Stem Cell Research

[pikman]

Since religion has been beaten to death on this board, I thought I'd throw a twist in.

Do you believe that human embryos should be used for stem cell research?

This kind of research could be leading to all kinds of medical breakthroughs, but it seems that there are groups out there that feel it is amoral. What are some of your thoughts?

[PRBronco]

I'm all for it, I think the potential of what can be achieved by it is mind blowing.

[BroncosB2B]

I'm all for it, I think the potential of what can be achieved by it is mind blowing.

I think the opportunity should be given to see if it works, then, they can go from there.

[Alastor]

Yes.

This post is too short.

[bocefus]

There are adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and belly-button stem cells.
To which are you alluding to?

I find it ironic, sometimes, that people are afraid of what the patriot act can 'open', in the wrong hands, but don't feel the same way regarding embryonic stem cell research.

Isn't President Bush the first President to actually ok funding for stem cell research?

[Alastor]

Isn't President Bush the first President to actually ok funding for stem cell research?

No. I recently had this convo with a friend. Bush was not the first to okay funding for stem-cell research. He was the first to regulate funding for stem-cell research. In the end, stem-cell research gets less funding under the Bush "funding" program than it did when the government didn't officially set a program up and contributed in peace-meal fashion allowing for private and corporate funding as well.

What regulating it did was put limits on how private persons or entities could fund the research for those institutions conducting the studies - where in the past there weren't any stringent regulations.

So no, he was not the first to okay the funding. He was indeed the first to set stem-cell research funding up onto a mandatory and regulated system.

The result is that funding for this kind of research fell dramatically.

[Alastor]

At any rate, chord cell research is just as beneficial at this point.

There's another thread about Stem Cell research on the boards, in it I have linked to the AMA, among other top medical associations in the US and around the world, and they say you're very wrong.

There is no substitute for embryonic stem cells, as they can become any type of cell in the human body. No other type of cell has that ability.

I think your friend is incorrect. I believe that the Bush adminstration is indeed the only administration to fund any kind of stem cell research. Obviously being the first to fund it also makes his administration the first to regulate it as well.

No offense, but I believe you're off the mark here again as well.

The following is from NOVA's web site:

In one sense, Bush's administration is a turning point. He has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush's repeated claims to be "the first president ever to allow funding" for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn't his. Truth is, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

The link I provided above goes into quite a bit of detail in explaining the very argument I briefly described above. It's actually a fairly balanced article, pointing out some of the good and bad that both Bush and Clinton did in regards to this research while in office. It does however, ultimately support what I stated above.

[Alastor]

The link you provided plays a lot of games with semantics. They talk about the Clinton Administrations support of human embrionic stem cell research, but fail to mention that the support was purely verbal support. Any financial support prior to the Bush adminstration was from the private sector.

First, NOVA is a pretty respected group. Second, they don't fail to point that out.

It says:

In one sense, Bush's administration is a turning point. He has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush's repeated claims to be "the first president ever to allow funding" for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn't his. Truth is, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

So no, again I think you're clearly mistaken, they do not fail to point that out. Their point is that Clinton's policy of no interferance allowed for private funding which far exceeded that of Bush's regulated funding policy.

I have found that there are a lot of organizations which will skew the truth and play with semantics in order to ensure that the Bush administration is not looked upon favorably on several issues.

That's funny, I know a few people like that...

I have also found that those who look to discredit Mr. Bush will not allow themselves to be convinced otherwise even if the truth is obvious to all. Their loathing and hatered is so deep that nothing else matters.

How ironic.

[pikman]

All...Check out what Bush has to say

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-12.html

[Alastor]

There's a misnomer in there.

Bush states:

The families here today have either adopted or given up for adoption frozen embryos that remained after fertility treatments. Rather than discard these embryos created during in vitro fertilization, or turn them over for research that destroys them, these families have chosen a life-affirming alternative. Twenty-one children here today found a chance for life with loving parents. (Applause.)

