Embryos

[Crazy Jamie]

Gordon Brown has called on MPs to back stem cell research using human-animal embryos in a Commons vote on Monday.

The prime minister, writing in the Observer, said such work was a "moral endeavour" and had the potential to save and improve "millions of lives".

But Mr Brown said he respected those MPs opposed to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which will update embryology laws, for religious reasons.

He is allowing Labour MPs a free vote on controversial parts of the bill.

In his newspaper article, Mr Brown said Britons should not "turn our back" on vital scientific advances that could speed up treatment for cancer and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

Mr Brown's youngest son Fraser - who will be two in July - has cystic fibrosis, a life-threatening inherited disease which disrupts the way the digestive and respiratory systems work.

"The scientists I speak to are committed to what they see as an inherently moral endeavour, that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time, millions," he said.

Labour MPs have been given free votes on three proposals in the bill, which will be debated and voted on over two days in the House of Commons.

These are the creation of hybrid embryos, "saviour siblings" - creating a child with a tissue match to save a sick brother or sister - and giving lesbian couples equal rights to IVF treatment.

In addition, they will have a free vote on amendments reducing the upper limit for abortions from 24 weeks to 22 or even 20 weeks.

The prime minister offered the free-vote deal after warnings that some Catholic Labour MPs and cabinet ministers were ready to rebel. A classic debate, but one that is now very much at the fore of British politics because of this Bill. What's your view?

[Mr. DNA]

For my own part, I can't see how anyone could possibly be against it. Sure, there are always a few religious wackos who are scared of what an imaginary sky fairy might make of it all, but for the rest of us it's quite obviously the best option we've got with regards to tackling debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's and Alzheimers.

[soulcalibur2007]

Adult stem cells have been proven to have a higher success rate in treating these diseases. Why most scientists are completely ingnoring this fact is beyond me. Harvesting adult stem cells also does not kill the donor. Here are some links to facts regarding what I've said here:
Pros and Cons of Embryonic vs. Adult Stem cells (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html)
Cures and Failures of BOTH Embryonic Stem Cells and Adult Stem Cells (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures_failures.html)

As you can see, we should be focusing more on cures that don't cost potential human lives for no gain whatsoever.

[Mr. DNA]

A
As you can see, we should be focusing more on cures that don't cost potential human lives for no gain whatsoever.

The embryos are created by inserting DNA from the skin cell of a person into animal eggs, whose own nucleus and genetic material have been removed (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a_HHL.RGuuX0&refer=uk)

Potential human life my arse.

[soulcalibur2007]

The embryos are created by inserting DNA from the skin cell of a person into animal eggs, whose own nucleus and genetic material have been removed

Potential human life my arse.

Ok, I agree on that point, but adult stem cells have still proven to be way more effective than embryonic stem cells and have many less risks. So you give an Alzheimer's patient some embryonic stem cells and he, by some act of statistical improbability, shows improvement...and a brain tumor. Congrats. You just gave him 5 more years and then took away all of them in the same step.

[Mr. DNA]

Ok, I agree on that point, but adult stem cells have still proven to be way more effective than embryonic stem cells and have many less risks.

...

We're not talking about embryonic stem cells. We're talking about human-animal hybrid embryos.

ie- they're not human embryos, they're a mixture between human skin and animal eggs.

[soulcalibur2007]

Cells grown using animal eggs cannot be used to treat patients on safety grounds... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23921668/#storyContinued)

So why even bother when we already have a proven method of harvesting usable stem cells (adult stem cells)?

[Mr. DNA]

Cells grown using animal eggs cannot be used to treat patients on safety grounds... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23921668/#storyContinued)

So why even bother when we already have a proven method of harvesting usable stem cells (adult stem cells)?

I still don't know what you're worried about. Scientists who are smarter than you (they have a science degree) believe that animal-human embryo research has the potential to cure currently incurable diseases. You problem is?

[soulcalibur2007]

My problem is that instead of further researching and improving a process that is proven to work with greater success rate and can cure the same diseases, they are wasting thier time with a technique that is unproven and is many years off of any meaningful gains.

[Mr. DNA]

My problem is that instead of further researching and improving a process that is proven to work with greater success rate and can cure the same diseases, they are wasting thier time with a technique that is unproven and is many years off of any meaningful gains.

