Embryonic stem cell research
-
ihoecken wrote:
but they aren't the BIG EVIL in the world.
As a matter of fact, they are. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a matter of fact, they are.
Taking a look on you, I think there is at least on evil leftist - and he tries to creep in the right ones, adorn himself with borrowed plumes. :~ Is there nobody you like with another political alignment? ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Unless it's a virus :) An all encompasing minimum definition of life is tricky. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Don't biologists disagree as to whether viruses are considered living? I seem to remember another theoretical lower form of life than a virus (research labs I worked in back in college) that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
No. Many conservative Republicans (including senate majority leader Bill Frist) voted in favor of this bill and I disagree with those conservatives. My point was that it seems to me that the left has very eagerly pushed for embryonic stem cell research without any real understanding of its potential benefits. I believe that the reason for this was purely political and done to alter the perception of abortion from life-destroying to life-supporting because the rhetoric points in that direction. I'm testing that theory here, but naturally this thread has diverged. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
I'm testing that theory here, but naturally this thread has diverged.
:laugh: Ok. That's an arguement! ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
David Kentley wrote:
I believe it has been the right which has made this association, which means the truth is probably that both have done so for pretty obvious reasons that are solely political and not scientific.
This isn't a political association, but a scientific one.
David Kentley wrote:
There is one case and one case only in which I have no problem with folks who are against stem cell research: if they are also against in vitro fertilization, which happens to be the last hope for millions of people to have their own kids. For you see, that process is where the fertilized eggs for stem cell research comes from. These embryos would otherwise be destroyed anyway and are being destroyed today, but with no scientific benefit whatsoever. If you are against in vitro, fine, be against stem cell research, but realize there are millions of real, happy children who would not exist today without it.
I actually am personally opposed to in vitro fertilization. Though not as fervently as I am opposed to abortion, since its intent is ultimately good. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
I actually am personally opposed to in vitro fertilization.
Why? Because it goes against your notion that the purpose of having sex is to procreate, since it's the only way a woman can become pregnant?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Don't biologists disagree as to whether viruses are considered living? I seem to remember another theoretical lower form of life than a virus (research labs I worked in back in college) that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called.
What is a prion, Alex.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Because more research is required. Advances do not occur overnight.
Research in embryonic stem cells has been continuing for over 5 years with zero results while adult stem cells have yielded about 65 successful clinical trials in that time. Results may progress slowly but should progress if there is truly any promise.
dennisd45 wrote:
And who is your fearless leader of the monolithic right?
I don't have one. Republicans voted for this bill and I part with them because I'm not blind.
dennisd45 wrote:
There is no evidence that that is true. Research is in it's infancy, and to say, at this early date, that it is a dead end, is way to permature.
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is ridiculous. Many people, on the left and right, support research because of the potential to cure many diseases. Nancy Reagan support the research.
Many people support it, but the left specifically uses rhetoric that now equates abortion to life. I consider their position anti-science. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Look at the link in my first post. adult and embryonic cells are different. 5 years it not a lot of time. There is no cure for AIDS at this time. Researchers have been trying for over 20 years - should they stop?
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
He wasn't exactly random. You said he was on a right wing talk show. He was on because he agreed with the host's view on the topic.
espeir wrote:
Many people support it, but the left specifically uses rhetoric that now equates abortion to life. I consider their position anti-science.
Another bizarre assertion. Who says abortion equals life? The party of anti-science is the right. There is no monolithic left. But I am curious who you think the leader of this mythical group is.
-
espeir wrote:
I actually am personally opposed to in vitro fertilization.
Why? Because it goes against your notion that the purpose of having sex is to procreate, since it's the only way a woman can become pregnant?
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Why? Because it goes against your notion that the purpose of having sex is to procreate, since it's the only way a woman can become pregnant?
Biologically speaking, sex is strictly for procreation. By the source of my moral qualms has to do with destruction of life. Since a fertilized egg cannot begin development until implanted, I am less opposed to IV than abortion, especially since its overall intent is good. However, I do find myself uncomfortable with the idea nonetheless. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Look at the link in my first post. adult and embryonic cells are different. 5 years it not a lot of time. There is no cure for AIDS at this time. Researchers have been trying for over 20 years - should they stop?
