More reasons to fund stem cell research

[Empty Hands]

Curious. At what stage is the developing human (but not necessarily person?) not literally "clumps of cells"?

Ha, you got me there. I should be more precise in my terms, that could refer to you and I. I would say the presence of neuronal cells communicating with each other would be the minimum necessary standard for personhood. Not necessarily at that point, but that would be the minimum. Otherwise, there is no capacity for reason, pain, directed response, or anything else that we associate with personhood.

I'm not opposed to stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, but the way some of the hard core advocates approach it and how they begin defining terms starts to become disquieting and has me questioning whether I should be, if not more critical, maybe even opposed to it. Follow the money!

I don't use human ES cells, there is no monetary benefit to me. My position is informed by the scientific potential, and by the knowledge that there is no reason to consider these embryos as meaningful human lives. After all, they will all die in a freezer anyway, something no one seems to have a problem with.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yeah, it's just clumps of cells. Human cells.

You destroy clumps of human cells every single day of your life without thinking twice about it. Clearly, the fact that cells are human doesn't mean much to you.

Why then do you privilege these clumps of cells? They have nothing you would associate with a person, such as a brain or even a heart. You probably wouldn't have a problem with an adult brain dead human being allowed to die by their family, and their organs harvested for transplant. Why then the problem here?

Is it because if they are "left alone" they will eventually become a person? Well, no, if left alone they will eventually perish in a freezer. Even if used, most of them will be discarded by the fertility technicians for low quality, and of those implanted, only a percentage will take and develop. Even among naturally fertilized eggs, only 39% will make it to term. Think of all those precious human lives lost...

Potential isn't enough. The potential is almost never realized. Potential is destroyed on a daily basis in men, and a monthly basis in women. Even most fertilized embryos will never make it. Personhood is what matters. Actual developed human beings who can feel, cry, reason and hold your hand. Chasing after the rest of it has no real logical basis. Especially when some of that lost potential can be used to make the lives of thinking, feeling human beings better.

 

[Cryozombie]

Potential is destroyed on a daily basis in men, and a monthly basis in women.

OMFG!

ROTFLOL!

Dude... Seriously? Everyone in my office is rolling with laughter at this right now...

 

[Twin Fist]

here you go Empty hea.......hands

Using endothelial cells for therapeutic angiogenesis/vasculogenesis of ischemia diseases has led to exploring human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) as a potentially unlimited source for endothelial progenitor cells. With their capacity for self-renewal and pluripotency, hESCs and their derived endothelial cells (hESC-ECs) may be more advantageous than other endothelial cells obtained from diseased populations. However, hESC-ECs' poor differentiation efficiency and poorly characterized in vivo function after transplantation present significant challenges for their future clinical application. This review will focus on the differentiation pathways of hESCs and their therapeutic potential for vascular diseases, as well as the monitoring of transplanted cells' fate via molecular imaging. Finally, cell enhancement strategies to improve the engraftment efficiency of hESC-ECs will be discussed.


that sounds a LOT like "it dont work yet, we want money"

ok, you have a reason whyit should be researched

but you still havnt answered the question

why must tax payer dollars go to this?

why isnt public funding enough?

 

[Sukerkin]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Mark A. Beardmore
-MT Moderator-

 

[Empty Hands]

here you go Empty hea.......hands

Nice.

that sounds a LOT like "it dont work yet, we want money"

Only because that is what you wanted to see. The other quotes showed that fetal cardiomyocytes engrafted and improved heart function in models of heart disease. That human ES cells formed branched neural cells in mouse brains. Talking about "significant challenges" means "room for improvement and research" not "OMGWTFFail!".

why must tax payer dollars go to this?

why isnt public funding enough?

Public funding is enough.

 

[Empty Hands]

OMFG!

ROTFLOL!

Dude... Seriously? Everyone in my office is rolling with laughter at this right now...

I'm not sure what is so funny, but I'm glad I could entertain you today!

 

[Sukerkin]

I think it was the part about men wasting 'potential' everyday - it's low brow but some do call it humour (indeed we had a series of films titled "Carry On xyz" based on just such smut over here ).

 

[Empty Hands]

I think it was the part about men wasting 'potential' everyday - it's low brow but some do call it humour (indeed we had a series of films titled "Carry On xyz" based on just such smut over here ).

Ha, I was thinking too scientifically! Sperm are broken down and reabsorbed by the body every day. I wasn't thinking of the more, er, fun method of wasting.

 

[Sukerkin]

A-ha! See, even an emotionally controlled Englishman like me didn't twig that that cold, biological, fact was what was meant and again.

 

[Twin Fist]

i went for the cheap joke, sorry

why isnt funding FROM the public enough?

why must tax dollars be used?

seriously

i am convinced that it should be studied

but i am unconvinced that tax dollars should fund it

convince me

 

[Empty Hands]

why isnt funding FROM the public enough?

why must tax dollars be used?

Medical research in this country basically works as a partnership between government funded academic research and privately funded drug company research. Academics make the biological discoveries - they figure out basic mechanisms, figure out which proteins do what, how you can turn stem cells into a muscle cell or a nerve cell, etc. By and large, this sort of research is not immediately commercially useful. Knowing the mechanism doesn't give you a drug.

