# Stem Cell Research



## justjukka

How does everyone feel about stem cell research? If you're not sure how the process works, here is a link providing a basic, step-by-step explanation.

http://www.time.com/time/2001/stemcells/popup.html

Keep in mind, this process is only the first step. Stem cell research is a topic we cannot sit on the fence about, one way or the other. The outcome of this debate will change thousands of lives. I encourage everyone to learn as much as they can about this issue.  Knowledge is an invaluable tool.

*Please be respectful each other's answers.*


----------



## lauranazario

I am ALL for medical research that may hold the key to finding a cure for some of today's most catastrophic diseases and conditions (Alzheimer's, Parkingson's, MS, ALS, _et al_)

I feel no "controversy" between my religious beliefs and my desire for scientific knowledge. 
To me, each has its own realm, each occupies separate and non-overlapping areas of my consciousness —so why delude myself into thinking I must choose one over the other? No way!

I'm perfectly aware that science will not save my soul and religion will not heal my body. 
A vaccine won't get me to Heaven, right? 
Observing Commandment Number 5 (or 6, or 7, etc.) will not cure my cancer/diabetes/heart disease/whatever, right? 

My faith is deep-rooted --as is my belief in science. And they live in happy coexistence inside the person that happens to be me.

I vote Yes! to stem cell research.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## .   1

G'day Rozax,

I am 49 and I have felt the damp clammy tap of the grim reaper a couple of times so I vote yes to medical research involving no cruelty to animals. 

I have a daughter who is 18 due in part to medical research.

Cretins attempting to play god with the results may find the devil in the detail.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

I think it's absolutely necesary to allow medical research that would benefit a great number of people. 
But I also think that with stem-cell research there's the added dimension of the actual "grabbing" of those embryonic stem-cells. I may be completely wrong, and thus I need to read more about the topic, but I thought that (at least in the present) the only way to harvest these stem-cells for research is from aborted embryos? If I'm mistaken, I apologize for inconveniencing y'all... I'm off to read a bit more on this topic, and I'll check back with y'all later on.

EDIT - I just read an article that claims that the controversy surrounding *embryonic *stem-cell research centers around the fact that at present time the technology that allows to harvest stem cells from embryos destroys them in the process. One of the solutions to this could be the cloning of human embryos with the sole purpose of allowing the harvesting of blastocytes... Yikes.


----------



## .   1

There is significant mention of umbilical cords being utilised.

.,,


----------



## Layzie

I am downright outraged that our president would use his first veto to hurt stem cell research.


----------



## panjabigator

I am very much for stem cell research!!!  

My question is why don;t they use the harvested embryo's that are just sitting around collecting dust?  They will never be used and eventually will be destroyed anyway.  If the goverment is that concerned, their should be a cap on how many are harvested!


----------



## Sallyb36

I think it is fantastic, brilliant, and am all in favour.


----------



## french4beth

Don't forget - there are embryonic stem cells (which many people object to based on religious reasons, etc.) and adult stem cells (that can apparently be found in all cells); found some info here:



> "Adult stem cells... are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue)."


This is just one article, and I'm not a scientist.  I'm all for scientific research, though, especially if it saves lives or improves the quality of life.


----------



## tvdxer

This won't surprise anybody, but I am completely opposed to *embryonic* stem cell research.  I believe it is unethical, de-humanizing, and simply evil.  Does it hold potential for future cures?  It very well may.  Does that make it morally acceptable?  No, because it involves first doing evil - destroying a human life.  One can not kill a human, even in the earliest stages of life, to cure another.  

One wonders if widespread support for ESCR may be a step to further bioethical laxity, such as tolerance or even encouragement of therapeautic cloning or other so-called "advancements".

On the other hand, I fully support medical research done with stem cells from other sources, such as umbillical cordsd.


----------



## justjukka

I'm glad so many are in favor of stem cell research.  I've seen little but bad press on the matter.  The veto won't hold.  On such matters, a veto cannot hold.

For those who are expecting, or know someone who is expecting to give birth, I hope you find this link useful:

http://www.cordblooddonor.org/


----------



## Suane

I don't know why people think that dying is a such a bad thing when it is natural. When someone dies because is sick, I think it's all normal. It's a part of population control. The civilization is sick, imao.  It may seem although cruel for some people.