Your problem to begin with was that "potential human lives" were at stake. Now that you've sussed what the thread is actually about, you've scrapped that and are telling me that scientists are "wasting their time". Forgive me as I side with the actual ****ing scientists and not some half-baked religious apologist.

[soulcalibur2007]

I am not looking at this from a religious standpoint. If we focus more on proven methods (adult stem cell research) we could save more lives in the short and long term as opposed to waiting 5+ years on an unproven method while countless people die. That is hardly a religious standpoint. We should be using our time and resources to make adult stem cell harvesting and usage faster, more efficient, more cost effective, and more widely avaiable.

[Mr. DNA]

I am not looking at this from a religious standpoint.

You thought that the thread was about human embryonic stem-cell research, and trotted out the usual religious guff about murdering potential human life. When it was pointed out to you that this was not what the thread was about, you trotted out the usual religious guff about how adult stem-cell research is just as effective as embryonic stem-cell research, ironically missing the point, again, that the thread has absolutely nothing to do with embryonic stem-cell research. You couldn't make it up.

[soulcalibur2007]

You thought that the thread was about human embryonic stem-cell research, and trotted out the usual religious guff about murdering potential human life. When it was pointed out to you that this was not what the thread was about, you trotted out the usual religious guff about how adult stem-cell research is just as effective as embryonic stem-cell research, ironically missing the point, again, that the thread has absolutely nothing to do with embryonic stem-cell research. You couldn't make it up.

First point, agree. Second point, credible non-christian authorities and science agree with this. Last post gave reason for comparing human-animal stem cell research to adult stem cell research, NOT embryonic stem cell research.
If we focus more on proven methods (adult stem cell research) we could save more lives in the short and long term as opposed to waiting 5+ years on an unproven method while countless people die.

Unproven method=human-animal hybrid stem cell research. I love how you ignored that.

[Mr. DNA]

You didn't come into the thread opposing the thread's subject matter; you came into the thread opposing another matter entirely, on religious grounds, with your allusion to "potential human lives" You were three posts into the thread before you realised what we were talking about. You then continued with your tact of proclaiming adult stem-cell research (which happens to be the standard religious response to embryonic stem-cell research) to be the be all and end all of all scientific endeavours, trumping both embryonic stem-cell research and human-animal embryos. Leading government scientists on the cutting edge of research are nodding with each other in agreement that human-animal embryos are spectacularly promising with regards to finding potential cures, and you're stuck with your hackneyed, discredited, adult-stem-cells-are-as-good-as-anything-else nonsense.

[soulcalibur2007]

You didn't come into the thread opposing the thread's subject matter; you came into the thread opposing another matter entirely, on religious grounds, with your allusion to "potential human lives" You were three posts into the thread before you realised what we were talking about. You then continued with your tact of proclaiming adult stem-cell research (which happens to be the standard religious response to embryonic stem-cell research) to be the be all and end all of all scientific endeavours, trumping both embryonic stem-cell research and human-animal embryos. Leading government scientists on the cutting edge of research are nodding with each other in agreement that human-animal embryos are spectacularly promising with regards to finding potential cures, and you're stuck with your hackneyed, discredited, adult-stem-cells-are-as-good-as-anything-else nonsense.

No, Christians are not the only ones who use the "potential human lives" argument, although they are in the majority. Yes, adult stem cells do trump embryonic stem cells. Yes, human-animal stem cells are promising (for now, lets wait till they actually see if it works), but while we wait for five plus years for enough testing to be done, people die. The best current solution to this is adult stem cell research. Thus for the time being it should be in the spotlight. No, I don't view adult stem cells as an end all and I am looking at this from an unbiased point of view. If you want to say that Christians are wrong no matter how much hard scientific data they have to back them up because they are Christians, then you , my friend, are a hypocrite and are extremely biased. For by sayng that their data is void due to biases is to also say that Atheist scientific data is also void due to biases.

[Mr. DNA]

Christians are always wrong.

[Duke Nukem]

Christians are always wrong.Atheistic bigotry for the win!

[Mr. DNA]

Atheistic bigotry for the win!

I might be a bigot, but I'm our sort of bigot!

