[General Battuta]

I suppose that's a fair point.

[Aardwolf]

The Bible says a lot of stuff.

Wow, that was awesome.

[MP-Ryan]

I'll just leave this here.

And yes, I'm the commenter.

[chief1983]

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!

[Liberator]

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.

[chief1983]

Yeah I've heard a lot better stuff about adult stem cell research, but ESC still sounds promising at least.

[Kosh]

Yeah I've heard a lot better stuff about adult stem cell research, but ESC still sounds promising at least.

Not according to this

[chief1983]

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 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."

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Liberator]

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.

[Kosh]

Those embryos never would have become people in the first place. I think that's been well established by now.

[Liberator]

In my hypothetical scenario, it is implied that there would be sanctioned baby farms with mass abortions going on.

[General Battuta]

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.

[The E]

Ahh, yes, discussing hypotheticals when facts don't suffice to fit in your predetermined worldview.

This thread is heading straight into lockville.

[Herra Tohtori]

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! 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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[chief1983]

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****.

[Bobboau]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

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.

[Turambar]

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.