| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/19/2005 05:51:29 PM · #1 |
Copied from //wsj.com
South Korean researchers have extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a major leap in stem-cell technology. After overcoming previous technical hurdles to cloning, scientists at Seoul National University created several embryos using skin cells from sick and injured people. From 11 of those embryos, they managed to extract stem cells, which can morph into other sorts of cells to potentially heal illnesses. But if the procedure is to produce actual working therapies, it will take years of further research. Both embryo cloning and stem-cell research are hot-potato ethical issues in the U.S., though some states allow both procedures.
full article
|
|
|
|
05/19/2005 06:11:00 PM · #2 |
Unlike USA, Canada is taking stem cell research more open mindedly. With their previous pancreatic islet transplant and now with stem cell reserch underway, future seems promising to people like me :)
|
|
|
|
05/19/2005 06:19:02 PM · #3 |
Couldn't link to the site (stupid thing requires registration). But if I correctly understand what you are saying - than S. Korean researched created embryo clones from stem-cells extracted from the skin. Then harvested more stem cells from the cloned embryos.
As for this "hot-potato ethical issues in the U.S"...this is mostly because 90% of the people out there are un-informed on the issue. Stem-cell research is one of the most mis-understood topics in the U.S.
I cannot even count how many times I've seen a newspaper print or heard someone say "Bush's ban on stem-cell research". It is such an un-informed statement that it's not even laughable anymore.
I. The Bush administration is in fact the first to earmark a substantial amount of Federal funding for stem-cell research. I believe they allocated $500 million.
II. What most people keep calling the "ban on stem-cell research" is merely a ban on Federeall funding one specific type of stem-cell research, namely 'fetal/embryonic' stem cell research. As many deem it improper to use human life to save human life.
III. Furthermore, it was deemed unnecessary. As many scientists claim that all the same results of embryonic stem cell research can be achieved via normal stem cell research extracted from such places as bone marrow, umbilical cords, etc. without loss of life.
IV. So far, all the major successes from stem-cell research has been from "non-fetal" stem cells. The hot-potato issue of fetal stem cells has basically turned out next to nothing in way of sucesses. This is largely due to the fact that fetal stem-cells are hyper-active growth cells. And most of the experiments done with stem cells simply result in tumorous growths.
V. Even still, said research can be done thru private financing means. The government just decided NOT to finance one controversial method which as of yet showed very little promise of any potential and could be seen as causing harm or death to other individuals by a large segment of the populace.
So in truth, there is no ban on stem-cell research in the U.S. it's a misnomer oft quoted by the mis-informed (and propogated by an extremely biased media). |
|
|
|
05/19/2005 06:20:25 PM · #4 |
Nonage....DID YOU KNOW THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY FUNDED $500 MILLION IN STEM-CELL RESEARCH?
In fact, EVERY article I've read regarding a break thru in stem-cell research has been from "non-fetal" stem cells. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 11:15:56 AM · #5 |
MYTH: There are more than enough stem cells for research already. Plus, adult stem cells are more promising than embryonic stem cells. We don't need to use SCNT.
FACT: We do not have enough stem cells for research. There are only a limited number of NIH-approved stem cell lines available to government-supported researchers and not enough to proceed at full pace with extensive research into treatments and cures. There certainly are not enough to turn research into treatments.
Adult stem cell research shows promise in some areas and should be pursued. However, our nation's top scientists, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Academy of Sciences all agree that embryonic stem cells have greater potential - they are "pluripotent" (can make any cell in the body) and "immortal" (can be grown in a lab indefinitely) - than adult cells.
Another important use of SCNT is to create new embryonic stem cells. The cells currently available to researchers are insufficient because: 1) they do not allow full investigation of the genetic causes of disease (e.g., scientists need to create new cells that actually contain genetic diseases in order to study how these diseases affect the growth and development of other cells and tissue), and 2) they are not sufficiently racially or ethnically diverse (e.g., certain diseases are more prevalent in people of particular races - like sickle cell disease - and by creating new stem cells from people of specific races, scientists could help unravel the causes of these diseases.) The bottom line is that scientists need more cell lines to fulfill the enormous promise of embryonic stem cell research.
above from :
The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) is comprised of nationally-recognized patient organizations, universities, scientific societies, foundations, and individuals with life-threatening illnesses and disorders, advocating for the advancement of breakthrough research and technologies in regenerative medicine - including stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer - in order to cure disease and alleviate suffering. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 11:18:06 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I. The Bush administration is in fact the first to earmark a substantial amount of Federal funding for stem-cell research. I believe they allocated $500 million. |
Are you trying to make the argument that stem cell research monies have grown under the Bush administration?