[The_Mess]

Adult stem cells have been proven to have a higher success rate in treating these diseases. Why most scientists are completely ingnoring this fact is beyond me. Harvesting adult stem cells also does not kill the donor.
Proven? Science cares not for "proof", as 100% certainity is a logical impossibility when dealing with the real world...

I swear, I'm going to go insane if I have to keep repeating this, or start a f*cking blog...

Okay, onto the science then. Firstly, stem cells, no matter the source, are not a magic bullet, to say so, to even imply so, belays the writers/speakers ignorance about how stemcells are thought to work, but also the difficulties in procuring, culturing and transforming them into need tissue types. Secondly, Adult stem cells are "easier" to obtain than embryonic stem cells, but the main issues relate to reprogramming the cells so that they are "pluripotent", i.e. able to differentiate into most tissue types. Thirdly, no matter the source of the stemcells, the cell line(s) need to be able to be grown in amounts which are useful, with no negative changes in gene expression, something embryonic stem cells have proven to be useful for.

Where chimeric stem cells come in is as a test-bed for experimenting with stemcells, without wasting difficult to obtain human stemcells, and possibly providing an economic source of embryonic stem cells which are human compatible. Either way, by experimenting with them, we can gain more knowledge about how stemcells "work", and through this learn how to control and manipulate them to further increase out ability to utilise them in medical treatments.

And even with the discovery that adult stem cells can be derived from skin cells, there are still hurdles to overcome for which we're going to need embryonic stem cells as references/controls to make sure we're on track, and to improve on methods of stem cell generation.

http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7577968&postcount=2
Okay, the above is post of mine from December on the skin cell discovery, it's got a wealth of info, and there's another couple of posts of mine in there which are also useful for you to read.

I should also add that chromatin remodelling has the potential to let lose endogenous retroviruses and their relatives, leading to higher risk of cancer or metabolic problems in some tissues derived...

Also; http://www.robertlanza.com/the-stem-cell-challenge/ is a (free) copy of 2004 review article from Scientific American, that's well worth reading.

[Here are some links to facts regarding what I've said here:
Pros and Cons of Embryonic vs. Adult Stem cells (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html)
Cures and Failures of BOTH Embryonic Stem Cells and Adult Stem Cells (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures_failures.html)

As you can see, we should be focusing more on cures that don't cost potential human lives for no gain whatsoever.
A Family Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council) as a source? Protip, think tank funded organisations are only useful as primary sources for analysing political views/policies, not science... One thing that stands out is the lack of any references to peer reviewed research and the primary use of f*cking anecdotes as "evidence" of success/failures.

The two authors (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/scientific_sources.html) of this site, both of whom are professionally trained scientists should know f*cking better than produce this pathetic screed of propaganda that is that "source".

Or succinctly, fail source is fail.

Fail source is even more fail than Conservapedia.

I still don't know what you're worried about. Scientists who are smarter than you (they have a science degree) believe that animal-human embryo research has the potential to cure currently incurable diseases. You problem is?:hmm:

Unproven method=human-animal hybrid stem cell research. I love how you ignored that.
All scientific methodology is "unproven". Also chimeric cell lines are somewhat standard for generating cell lines for research, hybridomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybridomas) being a relevant example, allowing for immortal B-cells, ridiculously useful for generating large amounts of monoclonal antibodies for research purposes.

...and I am looking at this from an unbiased point of view.
Really? Because your primary source sure as hell isn't unbiased, which means that you're repeating their biases and therefore you're not unbiased.

Lawl.

If you want to say that Christians are wrong no matter how much hard scientific data they have to back them up because they are Christians, then you , my friend, are a hypocrite and are extremely biased.
Absolute/idealist concepts of objectivity is a logical impossibility as it calls for science to be value free, and is yet a value itself, thus bias is unavoidable. In all situations, as we really on unprovable assumptions about the nature of the world in order to do most forms of investigation.

Now, we also can't justify those biases either, in terms of formal logic, due to problems with testing them, and other issues. However, if we take the assumption that there is an independent physical world, then we can test ideas and claims against that, which means while bias is still present, it's bias towards achieving a goal. One which we can sanity test results obtained from using it.

