FDA OKs First Embryonic Stem Cell Research Trial on Humans, Despite Concerns

Originally posted by Gorman91
I'd still rather no destruction of human life.

I don't see it as destruction of human life, though. Most if not all embryonic stem cell lines being used in the U.S. are derived from leftover embryos provided by IVF clinics.

I have my own issues with IVF and the creation of multiple embryos to fill people's need to be parents, but once the embryos are created and the biological parents decide not to use them, I think it's good to use them in research rather than just store them indefinitely in a freezer or toss them out.

It is a dangerous road. Stems cells from adults seem to be safer.

But not necessarily equally promising. Even the adult stem cells that a Japanese researcher managed to "de-differentiate" are not quite the same as embryonic stem cells.

And I think there's good reason for medical researchers to pursue as many promising lines of research as possible, provided they are ethical. There will always be risks involved in pioneering tests; until something has been tested in humans there is no way to know for sure if it's safe in humans.

This study being approved doesn't mean people aren't still working on other options.

sigh

some of you people just flat out don't think but 2 seconds in front of your face.

Why do you ask ME questions about Stem Cells, and who the hell are you to make claims? You don't know what the hell you're talking about any more than I do.

But what I do know is that we can't know more about it unless we research it.

Are you stem cell researches? OR are you just setting in the basement surfing the internet pretending to know what you're talking about?

reply to post by americandingbat


But such a thing risks dividing society between those of technology and those resistant. It creates a self-made elitism of the genetically superior and the morally right.

As to Embryos, yea. Just because they are there does not make them right. I would simply develop external uterus devices and grow them right there. This makes abortion obsolete, everyone happy, and all embryos definably available for adoption. Tube babies may be looked down upon, but they are there and perfectly good. Solves the whole problem. Yes there are many protein and biochemical compounds to get right, but use apes first hand for practice and then adjust it for human uteruses.

reply to post by Gorman91


..and before we know it, we turn to be like the grays look ma, i got no navels, hmmm doesnt that make you NOT my ma ? (from some leftover stem cell babies)

for stem cells usage, its already used on people successfully in china and in some country, its not well known due to the nature of the biz, but the result is very good.

the problem with adult stem cell is its tainted compared to pure embryo/babies stem cells. adult stem cell is limited in usage, prone to genetic tainting and hard to extract.

problem with stem cells is morality, its like selling your baby arm/leg. Would you do it ? If you do, wouldnt that make you bad momma/papa ? Youre selling a half human here, how long are you willing to sell ? how would religion view this ? so much more to debate about morality then its usability.

If youre still debating to test it on ape/monkey, you are already left behind. There is a documentary about this on natgeo/discovery, I guess the subject still new in USA though.

reply to post by RainCloud


eh. Human tissue or what ever. Different animals are more similar to us in different ways. However, like I said, we've already made sperm from a woman's bone marrow. That's something. It would hardly be as difficult to do it with adult stem cells and then change them to act like embryonic ones. As to a foot or leg, it's not a living person. it's a part. There is the morality of it. You destroy the whole to get the part. Your question is more like would you kill your baby to give it's leg to someone? This is far more accurate.

Also contrary to ideas you seem to be thinking about, humans can no longer evolve. We are stuck in this form. We have no limitations. No stress. No anything. There is no nature involved in selecting us. We select ourselves. Once we divided nature from our own lives, we stopped being controlled by nature and natural selection. In addition to this, the human form would not change to a gray because it is ugly. So such traits woul dbe destroyed and replaced. Also, you'd still have a belly button. The only way not to would be to grow you in a vat of stem cells as opposed to embryonic fluids.

Humans, if we are still around, will look exactly the same a million years from now. Unless we some how return to nature for some reason, we will never evolve again. Pretty much brain and organ developments are the only thing that can occur.

Originally posted by Gorman91

... it's not a living person. it's a part. There is the morality of it. You destroy the whole to get the part. Your question is more like would you kill your baby to give it's leg to someone? This is far more accurate.

Yes, this is where it get taboo and the curtain fall down.

