Embryonic stem cell research
-
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.
-
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.
I admit that I could be wrong, but you've provided no evidence to the contrary. It's your word against an MIT professor who has researched stem cells since 2000. Given that he specifically stated that there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells hold any more possibilities than adult stem cells (and actually hold fewer), I'll take his word over yours until I see otherwise. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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.
You equate bacteria to human beings? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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.
You equate bacteria with human beings? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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.
thealj wrote:
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.
You mix up apples with pears! Nish asked if embryos are alive and I said yes. Of course bacteria is alive too, but what in hell has it to do with his question? ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
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
espeir wrote:
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.
Isn't that why it is called "research"?
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
You equate bacteria to human beings? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
You equate bacteria to human beings?
Of course. When you have no arguements you must post rubbish, he isn't the first in soapbox. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
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.
I know people disagree (as will the research). I was saying that each individual who has given it thought should consider a specific point of development the point at which an egg becomes human. We aren't fully developed until we're in our 20s. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
You equate bacteria with human beings? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
You equate bacteria with human beings?
By his definition of life, yes. Interestingly, bacteria and homo sapiens have the same population dynamics.
-
espeir wrote:
You equate bacteria to human beings?
Of course. When you have no arguements you must post rubbish, he isn't the first in soapbox. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
When you have no arguements you must post rubbish, he isn't the first in soapbox.
I am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
There has not been extensive use of fetal stem cells in human therapy
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
dennisd45 wrote:
The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'.
For the most part they are.
dennisd45 wrote:
Many people support the research because it holds out the promise of therapies or cures to many diseases - parkinsons and diabetes to name two.
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
For the most part they are.
espeir wrote:
But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
And of course there are no innocent people in the Middle East. You may in fact be a TROLL but if you are not then you are one of the biggest fucking idiots I have ever been exposed to, and that includes people who think WWF matches are "real".
-
espeir wrote:
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.
Isn't that why it is called "research"?
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Isn't that why it is called "research"?
I don't get all excited over the idea that implanting poop in your veins will cure heart disease. But compare the actual results to adult stem cell research which has been going on for the same amount of time. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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.
Nish asked: "The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet!" My answer was: "Yes it's alive." You asked then: "By what criteria?" Then I said: "The criteria is that it grows. It has cells, there are also reactions on special influences. So it is alive." So this is my arguementation: embryos are living. Of course Bacterias are living, too, but what the hell has it to do with his question?! I started no ethic debate, you did! So don't complain! ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
espeir wrote:
For the most part they are.
espeir wrote:
But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
And of course there are no innocent people in the Middle East. You may in fact be a TROLL but if you are not then you are one of the biggest fucking idiots I have ever been exposed to, and that includes people who think WWF matches are "real".
led mike wrote:
And of course there are no innocent people in the Middle East.
Actually I said Lebanon. Don't misquote me, moron. "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
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral
Excellent, because you are exactly who I want as a moral compass... the same guy that said there are no innocent people in the Middle East. X|
-
thealj wrote:
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.
You mix up apples with pears! Nish asked if embryos are alive and I said yes. Of course bacteria is alive too, but what in hell has it to do with his question? ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
You mix up apples with pears! Nish asked if embryos are alive and I said yes. Of course bacteria is alive too, but what in hell has it to do with his question?
It has everything to do with this question. I am asking you to tell me the difference between why a 5 day old embryonic stem cell (ESC) is unfit for use in medical research while bacterium are not. You claim it is because a stem cell is alive and provided me with a definition of life. I claim that your definition of life cannot distinguish between an ESC and a bacterium. Therefore, I argue that stem cells are okay to use for research as, by your definition of life, they are no different from bacteria. Bacteria grow, bacteria require nourishment, bacteria respond to outside stimulus...both are alive, so since we already use bacteria in research (and we agree that they are alive) then it is perfectly justifiable to use stem cells.
-
led mike wrote:
And of course there are no innocent people in the Middle East.
Actually I said Lebanon. Don't misquote me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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
espeir wrote:
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?
I have not ignored your point. I have addressed it several times, in fact. Adult and fetal stems cells are not the same and each has it areas where it could be valuable.
espeir wrote:
I see you chose to ignore the part about him not being morally opposed to embryonic stem cells.
I didn't ignore it. It simply doesn't matter.
espeir wrote:
Because it equates to fetal destruction and has a sole purpose of making the destruction of fetuses palatable to the public.
Pretty pointless, it it were true. The public is already use to it. In virto fertilization leads to the destruction of countless fetuses. But, of course, everything you hypothisize is based on a completely invalid assumption. There is no monolithic left.
espeir wrote:
embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date.
Completely false. Do some research on the web. Review Vincents link. Review my link.
-
ihoecken wrote:
When you have no arguements you must post rubbish, he isn't the first in soapbox.
I am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
thealj wrote:
I am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
Why should I do that? I didn't said that there is a difference (and I din't said that there isn't)! If you can't read I'm sorry for you. I never said those things you want me to. So it is still rubbish what you are talking. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Nish asked: "The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet!" My answer was: "Yes it's alive." You asked then: "By what criteria?" Then I said: "The criteria is that it grows. It has cells, there are also reactions on special influences. So it is alive." So this is my arguementation: embryos are living. Of course Bacterias are living, too, but what the hell has it to do with his question?! I started no ethic debate, you did! So don't complain! ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
I started no ethic debate, you did! So don't complain!
okay. Sorry.