Now, why does this matter then? In short, it means that if claims don't match up with observations, then the claims are "biased". In this case your "data" comes from a site which doesn't even reference any peer reviewed studies and relies on anecdotal evidence. This somewhat argues towards bias in the authors, and more to the point, where the f*cking hell is this "hard scientific data"?

And;
For by sayng that their data is void due to biases is to also say that Atheist scientific data is also void due to biases.
Data is merely data, there is no "atheist" data. What matters is the methods used to produce the data and the nature of the arguments constructed from it. Who produces it should only matter if the arguments they present fail to meet with the established body of evidence, more so if the data they present as evidence is weak, or in this particular case anecdotal, with no backing references to the literature as they are seemingly presenting a review of "known" evidence, a behaviour which is bloody perplexing...

Also, your logic, it's complete sh*te.

[Mr. DNA]

Once again my complete lack of scientific learning makes these sorts of bull**** arguments hard for me to adequately counter. Enter The_Mess to make it all better!

[soulcalibur2007]

Quoting from http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

Pros and Cons of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cells
Cell Comparisons: Embryonic vs. Adult


There are significant medical and scientific differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research and therapy. Here is a comparison between the two types, including some of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1. Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2. Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of cells with
defined characteristics
3. Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics

Embryonic Stem Cell Disadvantages
1. Difficult to differentiate uniformly and homogeneously into a target tissue
2. Immunogenic—ES cells from a random embryo donor are likely to be rejected
after transplantation
3. Tumorigenic—Capable of forming tumors or promoting tumor formation
4. Destruction of developing human life

Adult Stem Cell Advantages
1. Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cord have been
isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type
2. Already somewhat specialized—inducement may be simpler
3. Not immunogenic—recipients who receive the products of their own stem cells will
not experience immune rejection
4. Relative ease of procurement—some adult stem cells are easy to harvest (skin,
muscle, marrow, fat), while others may be more difficult to obtain (brain stem cells).
Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily available
5. Non-tumorigenic—tend not to form tumors
6. No harm done to the donor

Adult Stem Cell Disadvantages
1. Limited quantity—can sometimes be difficult to obtain in large numbers
2. Finite—may not live as long as ES cells in culture
3. Less flexible (with the exception of #1 above)—may be more difficult to reprogram to
form other tissue types

__________________________________________________ _______________
Okay. I hate to have to repeat another post...

__________________________________________________ _______________
Quoted from http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures_failures.html

Adult stem cells are a “natural” solution. They naturally exist in our bodies, and they provide a natural repair mechanism for many tissues of our bodies. They belong in the microenvironment of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells belong in the microenvironment of the early embryo, not in an adult body, where they tend to cause tumors and immune system reactions.

Most importantly, adult stem cells have already been successfully used in human therapies for many years. As of this moment, NO therapies in humans have ever been successfully carried out using embryonic stem cells. New therapies using adult type stem cells, on the other hand, are being developed all the time. Here are but a few of the many examples of success stories using adult stem cells.


TREATMENTS FROM ADULT STEM CELLS

Spinal Cord Injury
Jacki Rabon
Jacki, 18, suffered an injury to her spine in August, 2003 that left her paralyzed. She was treated in Portugal by Dr. Carlos Lima with her own adult stem cells derived from olfactory mucosa. Dr. Lima's work using adult stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries, such as the treatment Jacki received, will be published this week in the June 24th issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. Jacki is from Waverly, Illinois.

Leukemia
Patrizia Durante
Patrizia was diagnosed with acute leukemia six months into her pregnancy. Her daughter, Victoria Angel, was born healthy, but Durante was given only six months to live. The stem cells from the blood of her daughter’s umbilical cord were used for a transplant. Several years later, Durante is in full remission. “She saved her mommy,” Durante told reporters. “She’s a little miracle. That’s why we named her Victoria Angel. She’s my little angel.”
Krabbe’s Leukodystrophy

Gina Rugari
Gina was born with Krabbe’s leukodystrophy. This is a rare, degenerative enzyme disorder of the nervous system, in which the baby shows initial signs of irritability and developmental delay or regression. Seizures and fevers often follow, then blindness and deafness until the baby dies, usually before age 2. Gina was tested for Krabbe’s leukodystrophy shortly after she was born, because she had a brother who had died from the disease. Doctors treated Gina with chemotherapy to destroy her immune system, and introduced new umbilical cord blood stem cells from a closely matched donor. The transplanted cells produced the missing enzyme. Her body accepted the cells, and she is thriving several years after the transplant.