So, I oppose these kinds of researchs, but I also oppose medicaments unless it is herbs, plants...etc.


----------



## maxiogee

Suane said:
			
		

> I don't know why people think that dying is a such a bad thing when it is natural. When someone dies because is sick, I think it's all normal. It's a part of population control. The civilization is sick, imao.  It may seem although cruel for some people.
> 
> So, I oppose these kinds of researchs, but I also oppose medicaments unless it is herbs, plants...etc.



I can see your point, but would argue that to the person dying of a minor condition which could be easily cured by surgery or medicine the chance of a few more years of life is not a question of 'abnormal' but of 'vital' interest.
That the civilisation is sick is probably true, but we don't seem to be in any hurry to cure the sickness.
I know of few people who wish to die any sooner than absolutely necessary.

I think that medical science will need to lead our legislators on the issue of stem cells.
Perhaps they need to define the point at which "viable" human life begins. Not "human life" or "potential human life" - but a time or a point in the development of the foetus will need to be established internationally because the money will follow the most lax legislation and the brains will follow the money.
If stem cell research was banned in all but 1 country in the world, there are people who would flood there - (a) to do the research, and (b) to be patients of the trials. This will happen, and we all know it. Internationally, the medical industry will need to make this decision and convince the legislators of it.

Personally I am opposed to unnecessary, deliberate interference with the life of any being. I am not informed enough on the viability of embryos at the various developmental stages through which it goes.
I don't believe life is a gift from a God, but I do believe that I have as much, but no more, right to life as the next person. For me, it is up to me to do the most I can - consistent with the greatest good of the greatest number - to ensure my own survival.
I am not normally in a position to weigh up whether I should live at the cost of someone else's life. I do not know how I would choose were I to have to make a decision like that.


----------



## Suane

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I can see your point, but would argue that to the person dying of a minor condition which could be easily cured by surgery or medicine the chance of a few more years of life is not a question of 'abnormal' but of 'vital' interest.


 
I can understand, but on the other side in order to be able to provide such a thing, a much greater research or false attempts were required.
OK, I would probably like to remove my appendix, if it was bad, I don't know...I realize that I cannot change the world, despite it seems so illogical to me. But that's another thing to discuss.

I would agree with your point about the countries.


----------



## panjabigator

I think pro-lifers are also anti stem cell research.  But they do approve of the adult stem cell research and Im sure they also approve of the cord cells in post 11's link.


----------



## justjukka

Suane said:
			
		

> I can understand, but on the other side in order to be able to provide such a thing, a much greater research or false attempts were required.
> OK, I would probably like to remove my appendix, if it was bad, I don't know...I realize that I cannot change the world, despite it seems so illogical to me. But that's another thing to discuss.
> 
> I would agree with your point about the countries.


 
Please clarify what you mean by 'false attempts'.


----------



## Suane

Rozax said:
			
		

> Please clarify what you mean by 'false attempts'.


 
I mean just generally to discover some medicaments or to find out how to cure some diseases, injuries...etc. there were some unsuccessful attempts.


----------



## modus.irrealis

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I think pro-lifers are also anti stem cell research.  But they do approve of the adult stem cell research and Im sure they also approve of the cord cells in post 11's link.


You would think so, and I did too, but lots of polls seem to suggest that embryonic stem cell research has a lot of support, much more than the pro-choice position, so I think the connections between abortion and this issue can get really complicated.

But I'm one of the people you have in mind, I guess. I think an embryo is a living human being, which should have all its human rights recognized, and so I don't think we should be destroying them, just like I don't think we should be experimenting on or killing any human being against their will, no matter what the medical benefits may be for other people. Although, like you say, stem cells obtained in other ways seem perfectly alright with me, and I don't know anyone who has a problem with that.


----------



## justjukka

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> You would think so, and I did too, but lots of polls seem to suggest that embryonic stem cell research has a lot of support, much more than the pro-choice position, so I think the connections between abortion and this issue can get really complicated.
> 
> But I'm one of the people you have in mind, I guess. I think an embryo is a living human being, which should have all its human rights recognized, and so I don't think we should be destroying them, just like I don't think we should be experimenting on or killing any human being against their will, no matter what the medical benefits may be for other people. Although, like you say, stem cells obtained in other ways seem perfectly alright with me, and I don't know anyone who has a problem with that.


