It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Open question stem cells

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
whats your views on stem cells research and would you back the research
if so why?

if you are against this and would block it
whats your reason?



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Adult stem cell research is perfectly legal and prospering. Alot of advances in medicine have already been made in this area.

The controversy lies in Embryonic stem cell research. This research has shown no promise, and lacks private investors.

No promise? No Private Investors? Hey! Let's make the Government pay for it!



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
OK. here's how I think about Stem Cell research. I think that if that research would be a great thing, but like you said, it shows no promisies.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I view all kinds of Stem Cell research as important and viable scientific and medical
endeavors that deserve research.

I do not have a problem with Embryonic Stem Cell Research, as I do not see anything
wrong with it.

I think that because of Bush's putting his own personal morals above the good of not
just the country but humanity and disallowing Federal funding for it has seriously
hampered the research into it.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
It shows great promise. In New Zealand we harvest stem cells from discarded umbilical cords at maternity hospitals.

I don't understand why USA is all hung up on harvesting them from aborted foetuses when you don't need to use them.

In China if you have the folding stuff you can hop on a plane and get stem cells privately anyway. What is happening is China is becoming the worldwide leader not in research, but actual experience.

A New Zealand woman dying from a massive brain tumour went to China a couple of years ago. She had lost her speach and her motor control.

She left on a wheelchair and came back walking through customs. Within weeks she was learning to talk again.

Sadly after 2 years the cancer came back and claimed her, but it is a miracle and it is wrong to deny research.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
The controversy lies in Embryonic stem cell research. This research has shown no promise, and lacks private investors.



Originally posted by galm 1
...like you said, it shows no promisies.



Meaning no disrespect to my competition, but this is the sort of uninformed view I would expect to see of parrots who get their "bullet points" from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley. It's real easy to just repeat what you've heard some talking head say, and provide nothing to back it up.

What takes a bit more effort is to actually read some real news and papers on the subject and then arrive at an informed opinion, and anyone who has done even the tiniest fraction of research into this can see that it has quite a ton of funding overseas, a large private funding operation in the States, and has a great deal of untapped potential.

ViaCord is a private operation that has managed to harvest embryonic stem cells from the umbillical cord when a baby is born, and there are a whole host of Cord Blood Banks in America, competing for the business of expectant mothers.

Roslin Cells Limited has managed to create new stem cells from a clinically unusable human egg.

As far as what just a few of the promises of stem cell research are:
  • A wealth of information about the complex events that occur during human development.

    This research is already paying off.


  • The ability to halt abnormal cell division and differentiation (ie. prevent cancer and birth defects).

    Pending only the discovery of what signal turns specific genes "on" and "off". Many of the specific genes themselves are already known.

  • A better understanding of how diseases arise and new strategies for therapy.

    Already paying off

  • The ability to safely test drugs on differentiated stem cells (cells that have become a specific organ tissue). For example testing heart medications on pluripotent cells that have become heart tissue.

    Already possible, but hampered by the lack of stem cells available. Also, for best results, the specific signal to trigger genes to grow specific tissue types must be found.

  • Stem-cells that are triggered into specific types of tissue can then be used for cell-based therapies, such as replacing missing or damaged heart valves, lungs, skin, etc.

    Awaiting the triggers.

  • Curing of Type I Diabetes through the creation of insulin-producing cells that won't be destroyed by the patient's own immune system.

    Awaiting the triggers.


    As you can see, the field is FAR from being without promise. Overall, the two biggest technical hurdles impeding these promises are: ignorance and scarcity of stem cells. And the latter might just have been solved thanks to Roslin Cells Limited. It's a pity that Ignorance still abounds though.



  • posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by thelibra

    Originally posted by RRconservative
    The controversy lies in Embryonic stem cell research. This research has shown no promise, and lacks private investors.

    Meaning no disrespect to my competition


    Well I don't think you showed disrespect to your competition, since they are'nt candidates.


    Great post though, very informative.



    posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by iori_komei
    Well I don't think you showed disrespect to your competition, since they are'nt candidates.



    They aren't? LOL!!! I wonder why they're answering the questions then.


    Originally posted by iori_komei
    Great post though, very informative.


    Thank you! I was sooooooo
    when I watched Bush on national TV say that despite what all them book-learnin' folks thought, he knew in his heart that stem cell research was wrong, so he was gonna cease the funding for it. I about threw the couch through the TV.

    [edit on 6/19/2007 by thelibra]



    posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:46 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by thelibra
    I wonder why they're answering the questions then.


    You know I wonder that myself, I figure that it does'nt matter though, since no one
    has said anything, does'nt particularly bother me, but I'm sure it's confusing to others.



    Thank you! I was sooooooo
    when I watched Bush on national TV say that despite what all them book-learnin' folks thought, he knew in his heart that stem cell research was wrong, so he was gonna cease the funding for it. I about threw the couch through the TV.


    That's why I either change the channel or turn the TV off when Bush is about to open his mouth.



    posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:53 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by iori_komei
    That's why I either change the channel or turn the TV off when Bush is about to open his mouth.


    See, every time I try that, I miss something really important. He'll ramble for just long enough to make me change the channel then he'll get down to business.

    Like that time he decided to burn the Constitution...

    "Howdy folks. Do you hate books? Me too. Can't stand 'em. I use 'em to light the fire down at the barbeque pit. Heh...heh... Best thing about this speech? It's not a book. Heh...heh.... Know what's a lot like a book? The Constitutions. It's too long. Hurts the eyes. Gets in the way of my buddies' work. It ain't right. Here's what it looks like when it burns. Check it out, heh heh...(flick flick)."



    posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:41 AM
    link   
    Bush is an idiot but he's already yesterday's news and history will forget him. Grit your teeth and wait for the next elections. Darkness will not last forever.

    Liked your gritty response too.



    posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 03:20 AM
    link   
    TheLibra is correct. There is a difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

    An embryonic stem cell can become a cell of absolutely any type found in the human body. It is their natural purpose to be used to construct any part of the human body while also generating replacements for themselves.

    An adult stem cell, also called progenitor cells are not a single type of cells but a variety of cell types which vary depending on where in the body they are. Each type can take one of several forms relevant to the type of tissue it is intended to help repair.

    An example of an adult stem cell is a satellite cell found in muscle tissue. Upon muscle injury, they become active, differentiate into the appropriate kind of muscle tissue, and integrate into your muscle (incidentally, this is why the no pain, no gain principle applies to working out, and I'm sure iori will be happy to hear that in the course of adult stem cell research they probably will figure out how to activate these things chemically, resulting in a pharmecuetical replacement for working out and a rash of suicides among overly-happy infomercial exercise machine salespeople). Back on topic, there is promising research underway to turn these cells into cardiac muscle cells. They have already figured out how to turn them into bone and cartilage.
    But they can't just turn them into whatever they need.


    It is also noteworthy for those who deny the viability of embryonic stem cells that many existing lines of embryonic stem cells are contaminated with non-human material, because at the time they were developed it was not uncommon to grow them in non human culture media. That is no longer necessary.

    Furthermore, although the existing research is only preliminary, it has been demonstrated that a proceedure which is already done and which does not destroy the embryo (specifically, extracting only a single cell from an 8-10 cell embryo, as is done already for screening purposes before implantation when in vitro fertilization is performed) can be used to create stem cell lines. The research was unethically trumped up when first publicized, but it does show significant promise for the future.

    The research on the above? Undertaken by a corporation not supported by the NIH- Advanced Cell Technology.




    top topics



     
    2

    log in

    join