Parkinson’s Disease
Dennis Turner
Dennis was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease and by early 1991 he suffered extreme shaking of the right side of his body and became unable to use his right arm. Neurosurgeon Dr. Michele Levesque removed a small tissue sample from Mr. Turner’s brain, and isolated adult neural stem cells. He multiplied and matured these cells into nerve cells, and injected them back into the left side of Mr. Turner’s brain, which controls the right side of the body. Soon afterwards, the Parkinson’s symptoms began to improve in his right side. His trembling decreased, until to all appearances it disappeared. Neurological evaluation indicated a marked improvement in his symptoms, which lasted for about 5 years. Because Parkinson’s is a progressive ailment, his condition is continuing to deteriorate, but as Mr. Turner recently testified at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing, “…I have no doubt that because of this treatment I’ve enjoyed five years of quality life that I feared had passed me by.” He enthusiastically expressed a willingness to undergo a repeat surgery of this sort to further slow the progression of his symptoms.
__________________________________________________ _______________


...or two.

These are from ****ing Ph.D.'s in ****ing neuroscience and biochemisrty. One of them being...
__________________________________________________ _______________
David A. Prentice, Ph.D.
Dr. David A. Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council, formerly Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine.

He is a Founding Member of Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, a Fellow of the Wilberforce Forum Council for Biotechnology Policy, the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future, and an Advisory Board Member for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. He has provided scientific advice for U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, other Members of Congress and the administration, and international legislators and organizations.

Dr. Prentice received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Kansas, and was at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Texas Medical School-Houston before joining Indiana State University. He has served as Acting Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences, Assistant Chair of Life Sciences, and been recognized with the University's Distinguished Teaching Award and Distinguished Service Award. He has taught courses ranging from non-majors biology to advanced courses including developmental biology, embryology, cell and tissue culture, history of biology, science and politics, pathophysiology, medical genetics, and medical biochemistry; several courses were also taught on-line.

His research investigates cell growth control; one focus of his laboratory is adult stem cells. He has reviewed for various professional publications including The Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Prentice is an internationally-recognized expert on stem cell research and cloning, and has testified before the U.S. Congress and numerous state legislatures, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the President's Council on Bioethics, European Parliament, British Parliament, Canadian Parliament, Australian Parliament, German Bundestag, French Senate, Swedish Parliament and United Nations.

Pearson Education/Benjamin Cummings recently published his first book on stem cells and cloning. He has given frequent invited lectures and media interviews regarding stem cell research, cloning, and bioethics.
__________________________________________________ ______________

[Mr. DNA]

The same Dr. David A. Prentice who speaks at pro-life rallies (http://www.christianactionleague.org/article/878)?

Funny how everyone who is keen to espouse the advantages of adult stem-cell research is a deluded theist.

[soulcalibur2007]

The same Dr. David A. Prentice who speaks at pro-life rallies (http://www.christianactionleague.org/article/878)?

Funny how everyone who is keen to espouse the advantages of adult stem-cell research is a deluded theist.

And why would a Ph.D. whose research has shown adult stem cells to be better than embryonic ones attend pro-choice ralles? That is what we call counter productive. It gets no one nowhere. That would be like Al Gore attending a meeting of big oil company executives...it would be pointless.

[Mr. DNA]

And why would a Ph.D. whose research has shown adult stem cells to be better than embryonic ones attend pro-choice ralles? That is what we call counter productive. It gets no one nowhere. That would be like Al Gore attending a meeting of big oil company executives...it would be pointless.

The point is that he's giving lectures to the Christian Action League (http://www.christianactionleague.org/issues/homosexuality/). Spastication by association.

[The_Mess]

Quoting from http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

Pros and Cons of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cells
Cell Comparisons: Embryonic vs. Adult....
For f*cks sake, I've already mentioned why this isn't a good source, and I know you're not blind so why in the name of Cthulhu are you ignoring my criticisms?