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
He wasn't exactly random. You said he was on a right wing talk show. He was on because he agreed with the host's view on the topic.
espeir wrote:
Many people support it, but the left specifically uses rhetoric that now equates abortion to life. I consider their position anti-science.
Another bizarre assertion. Who says abortion equals life? The party of anti-science is the right. There is no monolithic left. But I am curious who you think the leader of this mythical group is.
dennisd45 wrote:
Look at the link in my first post. adult and embryonic cells are different. 5 years it not a lot of time. There is no cure for AIDS at this time. Researchers have been trying for over 20 years - should they stop?
Actually I believe AIDS research has been a huge waste of money for a preventative disease. Money has been disproportionaly funnelled into it when there are more prevelant non-preventative (mostly, anyways) diseases that don't get as much research money.
dennisd45 wrote:
He wasn't exactly random. You said he was on a right wing talk show. He was on because he agreed with the host's view on the topic.
He was. The show called the guy at MIT and he agreed to answer some questions. He did not have any political affiliation and was not opposed to embryonic research on moral grounds (as he had conducted it until 2002, when he switch solely to adult stem cells).
dennisd45 wrote:
Another bizarre assertion. Who says abortion equals life? The party of anti-science is the right.
This morning Harry Reid stated that by vetoing this legislation (which allowed for federally funded destruction of embryos), Bush was supporting death and disease. Again, from the limited amount that I know, embryonic stem cell research ins't even fruitful.
dennisd45 wrote:
There is no monolithic left. But I am curious who you think the leader of this mythical group is.
It's a group-of-fish mentality that begins with indoctination. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Don't biologists disagree as to whether viruses are considered living? I seem to remember another theoretical lower form of life than a virus (research labs I worked in back in college) that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
No nucleotides in prions, just a funny shaped protein that has the property of changing other proteins to its form. I think that's where most biologists do the cut off. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
The MIT guy addressed this in part. Apparently there are significant problems with embryonic stem cells in humans and for every claimed benefit of embryonic stem cells, there is an equivalent method using adult stem cells. So, according to him, this research could be done with adult stem cells, but the left still demands that embryonic stem cells be used. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called.
What is a prion, Alex.
That's the one. That reminded me of thetins on the scientology Southpark. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Look at the link in my first post. adult and embryonic cells are different. 5 years it not a lot of time. There is no cure for AIDS at this time. Researchers have been trying for over 20 years - should they stop?
Actually I believe AIDS research has been a huge waste of money for a preventative disease. Money has been disproportionaly funnelled into it when there are more prevelant non-preventative (mostly, anyways) diseases that don't get as much research money.
dennisd45 wrote:
He wasn't exactly random. You said he was on a right wing talk show. He was on because he agreed with the host's view on the topic.
He was. The show called the guy at MIT and he agreed to answer some questions. He did not have any political affiliation and was not opposed to embryonic research on moral grounds (as he had conducted it until 2002, when he switch solely to adult stem cells).
dennisd45 wrote:
Another bizarre assertion. Who says abortion equals life? The party of anti-science is the right.
This morning Harry Reid stated that by vetoing this legislation (which allowed for federally funded destruction of embryos), Bush was supporting death and disease. Again, from the limited amount that I know, embryonic stem cell research ins't even fruitful.
dennisd45 wrote:
There is no monolithic left. But I am curious who you think the leader of this mythical group is.
It's a group-of-fish mentality that begins with indoctination. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
This morning Harry Reid stated that by vetoing this legislation (which allowed for federally funded destruction of embryos), Bush was supporting death and disease. Again, from the limited amount that I know, embryonic stem cell research ins't even fruitful.
So how does this equate to abortion equals life. The embryos that might be used for stem cell research are already destined to be destroyed, fetility clinics routinely destroy left over embryos. There is no abortion involved.
espeir wrote:
Actually I believe AIDS research has been a huge waste of money for a preventative disease. Money has been disproportionaly funnelled into it when there are more prevelant non-preventative (mostly, anyways) diseases that don't get as much research money.
Completely ignored my point. My point was not about AIDS. My point was that research results do not occur over night.
espeir wrote:
The show called the guy at MIT and he agreed to answer some questions
Proves my point. He wasn't random, the host called him.
espeir wrote:
It's a group-of-fish mentality that begins with indoctination.
