them into a high-yield cultivar's genome and hope that the hack-slash job you made plays nicely together with parts of itself. When you're done, you should have a high-yield cultivar with increased resistance to cold (or diseases or whatever).
But you did not do the work of evolution - you looked at the genes for cold resistance, took them from the cold-resistant cultivar's genome and transplated them into the high-yield cultivar's genome.
Because you didn't manually encode the DNA strings, you don't really have any right to patent the resulting genome. Sure, you can patent the specific way you did it and you can define a price for the end product, but you shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from doing the same thing.
If you want, you can keep the research results secret, but patenting something like this is ludicrous. Let's say someone else does the same research and comes to same conclusions, and does a similar or same gene transplantation. But if someone else did the research first and patented it, they would have no right to sell the end product because it would infringe on the patented genome of the cold-resistand high-yield cultivar.
This kind of things could be averted if basic research and resulting knowledge were mainly done via public funding. Private companies then could each access the knowledge and use it for their own developement, which they could of course patent within reasonable limits.
Oh and I realize that the patent issues of transgenetic plants has little in common with stem cell research - superficially. But the underlying issues are still the same.
I could see a case where a privately funded research figures how to create, say, embryonic stem cell line that produces widely compatible transplant organs, but would then proceed to patent said line of cells, which would severely reduce the actual usefulness of said discovery, for the monetary gain of rather narrow group of people.
-
Since it's come up three times now in this thread, I'll just mention that the BRAC1 and BRCA2 gene patents formerly held by Myriad Genetics Inc were recently struck down entirely. gene patenting is on its way out and, as most geneticists will tell you, this is nothing but [Martha Stewart Mode] a good thing [/martha].
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=business
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
Also, some countries, Canada among them, do not enforce some gene patents - Health Canada has been quietly circumventing Myriads patent for years because patient health in breast cancer testing comes first. For those not familiar with Myriad's business tactics, they have been charging exorbitant amounts for a very simple and easily performed genetic screening test because, well, they could. The cost of Myriad's test was extremely prohibitive, despite the fact that the technology to do it very cheaply has been around for nearly a decade. In short, it was a money-grab.
-
Liberator, I'm giving you a formal warning. If you wish to take part in a debate you must actually answer the points the other side make. If you continue to jump about ignoring everyone* who responds to you, you will be permanently excluded from Gen. Discuss.
*Yes I realise that cause you know little about this subject you're getting corrections from lots of different people but you've ignored ALL of them. If you were at least picking one and answering I couldn't make a legitimate argument that you were simply trolling here.
-
Until you get past the notion that you have to kill babies to get the cells, you're going to fundamentally misunderstand the basics of this debate, Liberator.
Unfortunately there are hordes of people in america who think the same way.
-
fun fact, you can do embryonic stem cell research using stem cells from fetuses that grow to be adults who can then be cured by the treatments that were developed using their cells.
-
Just had this thought in the shower, it's where most of my coherent thinking goes on(based on that statement, I should probably live in it :p)
But if In Vitro clinics discard thousands of embryos a year, why aren't these already being used by the Stem Cell researchers?
-
because of all the underinformed morons who think we will have abortion farms to harvest embryos
sometimes it's a real shame that democracy means people like that get the power to influence important decisions :doubt:
-
Just had this thought in the shower, it's where most of my coherent thinking goes on(based on that statement, I should probably live in it :p)
But if In Vitro clinics discard thousands of embryos a year, why aren't these already being used by the Stem Cell researchers?
Without knowing much about the subject, I'd wager that they are being used. It's just that research doesn't need to use all of them and that without public funding, most research won't be done and as a result, the embryos won't be used.
If I understood correctly, this issue is not as much about the embryos as it is about irrational fear of science, whatever area it may be.
-
But if In Vitro clinics discard thousands of embryos a year, why aren't these already being used by the Stem Cell researchers?
/*facepalm*/
really?
REALLY?
ok, normally I think this accusation gets thrown around too much, but you have got to be trolling.
They aren't being used because Bush made an executive order forbidding them being used, this topic is about the process of undoing the laws and orders and restrictions that Bush put over this field of research. every argument you have gotten into over this subject the side you were fighting was trying to get what you just suggested. in short they aren't being used because YOU fought to prevent them from being used.
-
But if In Vitro clinics discard thousands of embryos a year, why aren't these already being used by the Stem Cell researchers?
/*facepalm*/
really?
REALLY?
ok, normally I think this accusation gets thrown around too much, but you have got to be trolling.