Or does your above statement merely confirm the amount of newly-defined funds, which really represents an actual decrease in overall funding?
I would predict the latter is the case.
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 11:35:50. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 11:32:18 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
II. What most people keep calling the "ban on stem-cell research" is merely a ban on Federeall funding one specific type of stem-cell research, namely 'fetal/embryonic' stem cell research. As many deem it improper to use human life to save human life. |
Unfortunately, this is the most important and productive source of material. The current available cell lines are very limited, and actually of little use because of their derivation.
Also, here is an article casting doubts on the research usefulness of ANY of the not-banned cell lines: //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2004Oct28.html
The ban, or moratorium, has far-reaching chilling effect, since virtually all pure research is government funded, not private.
Your argument is deliberately misleading, as it minmizes the effect and nature of the ban egregiously.
Additionally, by "many" you imply that the moratorium on fetal/embryonic source research is popular. It is popular among certain religious factions, and those others who march in lock-step with the Bush administration, but that is all.
It is not popular with the scientific community, or with the wishes of the general population either here in the U.S., or around the world.
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 11:32:47. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 11:40:02 AM · #8 |
MYTH: There are more than enough stem cells for research already. Plus, adult stem cells are more promising than embryonic stem cells. We don't need to use SCNT.
[[[Funny, I have seen numerous "stem-cell" breakthroughs in the news. And everyone so far has been adult or non-fetal stem-cell.]]]
"There are only a limited number of NIH-approved stem cell lines available to government-supported researchers and not enough to proceed at full pace with extensive research into treatments and cures. There certainly are not enough to turn research into treatments."
[[[And numerous available for privately funded research.]]]
"they are "pluripotent" (can make any cell in the body)
[[[Amazing progress has been achieved with bone marrow and umbilical cord stem cells. Even allowing for the creation of cells originally not thought possible. And many scientists have stated that as we advance our knowledge that any cell may likely be able to be derived from non-fetal stem cells.]]]
"immortal" (can be grown in a lab indefinitely) - than adult cells."
[[[i believe you are referring to the ability to constantly re-clone cell]]]
1) (e.g., scientists need to create new cells that actually contain genetic diseases in order to study how these diseases affect the growth and development of other cells and tissue), and
[[[ Often is the case that diseases affect on a certain type or types of cell. Thus it is quite feasible that even with non-fetal stem cells that one can replicate cells with said diseases. Furthermore, it is probably much more challenging to ensure that a fetal stem cell actually develops said disease.]]]
2) they are not sufficiently racially or ethnically diverse (e.g., certain diseases are more prevalent in people of particular races - like sickle cell disease - and by creating new stem cells from people of specific races, scientists could help unravel the causes of these diseases.)
[[[Referring back to the above, said cells can be harvested and processed accordingly.]]]
"Are you trying to make the argument that stem cell research monies have grown under the Bush administration?"
[[[Actually, it's a fairly moot point in that stem cell research is fairly new as far as coming into vogue. So it was not until recently a big money grant area. $500 million were allocated to non-fetal stem cell research. Yes, federal monies were restricted from fetal stem cell research. But hey, why not just dissect living patients with alzheimer's. I am sure such could eventually lead to an increased understanding beyond mere autopsy results.]]] |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 11:45:26 AM · #9 |
"I think this construct is not an embryo," he said. "There is no fertilization in our process. We use nuclear transfer technology. I can say this result is not an embryo but a nuclear transfer construct." The sheep Dolly, the first adult mammal cloned, was made using nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus is removed from an egg cell, replaced with the nucleus of the animal or person to be cloned, and then fused.
[[[Even this example did not use a fetus. But rather took the nuclei of an adult cell and implanted it into an egg cell after removing the egg's nuclei. The result is a cell that acts very much like a fertilized cell. But in many ways is not exactly an embryo.]]]
The 10 Great Media Myths in the Debate of Stem Cell Research
Myth 1. Stem cells can only come from embryos.