The implication being that a child dies if stem cells are used for research - which isn't remotely accurate. Once again, Mr Bush lacks credibility and puts slants on his statements to push his religion driven agenda forward.

In reality, each year several million embryos go... in the trash. That's right, in the trash. They're the result of people who wanted to have fertilized eggs implanted to help with pregnancy who for whatever reason (they had a baby, they made more eggs than they needed, they changed their mind, etc) no longer have use of the eggs.

They then sit in a freezer without being researched upon, and without becoming children, until they rot away and literally, are thrown in the trash. Even with adoption, these embryos still go in the trash.

No child would ever be aborted to provide an embryo for the research or the stem cells themselves. There's simply no need, we have them in abundance already for free, and otherwise they go out with the newspapers.

He's not even through the second paragraph of his propoganda speech and he's already at zero credibility; again.

[pikman]

Another link...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/08/stem-cells050608.html

The US needs to catch up with the rest of the world in the realization that this is highly important research, and the Bush administration needs to keep their religious beliefs out of it.

[Alastor]

With or without religious beliefs there are ethical issues involved in many medical research projects. When there are these ethical issues involving when life begins, one should err on the side of caution. Most reasonable thinking people believe we should err on the side of life.

Whether we agree or not is moot - since stem cell research, as I mentioned above, need not create any wasted embryos. We can use the ones that are already being wasted and have more than enough cells to work with.

I take no stance on the issue you raised - except that it is not a factor in stem cell research.

[PRBronco]

Ok, here's how I look at it. Say your husband/wife/significant other becomes paralyzed in an accident. Suddenly, you have to see your loved one just sitting there, propped up, unable to even breathe on their own. You have to change their diapers 5 or 6 times a day. You have to constantly reposition them to prevent bedsores. EVERY DAY. They beg you, "let me die, take me out to the garage and start the car". I don't know about you, but even thinking about it is gutwrenching, to see that happen to someone I love, or to myself, it makes me sick. But wait! In labs across the world, there are frozen embryos, no one wants or cares about. They're not going to grow into babies, they're going to sit there, until they're thrown out, as Alastor said. These tiny, smaller than a pea, bundles of organic matter could hold the key to giving you back the life you had. Are you going to say "oh no, some people think those might have the beginnings of consciousness"? Or are you going to save the life of your loved one?

[Alastor]

Besides, the greatest strides in this area has been through chord cell research.

That's because chord cell research isn't hamstrung by a religious agenda from the White House. If you have a Ferrari and I have a go-ped, but you're not allowed any gas and I am, who wins the race?

And they might not hold the key. Right now, they don't.

And of course at one point we said that about the potential of smashing atoms, and of nuclear technology, and of nano-technology, and of computers, and of cars, and of steam engines, and of heart transplants...

And where would be if we hadn't checked to be sure anyway?

Within the last few months, someone in China made a Chimera by manipulating DNA. Now whether it lived any length of time or not, or what exactly the deal was I really don't know... but they at least made something close to a Chimera according to the AP news wire...

Someone is going to get this technology, and Pharmacueticals are the most profitable enterprise in the history of mankind.

Who do you want leading this field? If we don't lead the field, who does? What are the consequences?

[dontfeedthenerd]

And none of those are ethical issues.

Wait how do none of these mentioned have any ethical issues?

smashing atoms: We bombed Japan dude, we totally warped an entire civilization for generations to come, how did that not have ethical issues?

Nuclear Tech: Same thing as above.

nano-tech: There's potential performance enhancing technology in nano-tech. It's like steroids on silicon.

computers: As great as they are they did widen the gap between middle class and lower class people. Now computer knowledge is needed in almost any job that pays decently, however a computer is a hefty investment that families often could not afford.


I think with any great science innovation comes a certain amount of ethical question behind it. Be it how it will affect the workforce or the potential misusage that may stem from it.