They aren't being used because Bush made an executive order forbidding them being used, this topic is about the process of undoing the laws and orders and restrictions that Bush put over this field of research. every argument you have gotten into over this subject the side you were fighting was trying to get what you just suggested. in short they aren't being used because YOU fought to prevent them from being used.
Well, it is sort of a fair question, and while your answer is true I want to add that the Obama administration recently loosened the guidelines such that Liberator's desire was achieved: the discarded embryos could be used IF the parents consented without duress.
Unfortunately this court decision has, in turn, reversed that, and we're back to status quo circa Bush.
-
I just don't get how he can argue this much, five pages in the thread alone, and not has such a rudimentary grasp on the subject! on the part of the subject his 'side' has control of!
there is only one answer, he b troll'n.
it's the only thing that makes sense.
-
Actually Liberator is a good example of the demographic Bush was appealing to when he passed that stupid executive order in the first place.
The fact that they don't understand the basics of the subject matter isn't going to stop them from saying yes or no to something in a very firm voice and with rock hard conviction that they are 100% correct to do so.
I don't think we can claim that the entire pro-life movement is trolling but the majority of them express similar sentiments to Liberator. That said, it is very tempting to assume that they might be. :p
Anyway, I'd rather Liberator is asking questions and hopefully learning something than what he has been doing so far. So I'm not going to say he's trolling while he's actually asking questions instead of giving ill founded opinions instead of debating.
-
I guess /b/ has a lot to learn from the Pro-Life movement when it comes to serious trolling.
-
To be fair, there are plenty of people in the pro-life movement who are against the IVF procedures that produce all of those embryos in the first place. That's sort of why I'm somewhat personally undecided on the ethics of using embryos consigned to the garbage heap, since I find their initial creation process inherently unethical.
-
Ok, Bob, to be fair, I've only posted in this thread about 5 or 6 times(asinine or not). Also, the reason I asked about the In Vitro stuff is because I saw it mentioned above and was genuinely curious about it. I tend not to spend an enormous amount of time watching the news(Which includes Fox, The Big Three and the lesser networks) because I am sick of the amount of stupidity oozing from just about ever single person on there.
The single worst thing that has happened to American Culture(please don't spew that "Melting Pot" bull hockey, we take the good stuff and bin the rest) is the advent of the 24 hour news cycle. Because what ends up happening is that instead of 18 hours between broadcasts or 10 hours between publishing intervals to allow people to think and process what has been reported you have 4 major channels(Fox, CNN, (P)MS-NBC, and Headline News) and The Big Three egging things on and blowing a lot of it completely out of proportion to get people to turn on and watch CNN over Fox, or HN over MS-NBC. It has also accelerated the speed that Politics happens, which is bad for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here.
-
Also, the reason I asked about the In Vitro stuff is because I saw it mentioned above and was genuinely curious about it.
To argue a position, you should first understand it.
I think you'll find that most of us who do support ES cell research categorically do not support the wanton fertilization and maintenance of human embryos solely to harvest stem cells, destroying the embryo in the process. Not only is that extremely wasteful, it's unethical.
However, as we have all been saying, there are literally thousands of human embryos destroyed around the world every year as waste from IVF treatments. A good number of these are destroyed because genetic screening has found problems with the embryo (unable to develop to term, or severe genetic illness), but there are many that are healthy embryos that are simply discarded as surplus. Instead, most ES cell research proponents would like to see these used to develop new ES cell lines...
...you know what? Forget half measures, I'm going to give you a condensed university-level education on what embryonic stem cell research is all about because I think, perhaps, that you and a few others can benefit from it. Long post to follow (Battuta, Herra, etc feel free to chime in if I miss anything or some of this is out of date):
---
There are a lot of misconceptions out there about stem cell research. A stem cell is, quite simply, a generic term for any cell capable of differentiating into two or more types of specialized cell. There are two types of stem cells: totipotent, which can divide to produce literally any cell in the body (from a hair cell to a brain cell to an immune cell to bone marrow), and pluripotent, which can produce two or more different cell types but are restricted in that they are unable to produce some other cell types.
Stem cell research is important for more reasons than the frequent media trumpet concerning new organ growth, cancer, blah blah. Stem cell research is about growing functional tissues which can be used to replace or heal existing tissues - the applications are literally endless. This science, combined with modern molecular genetics, literally has the potential to be able to cure every disease known to mankind - by replacing damage tissue, and even by allowing for targeted application of gene therapy. There are even applications in immunology and disease resistance. It's importance cannot be overstated - which is why limiting research based on ideology (as opposed to ethics) is so tragic.
The main problem is that the way this research is carried out is grossly misunderstood.