In fact, stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even from cadavers up to 20 hours after death.
Myth 2. Christians are against stem cell research.
There are four categories of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, Christians in general oppose the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem cells. In other words, most Christians approve of three of the four possible types of stem cell research.
Myth 3. Embryonic stem cell research has the greatest promise.
Up to now, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already cured thousands. For example, bone marrow cells from the hipbone have repaired scar tissue on the heart after heart attacks. Research using adult cells is 20-30 years ahead of embryonic stem cells and holds greater promise. This is in part because stem cells are part of the natural repair mechanisms of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells do not belong in an adult body (where they are likely to form tumors, and to be rejected as foreign tissue by the recipient). Rather, embryonic stem cells really belong only within the specialized microenvironment of a rapidly growing embryo, which is a radically different setting from an adult body.
Myth 4. Embryonic stem cell research is against the law.
In reality, there is no law or regulation against destroying human embryos for research purposes. While President Bush has banned the use of federal funding to support research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 2001, it is not illegal. Anyone using private funds is free to pursue it.
Myth 5. President Bush created new restrictions to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
The 1996 Dickey Amendment prohibited the use of federal funds for research that would involve the destruction of human embryos. Bush’s decision to permit research on embryonic stem cell lines created before a certain date thus relaxes this restriction from the Clinton era.
Myth 6. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are fundamentally different from each other.
The creation of cloned embryos either to make a baby or to harvest cells occurs by the same series of technical steps. The only difference is what will be done with the cloned human embryo that is produced. Will it be given the protection of a woman’s womb in order to be born? Or will it be destroyed for its stem cells?
Myth 7. Somatic nuclear cell transfer is different from cloning.
In fact, “somatic cell nuclear transfer” is simply cloning by a different name. The end result is still a cloned embryo.
Myth 8. By doing somatic cell nuclear transfer, we can directly produce tissues or organs without having to clone an embryo.
At the present stage of research, scientists are unable to bypass the creation of an embryo in the production of tissues or organs. In the future it may be possible to inject elements from the cytoplasm of a woman’s ovum into a somatic cell to “reprogram” it into a stem cell. This is called “de-differentiation.” If so, there would be no fundamental moral objection to this approach to getting stem cells.
//www.nebcathcon.org/stem_cell_research.htm#Stem%20Cell%20Cloning
(now some of this info may be dated, but as of yet...I still have not heard of any successful treatment using fetal stem cells. Almost every attempt has resulted in nothing but a tumorous growth. There have been dozens of successes with adult stem-cell treatements.
Now, let me ask you this....if method (1) costs potential life and has had zero successes and method (2) has no cost on life but has already achieved many successes - which should we invest in? the one that does no harm and offers great rewards? or the one with no viable rewards that causes harm to life?
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 12:00:55. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 12:44:56 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The ban, or moratorium, has far-reaching chilling effect, since virtually all pure research is government funded, not private.
Your argument is deliberately misleading, as it minmizes the effect and nature of the ban egregiously. |
ginger -By calling it a "Ban" because the government doesn't fund it is absurd. If you don't personally fund it, then you, yourself, are "banning" it. As am I.
And if the research was so promising and effective, why wouldn't private organizations be lining up to fund it?
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 01:40:53 PM · #11 |
Ken, if you and me do not fund it, it is not a ban. neither it is a de jure ban if the government does not ban it, but how about de facto? Also, different branches of the government may have different opinions... see below
More facts from today:(taken from wsj again)
Underscoring a widening rift with his own party in Congress, President Bush vowed that if Congress passes a bill to expand federal spending on stem-cell research using human embryos, "I will veto it." He added: "I'm a strong supporter of adult stem-cell research, of course. But I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is -- I'm against that." Legislation being pushed in the House of Representatives would loosen the administration's curbs on federally funded research into embryonic stem cells.
He also said he is "very concerned about cloning," an apparent reference to announcements from South Korea and the United Kingdom that researchers had made advances in cloning embryos for stem-cell research purposes. "I worry about a world in which cloning becomes acceptable," he said.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:06:31 PM · #12 |
Yes....there are some extremely dangerous potentials with both stem-cells, cloning, etc.