So what generally happens next is the private drug companies take the freely available, public data generated by the academics and use it to design drugs. They say "Aha, protein X is important in this cancer pathway, let's design a drug to hit protein X!" They then design, research, test and bring to market the drug.

Thus, the research strategies are separate and complementary. Public money funds the really basic stuff that isn't commercially viable (yet). Private money uses that information to design commercially viable drugs. In short, public money funds basic research, private money funds applied research. It makes little sense for each to do the work of the other for business reasons.

So at this stage, ES cell work mostly belongs in the academic, publicly funded sector. Academics need to figure out how these cells work, how to successfully differentiate them into the various cell types, and various strategies to complement successful therapy. What happens if the academic sector doesn't do it? It mostly won't get done. The drug companies have very little incentive to do this kind of research. It will cost a lot, and there is little guaranteed return. Plus, this is the way we've been successfully doing it for 50 years or so.

Don't mess with a good strategy!

 

[Twin Fist]

the entire rest of the world can do that

why do WE, here in the US, with our economic woes, need to use tax dollars to fund research that has, so far, shown absolutely ZERO results?

 

[Empty Hands]

the entire rest of the world can do that

why do WE, here in the US, with our economic woes, need to use tax dollars to fund research that has, so far, shown absolutely ZERO results?

Again, it hasn't shown zero results. I've posted evidence from the literature.

We have the best and most prolific research enterprise in the world. The best students in the world come here for their training - because the best of the best are here. It will get done better and faster here. We will reap the benefits sooner. And our companies will have first crack at developing the technology.

We've been doing it this way for almost 60 years now. In cancer, heart disease, gene therapy and a hundred other areas of inquiry. Why get squirrely now?

 

[Marginal]

Human embryonic stem cells are extremely fragile, and so far, as TF has pointed out, nobody has overcome this limitation while still keeping these cells usable. The only way such cells have been produced en masse, is by fusing them with mouse cells, rendering them unusable for human use.

That doesn't say much though since research in the US for the past 8 years has been restricted to pre-existing lines. Lines which have been virtually useless to researchers for years.

 

[crushing]

That doesn't say much though since research in the US for the past 8 years has been restricted to pre-existing lines. Lines which have been virtually useless to researchers for years.

Has there been restrictions on the research, in addition to the federal taxpayer funding limitations? Would that mean states like California, New Jersey, Florida, Missouri, Maryland, Iowa and others as well as public and private organizations and businesses are doing the research illegally?

Here is a restriction, but it isn't 8 years old:

Feb. 28, 2007: Iowa's Gov. Chet Culver signs legislation easing limits on types of stem-cell research in Iowa. The new legislation allows medical researchers to create embryonic stem cells through cloning. While allowing for further research, it prohibits reproductive cloning of humans.

I'm sure other states have also restricted research,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7447911
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9244363
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1978747

While looking for more information on President Obama's decision, it appears that restrictions on the research will remain

"We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." -President Obama

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...bama-says-government-open-door-human-cloning/

Unfortunately, I didn't find anything about when such restrictions on research began.

 

[Empty Hands]

"We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

I've always been curious about this reasoning, although it is extremely common. You are essentially creating identical twins separated in time. Your own twin. We don't consider identical twins as "profoundly wrong." Why then do we consider the process of cloning wrong?

Is it because you are deciding to create your own clone? Your own clone won't be you. It would be actually a bit less like you than a real identical twin, since you wouldn't share a womb. It would have all it's own thoughts and feelings, and would be a normal person in every respect.

Is it because we are using technology instead of "nature" to accomplish the birth? We have been using technology to assist reproduction for some time now. Few seem to have a problem with it. No one is trying to ban it. Although we don't do gene therapy or select embryos based on genetic content (yet), we do select embryos based on quality. That seems qualitatively similar. "Nature" is not deciding.

Is it because the process might cause defects in the individual? This is a real concern, as Dolly the Sheep has shown us. However, this is a concern which will greatly diminish in time as the technology improves. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is a ****** method of cloning, we will undoubtedly come up with something better.

So what is it really? Is there a true, principled opposition to cloning, or is it all based on the "ick" factor? I know the bioethicist Leon Kass has argued for the "morality of disgust", but I disagree. Many things which we consider disgusting have no moral bearing. Feces aren't immoral. Gay sex isn't immoral. And so on.

Ideas?

 

[Twin Fist]

We've been doing it this way for almost 60 years now..... . Why get squirrely now?

hmm, so by that logic, gays in the military, a no no for many many more than 60 years, shouldnt be changed now......

 

[Twin Fist]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

wrong answer

thanks for playing.Research is NOT restricted, just not funded by tax payer dollars.

That doesn't say much though since research in the US for the past 8 years has been restricted to pre-existing lines. Lines which have been virtually useless to researchers for years.

 

[Marginal]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

wrong answer

thanks for playing.Research is NOT restricted, just not funded by tax payer dollars.

Uh, actually, denying funding is a restriction. Especially when it hinged upon an arbitrary date.

http://www.bioethics.net/articles.php?viewCat=2&articleId=38

The prospect of using embryos as a source of stem cells set off an enormous debate earlier this year that was only quieted when the president said that the federal government would continue to finance stem cell research — but only if stem cells produced before Aug. 9, 2001 were used in the work.