[Slight simplification follows] When a mammalian egg and sperm fuse, the resulting cell divides roughly every 24 hours. The one, two, four, and 8 cell stages all contain totipotent cells - splitting off any single one of these makes it theoretically possible to grow a clone (in quotes to indicate this a biological, not sci-fi term) of the original organism. Beyond the 8-cell stage, the process can become dicey based on the organism - all cells may remain totipotent for a few more cell divisions, or they may start differentiating and become pluripotent (limited destiny). By the time an organism is fully grown, very few totipotent cells remain in the body - the only remaining stem cells that are readily identifiable in human adults are pluripotent. As not all cell types have broad pluripotent parents, they are unsuited to stem cell research.
A number of years ago, several researchers created what are known now as iPS cells - induced pluripotent stem cells. Essentially these are stem cells which are made from adult human cells which are treated through molecular manipulation to expand their differentiation potential - essentially, we remove the genetic restrictions on cell differentiation. The problem with this is two-fold: (1) they are not totipotent - several of the genetic changes that totipotent stem cells undergo in their division to produce pluripotent cells are irreversibly coded into DNA (usually through deletion and changes in coding/folding) and (2) the manipulation process may unlock proto-oncogenes and cause the iPS cells to act instead as cancer cells. While iPS cell research has fantastic applications, there are still some severe limitations on it.
This brings us to embyronic stem cells - specifically, the cells contained in the 4-8 cell blastocyst that are completely totipotent. Traditional methods of harvesting these cells disrupted the integrity of the blastocyst to such an extent that is destroyed the embryo - harvesting the stem cells killed the organism. While this is less of a problem for people who don't view human life as beginning at conception (I admittedly fall into this category), it's still not scientifically ideal because it eliminates the possibility of producing an ES cell line tailored to each person. Much in the way we save cord blood now, we may eventually reach a point where everyone can have their very own ES cell line made from the point of birth - thus ensuring a cell line with a guarantee of genetic and immune match for organs and pretty much any other tissue they could be coaxed into producing.
Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis has largely solved this problem. Using PGD techniques (which were pioneered for a totally different reason, I might add), we can separate a sinlge totipotent cell from a 4-cell or 8-cell blastocyst WITHOUT destroying the remaining embryo. Research to date has shown that the embryo develops normally to a pre-set stage (protocols dictate that at present time such research embryos must be destroyed before developing into a fetus, per government regulation), and the removed cell is equally capable of developing into an embryo again or being coaxed to form an ES cell line. The technology now exists to harvest totipotent stem cells without destroying the embryo as a whole - current government regulations prevent those R&D embryos from being allowed to develop to term.
This brings me to cell lines. When we harvest a stem cell, pluripotent or totipotent, they are not permitted to develop into other tissues from the start. That would be extremely wasteful - 1 cell, 1 product is less than ideal when we literally are dealing with truly immortal cells capable of dividing billions of times. Instead, researchers treat these cells (the exact procedure I don't know the details of without looking up) in order to produce ES cell lines. Think line like lineage - a constantly-replenishing supply of genetically identical cells. These lines are then used to produce stem cells that are used in research while the line itself is maintained. This gives several (or dozens) of labs the ability to work with genetically identical cells. While there are many ES cell lines already being maintained, the creation of new lines is imperative for a genetically diverse baseline. Bush's ban on funding banned public funding of research which created new ES cell lines; existing lines (generated before the ban; those made after the ban were still barred) were authorized for limited use. This judge's ruling actually makes the Bush ban harsher because it forbids public funds from being used in research even on establish ES cell lines. Meanwhile, ES cell lines are still being created in other countries around the world, it's just that no one operating with public funds in the United States is allowed to use them. Brilliant, that conservative ideology founded firmly in ignorance instead of making any attempt to understand the science behind the issue.
IVF clinics, by the nature of the procedure they perform, produce many extra embryos for every woman, and only a few are implanted. The rest are discarded. Thus, it would be better for everyone concerned if these embryos could be used to produce new ES cell lines; the embryos will be destroyed regardless, due to the regulations in place, but at least some use is coming of them. Barring that, it would be nice if publicly-funded research in the US could use new ES cell lines, but Bush and the latest judicial decision have kicked that solidly to the curb for now.
-
This is why concerns about fetus farms are so unfounded. The technology already exists to extract totipotent cells from embryos without destroying them (though in the case of fertility clinics they'll be destroyed afterwards anyway.) These cells can be used to create self-sustaining cell lines.
Using IVF clinic embryos to extract totipotent stem cells would be less wasteful than the status quo.