I do believe that we should err with caution on the side of life. Numerous discoveries were made by german doctors during the NAZI reign. Should we then justify those practices. And realize, all of those practices started off much more acceptably and progressed further into the unacceptable.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THERE ARE DANGERS, REPURCUSSIONS, AND MORE TO IT THAN SIMPLY MEDICAL RESEARCH - YOU ARE A FOOL!
There is much to be defined with cloning. And we currently do not have legislation to handle the matters that might arise in the next few years.
For example, at what point does a cloned embryo constitute life if ever? Currently, we allow an embryo to be aborted up until birth by the mother. Even though at 6 months a fetus is potentially a viable life with our current medical knowledge.
So say we clone an embryo and it's viable - even "survivable". Rest assured technology will be developed to provide an equivalent resource comparable to a womb for growth. At what point does one declare such viable? You can't really go by "birth" anymore. And it's very likely that such development might prove to be longer or even much shorter than the standard 9 months of development. So where does one stop and say that said "clone" is no longer simply an embryo but is now a human being? Or does such "always" remain the property of the research lab?
If the first, then you have problem. You have traditional reproduction. So how do you correspond the two. If viability is determined early, than how can one justify late term abortions? if viability is set later...than why does "giving birth" remain as the viability point. Why not abort an 18 month embryo?
If the latter, than we have another problem. The potentiality of a cloned human being as property of a research lab. A new form of slavery.
Currently, we have NO LAWS able to address this matter. Conversely, we are probably just a mere few years away from actually having to deal with these issues. Our legal system IS NOT ready to deal with these moral implications. We need some laws, guidlines, protections in place. Without them...there is much reason to worry!
- Jason "The Saj" |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:06:43 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Ken, if you and me do not fund it, it is not a ban. neither it is a de jure ban if the government does not ban it, but how about de facto? Also, different branches of the government may have different opinions... |
I look at it this way, regardless of the issue of what exactly is or isn't being funded, not funding it does not equate (de facto or otherwise) to a "ban". When my oldest daughter said she wanted a tattoo on her 18th birthday, I said I am not paying for it. Obviously I did not "ban" her from getting one - she found the funding herself and got one.
Another (albeit weaker) example is my internet "research" I find humorous stuff and post it for folks to get a chuckle out of. It is an undisputed fact that laughter is the best medicine, and because the government isn't funding it, can you claim they are banning me from doing it? Absurd. Absurd, I tells ya. :)
On the specific issue of embryonic stem cell research, I don't claim to know enough to be in charge of the decision to do it, fund it, etc., but I fall on the side of NOT destroying life in order to save life. But I'm also of the mind in regards to funding it is seeing EVIDENCE OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS or potential before you take my money to pay for it. From the things I have heard, it has not yielded anything and of course the scientific community is in support of it - think of the massive grants and monies flowing into their labs.
Again I ask, if that research is so promising, why are private investors and donors not lining up?
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 14:07:36.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:07:43 PM · #14 |
"but how about de facto?" srdanz
You mean like the government's de facto ban on 8-track audio cassettes? |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:31:58 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"but how about de facto?" srdanz
You mean like the government's de facto ban on 8-track audio cassettes? |
LOL!
Didn't they "ban" the SETI project as well?
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:38:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Didn't they "ban" the SETI project as well? |
[[[ who???? us...or the aliens???? ]]] |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:56:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by kpriest:
Didn't they "ban" the SETI project as well? |
[[[ who???? us...or the aliens???? ]]] |
The aliens love that project. They make prank calls all the time! :)
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 03:22:06 PM · #18 |
Don't they periodically kidnap humans to harvest their stem cells...???
(I think I saw that in a Stargate episode with Loki) |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 03:57:04 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by kpriest:
Didn't they "ban" the SETI project as well? |
[[[ who???? us...or the aliens???? ]]] |
The aliens love that project. They make prank calls all the time! :) |
Lol
"E.T. Phone Earth...Hello, Earth? Is your cryogenic storage unit running?"
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 15:57:28. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 04:16:58 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by NovaTiger:
"E.T. Phone Earth...Hello, Earth? Is your cryogenic storage unit running?" |
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 04:42:52 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
IF YOU DON'T THINK THERE ARE DANGERS, REPURCUSSIONS, AND MORE TO IT THAN SIMPLY MEDICAL RESEARCH - YOU ARE A FOOL!
|
Cool. Let the rest of the world take up the forefront of scientific research. We will sell you the benefits, regardless. The US will buy them.