These are from ****ing Ph.D.'s in ****ing neuroscience and biochemisrty. One of them being...
Who haven't actually backed up their claims with references to the medical and biological research done on stem cells. Which is pretty bloody dubious, and is stupid too considering that they have those Ph.D's in the first place.

Also, my bull**** detectors went off with some of the parts of that "evidence". i.e. adult stemcells aren't "natural" in terms the definition they're using, and adult stem cells are not entirely free of tumourgenesis, only two cells types are and they're both lacking nucleus's, while the problems with tumourgenesis in embryonic stem cells is being over-represented by them. Might actually get into this in more detail, but per previously mentioned criticism it's not a "source" of scientific information at all.

And arguing from anecdotes is for the stupid. It's pure f*cking tugging-at-the-heart/appeal to emotion propaganda.

And why would a Ph.D. whose research has shown adult stem cells to be better than embryonic ones attend pro-choice ralles? That is what we call counter productive. It gets no one nowhere. That would be like Al Gore attending a meeting of big oil company executives...it would be pointless.
:twitch:

It's rather obvious.

__________________________________________________ ________________

First stop;
Unproven method=human-animal hybrid stem cell research. I love how you ignored that.
Hello double standards... :wave:

Now, for the lying duplicitous propaganda hacks... (based on earlier appraisals)
Adult stem cells are a “natural” solution. They naturally exist in our bodies, and they provide a natural repair mechanism for many tissues of our bodies. They belong in the microenvironment of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells belong in the microenvironment of the early embryo, not in an adult body, where they tend to cause tumors and immune system reactions.

"Natural solution?" Regulars of skeptical blogs on homoeopathy/medical woo etc should immediately recognise the nature of this claim, i.e. it's a straight appeal to nature, with implications of adult stem cells being "good".

Basically it's a statement that hardly belongs on a site that purports to be about facts, again a troubling sign...

But a further issues emerge when looking at the language, the use of "naturally" and "belong" imply absolutes, which are epistemology unsound, for fairly obvious reasons. Particularly more so if one realises that adult stem cells(ASCs) have to be artificially manipulated in order to be used, primarily the culturing of sufficient quantities for therapeutic uses. Now, while I only have a vague understanding of the processes involved, a liquid medium is typically used, containing polypeptide hormones, other soluble proteins and sometimes non-human support cells, depending on the cell-lines involved, along with other biological macro-molecules. In order to procure these often we have to turn towards either organic synthesis or towards GMO's, both of which are hardly "natural", as is the methods of culturing, which put ASCs into a "non-natural" microenvironment.

Cue cognitive dissonance warning/irony meter damage...

Basically their claims of adult stem cells being a "natural solution" is actually a lie, their own definition of natural is internally non-consistent/contradictory, which they should have noticed...

This is pretty much rhetoric, dressed as scientific opinion.

*sigh*

I :love: it when Ph.Ds act like morons...

Most importantly, adult stem cells have already been successfully used in human therapies for many years. As of this moment, NO therapies in humans have ever been successfully carried out using embryonic stem cells. New therapies using adult type stem cells, on the other hand, are being developed all the time. Here are but a few of the many examples of success stories using adult stem cells.

*sigh*

As PZ Meyers explains here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/stem_cell_breakthrough.php#more) we still need ESCs as references and for understanding how ESCs differentiate into other tissue types, particularly organ tissues. The only therapeutic use for ESCs would be ones derived from cloned embryos, of which the limiting factor is the availability of human eggs[1], which is probably not any time soon going to be easily available[2]. The insistence that they have to be measured solely on grounds of therapeutic use then seems perplexing, until one makes note of the authors. Then the reason becomes disgustingly clear.

My Bulldog has already taken care of Dr. David A. Prentice, those pro-life agenda is crystal clear, but what of the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D?

A quick search shows him to be working for the National Catholic Bioethics Center, his focus being "beginning of life issues", of course from a Catholic Theological view... The same Catholic thinking that gave the US government a 500 page report on the meaning of "human dignity" (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=d8731cf4-e87b-4d88-b7e7-f5059cd0bfbd)...

Of course this doesn't mean he's an absolute idiot, but the evidence thus far shown fails to show either of the authors in a particularly favourable light and gives credence towards thinking that they might just possibly be pushing an agenda as scientific fact...