 
I, too, prefer the alternate ways of obtaining stem cells.  But in the case of artificial insemination, the embryos are placed within a woman with slight chances that even one will take.  The rest are then frozen for further use or discarded.  Should those not be used for research?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Rozax said:
			
		

> I, too, prefer the alternate ways of obtaining stem cells.  But in the case of artificial insemination, the embryos are placed within a woman with slight chances that even one will take.  The rest are then frozen for further use or discarded.  Should those not be used for research?


These issues are difficult, and I haven't given them enough thought, but at the moment, I'd have to say I'd rather see unwanted embryos "discarded" than used for research, because it would set a dangerous precedent. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments but I am somewhat worried about accepting the idea that we can do research on "unwanted" human beings (as I see them).


----------



## panjabigator

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> You would think so, and I did too, but lots of polls seem to suggest that embryonic stem cell research has a lot of support, much more than the pro-choice position, so I think the connections between abortion and this issue can get really complicated.
> 
> But I'm one of the people you have in mind, I guess. I think an embryo is a living human being, which should have all its human rights recognized, and so I don't think we should be destroying them, just like I don't think we should be experimenting on or killing any human being against their will, no matter what the medical benefits may be for other people. Although, like you say, stem cells obtained in other ways seem perfectly alright with me, and I don't know anyone who has a problem with that.


I think Jehova Witnesses do.


----------



## panjabigator

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> These issues are difficult, and I haven't given them enough thought, but at the moment, I'd have to say I'd rather see unwanted embryos "discarded" than used for research, because it would set a dangerous precedent. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments but I am somewhat worried about accepting the idea that we can do research on "unwanted" human beings (as I see them).




I totally understand your feer of weird experiments being performed...there should be some regulation...like with cloning.


----------



## LCyeah

I did an editorial in Biology 1 last year on stem cell research using embryonic stem cells.

For one, killing an embryo that could by all other means become a human being is totally out of the question for me. That's one step too far, a human life starts at the moment of conception, and destroying the zygote is just the same as killing a child, adolescent, or adult. 

Now, I live outside of Louisville Kentucky, and at the University of Louisville researchers have come upon amazing research recently with adult stem cells. *Two rats were given spinal cord injuries, and one was injected with adult stem cells from an adult nose that were transformed into nerve cells.* *The rat that wasn't injected struggled from lack of movement in one leg and fell when walking across a rope,* *while the rat injected with the adult stem cells walked across with no problem. *
A link to the story: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060308/NEWS01/60308003

Ultimately and obviously destroying embryos to perform this stem cell research is *COMPLETELY* unecessary and therefore void in all apects. 

That's just something to chew on.


----------



## maxiogee

LCyeah said:
			
		

> Two rats were given spinal cord injuries, and one was injected with adult stem cells from an adult nose that were transformed into nerve cells. The rat that wasn't injected struggled from lack of movement in one leg and fell when walking across a rope, while the rat injected with the adult stem cells walked across with no problem.


Now what's the point of injecting rats with human cells? That proves nothing to anyone. The proper procedure would surely be to inject rat stem cells into a rat, and then, if that proves a success, to inject similar human cells into humans.






> Ultimately and obviously destroying embryos to perform this stem cell research is *COMPLETELY* unecessary and therefore void in all apects.


Unfortunately, no research is ever "void". It might be repulsive, or you may use other words, but it isn't void if the reported research results are true. Once it is done and reported in the scientific press, it is out there and will be used.
Much of the work performed in atrocious circumstances by early "surgeons" guides today's medical science.


----------



## LCyeah

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Now what's the point of injecting rats with human cells? That proves nothing to anyone. The proper procedure would surely be to inject rat stem cells into a rat, and then, if that proves a success, to inject similar human cells into humans.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, no research is ever "void". It might be repulsive, or you may use other words, but it isn't void if the reported research results are true. Once it is done and reported in the scientific press, it is out there and will be used.
> Much of the work performed in atrocious circumstances by early "surgeons" guides today's medical science.