There are always risks. There is the risk that any experiment will result in the "end of the world". There are more worrying experiments than making a few cells reproduce in a certain format (electron coliders and balck holes, anyone?).
I believe that most of the opposition is based around right to life arguments, rather than the concept that it is "dangerous" in the broader sense. Hence the devolution of arguments into religious terms (as here in part). And one must not forget that Christianity is only one possibility. There are plenty other blueprints for society, many of which function very well in the rest of the world. America merely happens to be dominated by religously Christian fundamental politicians at the moment - and by a certain number of nuclear enforcers.
If if is a myth, then |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 05:05:16 PM · #22 |
"There are always risks."
[[[But are they justified and worthwhile risks? and so far, there is little evidence to support that they are.
a) since most of claimed goals can be accomplished with non-fetal stem cells there seems to be little justification
b) with so little justification there does not seem to be enough evidence that the risk and consequences are worthwhile
The rest of my arguments regarding the need for thought regarding laws of how to handle such future endeavors as cloning, viability, etc. NEED to be addressed. And anyone who doesn't realize that and goes further to deny such is a moron.
]]]
"I believe that most of the opposition is based around right to life arguments, rather than the concept that it is "dangerous" in the broader sense."
[[[Yes, because most of us define "danger" as a hazard to human life. So yes, we need to protect human life. Answer my simple question. If one were to clone an embryo and form it within a mechanical vat until it was a viable. When do we determine if such is just tissue grown in a vat or a human being with rights? This eliminates the one division in line with abortion between "a legal abortion" and "illegal murder". It is an extremely gray area. So unless you are okay with murder please answer me such?
]]]
"And one must not forget that Christianity is only one possibility."
[[[You're right. But I don't see anything here regarding christianity. Only regarding life. And I think most noble religions see the value of life. I've known many non-christian pro-lifers (okay so most of whom have been vegans of either atheists or pagans leanings) but they exist.]]]
"There are plenty other blueprints for society, many of which function very well in the rest of the world."
[[[Yes there are....but you must really have a BUTA with christianity because nothing was mentioned here about it. And you're going off on this whole tangential attack on christianity. Get over it...don't avoid arguing the facts by simply attacking "them there christians". If you want to debate theology...than start a thread on theology.
But if you want to debate stem-cell research and ethics...do so with arguments and not ad hominems. Thanks... ;-) ]]]
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 05:26:54 PM · #23 |
I have to agree with theSaj in regards to where the heck are you coming from with the "devolution of arguments into religious terms (as here in part)" You (Matthew) are the first to bring up Christianity.
I get extremely annoyed at those who play the "faith" card in all their arguments. And another poster who used the term "open-minded" regarding Canada. The definition of open-minded as most use it today can be translated "air-headed".
over & out.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2005 10:49:04 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
You (Matthew) are the first to bring up Christianity. |
Not so, kpriest. The Saj brought it up on his own, previously, in this thread.
Originally posted by kpriest:
I get extremely annoyed at those who play the "faith" card in all their arguments. And another poster who used the term "open-minded" regarding Canada. The definition of open-minded as most use it today can be translated "air-headed".
|
So, you are evidently saying that being close-minded is the intelligent choice? :D |
|
|
|
05/21/2005 11:04:21 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
But hey, why not just dissect living patients with alzheimer's. I am sure such could eventually lead to an increased understanding beyond mere autopsy results.]]] |
Um, yeah....
Here we come to the crux of the matter.
Vivisection of a mature adult IS NOT the same as harvesting cells from a tiny, never-born, never conscious, never-destined-to-be-born, prefetal group of cells.
Which was going to be discarded into the trash anyway.
Which may well have been donated to the cause of science by its producer, the mother, who likely should have more say in the matter than George Bush.
Which likely was, at the time of the harvest, in a state of genetic and phenotypic conformation as to be a FISH more than a human......
What truly amazes me about the religious right's - and your, Saj - viewpoints, is that they are hypersensitive to the "injustice" done to a lump of undifferentiated cells, while simultaneously callous to the death and suffering of real, bleeding innocent children in, say, Iraq.
The "Sanctity of Life" argument is a despicable hypocrisy, IMO. |
|