Imagine a facility that perform test tube insemination, employ paid "temporary" momma and later abort the pregnancy for stem cell harvesting. Similar to what the grays are doing.

Current method is "by willingness" selling. It wasnt too far to make it an industry. Systematic human cloning & abortion.

Bonus! Mind challenge: Think somebody invite you to eat meatballs made from his own flesh, the guy is alive and well of course.
Would you eat it ? (somebody done it already)

reply to post by RainCloud


Well eating another man's flesh gives me risk of a CTB.... Cannibalism Transmitted Disease. So I would not for the sake of my brain.

What you speak of is barbaric and primitive and if aliens are doing it I can only view them as less intelligent than me and simply stupid. It would be far easier to prick a skin cell, inject a viral entity to transmit the right re-coding sequence, and then have the skin cell become a stem cell and then simply put it in a vat and let it mass produce fast. Or perhaps one could simply inject a stopper gene to stop the human cells from becoming anything else but stem cells. A single embryo would only produce stem cells rapidly.

Those are far more logical than what you speak of.

All and all I maintain my position. It is the destruction of the life form that constituted murder. Plucking out a stem cell does not do anything. But you always risk destroying the life form and so thus it is far better to de-specialize a child's skin cells into stem cells, then breed and store those stem cells for that specific person. Frozen, it allows the child's genetic structure at age 2 or 4 to be stored. When he is 50 and mutations have occurred, you can use his own stem cells. to repair him. It's his DNA and biochemistry. It is a lot more risk free because the body is using it's own cells, albeit preserved from damage and free radicals. You could age backwards and heal any problem. No destruction of life and perfectly well ethically. Some hospitals these days ask if you'd like to save the placenta for this very reason.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by RainCloud

 

Well eating another man's flesh gives me risk of a CTB.... Cannibalism Transmitted Disease. So I would not for the sake of my brain.

Hehe nicely evaded.

What you speak of is barbaric and primitive and if aliens are doing it I can only view them as less intelligent than me and simply stupid. It would be far easier to prick a skin cell, inject a viral entity to transmit the right re-coding sequence, and then have the skin cell become a stem cell and then simply put it in a vat and let it mass produce fast. Or perhaps one could simply inject a stopper gene to stop the human cells from becoming anything else but stem cells. A single embryo would only produce stem cells rapidly.
Those are far more logical than what you speak of.

With our current bio tech, what you suggest is impossible and too far fetch. IF we can do what you suggest, not only we cure sickness, we even overcome ageing. Its a mindblowing thing you have there.

All and all I maintain my position. It is the destruction of the life form that constituted murder. Plucking out a stem cell does not do anything. But you always risk destroying the life form and so thus it is far better to de-specialize a child's skin cells into stem cells, then breed and store those stem cells for that specific person. Frozen, it allows the child's genetic structure at age 2 or 4 to be stored.

A little bit correction here. You got it the other way around. You dont really need to turn skin cell into stem cell, we can graft the skin, you turn stem cell to X cells .

Embryonic stem cell is harvested BEFORE its even born, it is already too late to harvest it if born, heck, even when you see feets/head its already too late [exactly this is where the curtain drop, morality discussed and its getting taboo].
The placenta probably have some leftover , I dunno much about the process, but your 2-4 yrs boy/girl cannot become a stem cell donor anymore .aka. already developed .
Hope you understand it.

Below this, you are correct.

When he is 50 and mutations have occurred, you can use his own stem cells. to repair him. It's his DNA and biochemistry. It is a lot more risk free because the body is using it's own cells, albeit preserved from damage and free radicals. You could age backwards and heal any problem. No destruction of life and perfectly well ethically. Some hospitals these days ask if you'd like to save the placenta for this very reason.

You have some point there and this is the what is currently accepted and favored method in the fields.
"Keep the baby placenta, who knows what coming up next research."

Problem is, there is 6 billion people who the placenta/embryo stem cell is long gone.

Here wikipedia link if you are interested in the area
Stem_cell
Embryonic Stem cell
The REAL issue with Embryonic Stem Cell

[edit on 1-8-2010 by RainCloud]