 
The point is, Tony, that the experiment proved a success with adult stem cells--one step closer to the *use* of adult stem cells. You are missing the main idea with your quick rebuttal: the _adult _stem cells actually _can _be transformed into nerve cells, and the like, and be _effective_. Now the research is to go further, and venture to the adult on adult playing field, not just adult on rat. Research has to start_ somewhere_, Tony, and like most cases, the first subject is an animal. (Remember, no research is ever null and void.)

And on that note, excuse me for using the word "void", I suppose I should have chosen a more fitting word--you _are_ one to pick on details. (Good thing I quoted this time...)


----------



## maxiogee

LCyeah said:
			
		

> The point is, Tony, that the experiment proved a success with adult stem cells


Had the experiment been a success with rat cells, and not with human cells it would not have proven that it wouldn't work with human-to-human operations.
I assume that rat-to-rat operations _were_ carried out first.
They may even have done bunny-to-bunny operations also, or other species.
Doing the human-to-rat operation was pointless.
If it hadn't worked they'd have still wanted to try doing it with either other lab animals or, eventually, with humans.
I wasn't _missing_ the point, I was _querying_ the point. 




> And on that note, excuse me for using the word "void", I suppose I should have chosen a more fitting word--you _are_ one to pick on details. (Good thing I quoted this time...)


Details are where the trouble always lies.
Details will come back to haunt us. And if they don't, I'll root them out and prod them along!


----------



## danielfranco

In regards to using rats for experimenting on what could possibly become therapeutic for humans, I read somewhere that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, humans are very close (genetically) to rats, pigs, and whales, besides being very, very, very close to other primates. I often wondered how come they don't use rat's embryonic stem cells instead, but it seems it doesn't work both ways, it's a one-way only thingie...
Too bad.


----------



## LCyeah

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Had the experiment been a success with rat cells, and not with human cells it would not have proven that it wouldn't work with human-to-human operations.
> I assume that rat-to-rat operations _were_ carried out first.
> They may even have done bunny-to-bunny operations also, or other species.
> Doing the human-to-rat operation was pointless.
> If it hadn't worked they'd have still wanted to try doing it with either other lab animals or, eventually, with humans.
> I wasn't _missing_ the point, I was _querying_ the point.


 
Now I understand where you are coming from. I will subside from the argument with the intention to agree to disagree. 





			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Details are where the trouble always lies.
> Details will come back to haunt us. And if they don't, I'll root them out and prod them along!


 
That is completely true. With out the little things, there would be no big things, I suppose. 

Well our debate stirred the minds of the forum readers...


----------



## panjabigator

New York Times Stem cell article


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:
			
		

> One wonders if widespread support for ESCR may be a step to further bioethical laxity, such as tolerance or even encouragement of therapeautic cloning or other so-called "advancements".


I suspect that therapeautic cloning will remain firmly in the province of fiction writers.
We are able to produce more than enough people with the old fashioned sweat and grunt method.
It would seem strange to me to become ill and then have to wait for a clone to 'ripen' over a period of years before harvesting the bits and pieces necessary to repair the illness.


.,,


----------



## stephyjh

I don't have any issue with stem cell research. However, _embryonic _stem cell research is a different issue altogether. With adult stem cells or umbilical cord cells, there isn't an ethical issue, in my mind. That's a resource that should absolutely be utilized. I just can't stomach the idea though of destroying human life by aborting an embryo.


----------



## Bonjules

It is fine to voice your opinions on this, but it will make preciously little difference. The cloned/designer babys are waiting in the wings, ready to tumble out. If the research is not done here, it will be done somewhere else, off shore, wherever.
Don't you see, it's in our genes, so to speak, in our blood, if you will, to find out if we have yet another trick up our sleeve. Our tinker-brains served us so well - look, we even landed on the moon! The problem is, we can't stop them now.
The march of folly has been going on for too long for us to suddenly turn around and say: Where are we going?
Besides, the road to hell is always not only paved with 'good' intentions ( whatever that might mean), but with real practical advantages (lots of them!). And Cassandras never had a fun time, not on this planet, anyway.
cheers


----------



## MonsieurAquilone

I am for it.  Leonardo's feats often caused shock in his time and look what he has done to our world today.  The world isn't going to explode if continued with stem-cell research, just like it didn't when humans decided to build civilizations.


----------