And I'll hit the pros-cons later on.
__________________________________________________ _______________
*bonus points if you get the origin of this reference :tease:

[1]- human clones thus far don't develop anywhere near enough to form viable embryos, if I'm remembering my human cloning stuff right, so in essence there's nothing "wrong" with this per standard pro-life "reasoning"... Sans the usual rhetorical leaps of course.

[2]- As ESCs can become any tissue type with the right signals/environment, it's "possible" to generate human ovarian tissue in vitro, it's already been achieved for sperm cells; Nayernia K, Nolte J, Michelmann HW, Lee JH, Rathsack K, Drusenheimer N, et al. In vitro-differentiated embryonic stem cells give rise to male gametes that can generate offspring mice, Developmental Cell 2006;11:125–32. (http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Spermpaper.pdf)
Though in saying that we are going to have a lot of work ahead in such an endeavour, on which many grad students shall be sacrificed to the glory of the PI's... And probably no cheap eggs...

NB: this post was brought to you by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds Dig!!! Lazarus, Dig!!! and Mogwai's Government Commissions: BBC Sessions. 1996–2003

[Migraine.]

When the Hybrid Embryo is made, the bovine genetics of the animal part are removed, leaving a tiny peice of animal in it.

The Embryo is 99.99% Human.

Also, what are people afraid of, things that are Half Ostrich, Half Sofa?

[soulcalibur2007]

Let me restate that I don't beleive adult stem cells to be a "magic bullet". They are merely the best, safest, and most reliable current form of stem cell therapy. See case references in post #21.

[The_Mess]

Lawl, do you ken argument from anecdote?

Or, those case studies aren't actually case studies if there aren't any peer reviewed reference for them...

Also, ignoring someone's criticisms which make your source seem dubious is rather hypocritical given this post of yours (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7805370&postcount=13).

Also, you haven't actually dealt with the other points brought up on why we still need embryonic stem cells for research purposes.

[soulcalibur2007]

Also, you haven't actually dealt with the other points brought up on why we still need embryonic stem cells for research purposes.

Because that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing thier purpose as stem cell therapys. Using embryonic stem cells from cloned humans to research how stem cells operate, I agree with that as the embryos have nill chance of forming a viable human being. Using embryos from the union of sprem and egg, that I disagree with (for reasons already stated).

And forgive my ignorance, but I am fairly new to the whole internet chat room/forum thing and have no idea what lawl or lawlz means. Please enlighten me.

[The_Mess]

Using embryos from the union of sprem and egg, that I disagree with
But what if a couple who have left over embryos from IVF treatments want to donate them for research? If my memories working right the majority are dumped, or are unviable due to being left too long.

Thus there's a large surplus that could be used for research, a surplus which is mostly going to go to waste, a situation which bears similar bearing to the whole abortion debate, due to the concious choice not to use them/throw them out?


lawl = lol = "laugh out loud", lulz is just another permutation as is lawlz.

Also, ken = understand, sort of, more the "root understanding", borrowed from Zen.

[soulcalibur2007]

But what if a couple who have left over embryos from IVF treatments want to donate them for research? If my memories working right the majority are dumped, or are unviable due to being left too long.

Thus there's a large surplus that could be used for research, a surplus which is mostly going to go to waste, a situation which bears similar bearing to the whole abortion debate, due to the concious choice not to use them/throw them out?


If they are already unviable, then I see no reason to object. My objection comes when a viable embryo is used for this research, as some are.

Please don't bring up abortion. Sensitive topic.

Sh*t. Screwed up the quote.

[The_Mess]

If they are already unviable, then I see no reason to object. My objection comes when a viable embryo is used for this research, as some are.

Problem being, which I should have made clearer is that we need viable embryo's for ESCs, and so spare embryos which are probably going to get junked can possibly provide a source.

The problem with the unviable ones are similar to those derived from cloned embryos done the traditional way, i.e. changes in gene expression, or most likely damage to cellular organelles due to longterm freezing.

So if a viable spare is fated to be probably junked, is it then okay for a couple to donate that egg to science for deriving ESCs?

Personally I have no problems with this, in terms of ethics it's probably better to have it as a donation though, rather than money changing hands due the possibility of exploitation and the risks involved with IVF in the 1st place.