What a bizarre world view.
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Presumably the criteria is blind assumption.
The criteria is that it grows. It has cells, there are also reactions on special influences. So it is alive. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
The criteria is that it grows. It has cells, there are also reactions on special influences. So it is alive.
So it's on the same level as bacteria and paramecium. I suppose we had better stop using those in scientific experiments. By that measure, we should also ban antibiotics.
-
Everybody believes that life begins at different times. Personally, I accept conception as the time life should be respected and therefore oppose abortion at all stages. If you disagree, I think you should at least determine a specific point of development at which time life begins. Since development is continous (and not done in absolute distinct stages...the brain doesn't just appear one day), I think this is necessary or it simply leads to the conclusion that a person's life does not begin until after puberty. But that's a different subject. I was just stating why I oppose embryonic stem cell research. I'm more curious as to why the left so emphatically supports it when it does not yield results like adult stem cell research. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
life begins at different times
That may be true, but it depends in what context you ask the question, and who the question is directed at. You are guaranteed to get conflicting answers. Nothing is black and white just a variety of shades of grey. And this greyness is the source of disputed understanding. When I can get to another of my computers, I will give you some references towards published research, some very recently entering the public domain.
-
thealj wrote:
By what criteria?
Presumably the criteria is blind assumption. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Presumably the criteria is blind assumption.
I believe you are right. This is the inherent problem in the ethics of stem cell research.
-
espeir wrote:
that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called.
What is a prion, Alex.
-
thealj wrote:
By what criteria?
By the criterias biologists call something alive. It grows, it needs nourishment, it also reacts on outer influences. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
By the criterias biologists call something alive. It grows, it needs nourishment, it also reacts on outer influences.
So does bacteria and nobody complains about their use in medical research.
-
espeir wrote:
This morning Harry Reid stated that by vetoing this legislation (which allowed for federally funded destruction of embryos), Bush was supporting death and disease. Again, from the limited amount that I know, embryonic stem cell research ins't even fruitful.
So how does this equate to abortion equals life. The embryos that might be used for stem cell research are already destined to be destroyed, fetility clinics routinely destroy left over embryos. There is no abortion involved.
espeir wrote:
Actually I believe AIDS research has been a huge waste of money for a preventative disease. Money has been disproportionaly funnelled into it when there are more prevelant non-preventative (mostly, anyways) diseases that don't get as much research money.
Completely ignored my point. My point was not about AIDS. My point was that research results do not occur over night.
espeir wrote:
The show called the guy at MIT and he agreed to answer some questions
Proves my point. He wasn't random, the host called him.
espeir wrote:
It's a group-of-fish mentality that begins with indoctination.
What a bizarre world view.
dennisd45 wrote:
So how does this equate to abortion equals life. The embryos that might be used for stem cell research are already destined to be destroyed, fetility clinics routinely destroy left over embryos. There is no abortion involved.
Because it equates to fetal destruction and has a sole purpose of making the destruction of fetuses palatable to the public.
dennisd45 wrote:
Completely ignored my point. My point was not about AIDS. My point was that research results do not occur over night.
You ignored mine. The issue is adult vs. embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has proven more productive because adult stem cells have the benefits of embryonic stem cells, but also possess some developmental properties that make implant into adults possible. That's why adult stem cells have been so successful and and embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date. So why make such a big hooplah over embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells?
dennisd45 wrote:
Proves my point. He wasn't random, the host called him.
I see you chose to ignore the part about him not being morally opposed to embryonic stem cells.
dennisd45 wrote:
What a bizarre world view.
It's a bizarre world. Sometimes you need that view to be right. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
The MIT guy addressed this in part. Apparently there are significant problems with embryonic stem cells in humans and for every claimed benefit of embryonic stem cells, there is an equivalent method using adult stem cells. So, according to him, this research could be done with adult stem cells, but the left still demands that embryonic stem cells be used. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Unfortunately, your arguments seems to rest on a single individual on a right wing talk show. Not the most reliable of sources. Adult and fetal stem cells are not the same and fetal cells hold out the possibilty of cures and therapies that adult stem cells do not.